On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:26 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 11:14:36 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
<whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:08:01 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 October 2013 09:47, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not that computers can't do what humans do, it's that they
can't experience anything. Mozart could dig a hole as well as
compose music, but that doesn't mean that a backhoe with a player
piano on it is Mozart. It's a much deeper problem with how machines
are conceptualized that has nothing at all to do with humans.
So you think "strong AI" is wrong. OK. But why can't computers
experience anything, in principle, given that people can, and
assuming people are complicated machines?
I think Craig would say he does think computers (and many/all other
things) do experience something,
You're half right. I would say:
1. All experiences correspond to some natural thing.
2. Not all things are natural things. Bugs Bunny has no independent
experience, and neither does Pinocchio.
3. Computers are made of natural things but, like all machines, are
ultimately assembled unnaturally.
4. The natural things that machines are made of would have to be
very low level, i.e., not gears but the molecules that make up the
gears.
Unless a machine used living organisms, molecules would probably be
the only natural things which an experience would be associated
with. They don't know that they are part of a machine, but there is
probably an experience that corresponds to thermodynamic and
electromagnetic conditions. Experiences on that level may not be
proprietary to any particular molecule - it could be very exotic,
who knows. Maybe every atom of the same structure represents the
same kind of experience on some radically different time scale from
ours.
It's not really important - the main thing is to see how there is no
substitute for experience and a machine which is assembled from
unrelated parts has no experience and cannot gain new experience in
an alien context.
I think that a machine (or any inanimate object or symbol) can also
serve as a vehicle for synchronicity. That's a completely different
thing because it is the super-personal, holistic end of the sensible
spectrum, not the sub-personal, granular end. The creepiness of a
ventriloquist dummy is in our imagination, but that too is 'real' in
an absolute sense. If your life takes you on a path which tempts you
to believe that machines are conscious, then the super-personal
lensing of your life will stack the deck just enough to let you jump
to those conclusions. It's what we would call supernatural or
coincidental, depending on which lens we use to define it.. http://s33light.org/post/62173912616
(Don't you want to have a body?)
After reading this ( http://marshallbrain.com/discard1.htm ) I am
not so sure...
just that it is necessarily different from what we experience. The
reason for this has something to do with our history as biological
organisms (according to his theory).
Right, although not necessarily just biological history, it could be
chemical too. We may have branched off from anything that could be
made into a useful machine (servant to alien agendas) long before
life on Earth.
What if humanity left behind a nano-technology that eventually
evolved into mechanical organisms like dogs and fish, would they
have animal like experiences despite that they descended from
"unnatural" things?
The thing that makes sense to me is that the richness of sensation
and intention are inversely proportionate to the degree to which a
phenomenon can be controlled from the outside. If we put nano-tech
extensions on some living organism, then sure, the organism could
learn how to use those extensions and evolve a symbiotic post-
biology. I don't think that project would be controllable though.
They would not be machines in the sense that they would not
necessarily be of service to those who created them.
Craig,
Thanks for your answer. That was not quite what I was asking
though. Let's say the nano-tech did not extend some living
organism, but were some entirely autonomous, entirely artificial
cell-like structures, which could find and utilize energy sources in
the environment and reproduce themselves. Let's say after millions
(or billions) of years, these self-replicating nanobots evolved into
"multi-cellular" organisms like animals we are familiar with today.
Could they have experiences like other biological creatures that
have a biological lineage? If not, why not?
No, I don't think that they could have experiences like biological
creatures. If they could, then we should probably see at least one
example of
Can you explain how the impossibility of evolved nanomachine life
becoming conscious leads to the non-observance of the following?
1. a natural occurrence of inorganic biology
Maybe they did evolve but DNA life was more fit. Or maybe machine
life is harder to bootstrap itself as it requires a rarer set of
precincitions. (such as a technological race).
2. an organism which can survive only on inorganic nutrients
Self driving hydrogen fueled cars, mars rovers.
3. a successful experiment to create life from basic molecules
People are desiging new life forms by writing new DNA.
4. a machine which seems to feel, care, and have a unique and
unrepeatable personal presence
Watson seems to have some kind of presence.
5. a mechanized process which produces artifacts that seem handmade
and unique
There was a lens designed by a computer which was awarded a patent.
6. two separate bodies who are the same person
Luke a split amoebia or human embryo?
7. an organism which reproduces by transforming its environment
rather than reproducing by cell division
Bruno said cigarettes might qualify as such life forms.
8. an organism which emerges spontaneously from Boltzmann conditions
in the environment rather than seeded inheritance
Boltzman brains are so rare we would never expect to see them.
9. an event or observation which leads us to conclude that gathering
energy and reproduction are sufficient to constitute bio-quality
awareness.
The lack of non-physical processes in the brain and the computability
of physics points to computationalism.
Jason
Craig
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
