On 11 February 2014 01:39, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, February 10, 2014 12:48:31 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> On 9 February 2014 22:40, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you >> >> >> >> consider >> >> >> >> the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I bet you are not a zombie. But you seem to illustrate my point, >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > epiphenomenalism is true, despite you are not a zombie, you could >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > one, >> >> >> > and that is a step toward the elimination of the person. >> >> >> >> >> >> I know I'm not a zombie, but you don't know that. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You might know it intuitively, but not be able to justify it >> >> > logically. >> >> >> >> If part of the defiinition of consciousness is that I know I am >> >> conscious if I am conscious, then it's perfectly logical. >> > >> > >> > I meant to say "I might know it intuitively, but not be able to justify >> > it >> > logically". >> > >> > i.e., maybe part of the definition of being conscious is to know who >> > else is >> > conscious (with some dynamic margin of error greater than our self >> > knowledge). >> >> What if I tell you I am actually a computer program? What if we have >> this conversation in 30 years time, when computer programs have got >> much better at mimicking humans and no-one can consistently tell them >> apart? > > > Then you would be begging the question. I am saying that in my > understanding, there will never be computer programs that no-one can tell > apart (though at some point they may find it easier if they have other > computer programs to help them do that). All that people need do is to meet > each other in person - shake their hands, look them in the eye, spend some > time together. The fact that someone can be fooled by a recording or a > mannequin does not mean that inimitable nature consciousness is in doubt.
Then you believe in a version of the Turing test, which you don't believe a computer will ever be able to pass. This means you can be proved wrong in a straightforward way, if robots in future are able to mix with with humans and not be detectable. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
