From: The Pantophobic (trivik@stwing.upenn.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 15:54:59 GMT
you did not answer the question:
Say you bump into an alien. how would you decide wheather s/he is concious or
mearly programmed to behave as such
if you claim there is a difference, you must be able to identify it. else your
friends beleif in his thesis is equivilant to his dissbeleif
Quoting Patrick van den Berg <cirandar@yahoo.com>:
Hi 'Pantophobic', others,
--- The Pantophobic <trivik@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > Trying to survive is a purpose we and other animals have. But the
> > 'purpose-full' behavior of cellular automata is not EXPERIENCED by
> these
> > computer-programs.
> how can you make out the difference between one who experiences and
> one who
> does not?
Well, these cellular automata are computerprograms, and these are in
turn just Turing machines, which means as much that they are things that
run AUTOMATICALLY. no experience is needed.
There are some people out there, however, who claim that once these
turing machines get complex enough, with all kind of feedback loops and
adaptations so we humans can't follow anymore exactly how do run like
they do, that they can become conscious. The words 'emergence' and
'complexity' and sometimes 'supervenience' one hears then often. Or call
it (used by someone who got a nobelprize almost by sheer luck)
'recurrent'.
I met a graduate student in artificial cognitive intelligence a week
ago. His thesis was that OUR consciousness just happens to be there, but
that it is of no use for the brain, who can perform perfectly as a
'zombie' without it. 'Epiphenomenalism' that's called. We talked quite a
bit, even with a lot of 'bockbeers', and after a while he said that
during the process of writing his thesis, he started doubting the
propisition that our consciousness is an epiphenomenon, and that in
'other worlds' you could have the same things and organisms, but where
it's completely dark: noone there to experience these worlds... He
talked about his doubts with his supervisor (or what the term is in
english) but he said: "Just keep on arguing in favor of your thesis".
That is, it became just an intellectual game to argue in favor of his
epifenomenalism, and he succeded quite well; he got an A- or something.
Why I tell this story: One can create quite convincing rational
theories, consistent, explanatory powerfull, etc. And some can live,
then, with the conclusion that it must be so that our experience just
happens to be there, and that we thus have no free will etc. Actually,
the philosophy as such can be quite attractive to believe in: "Hey,
nothing to fear, I have no responsibility, we can create the world just
the way we want to, and it will have no lasting consequences for me,
because when I die there's no me anymore."
I drift off, I know, but my intuition tells me we DO have responsibility
for our actions, that something like karma exists, and that this life is
just one in many: many people, however, say that this intuition or
belief is founded on fear of dying. Maybe a part of this is true, but on
the other hand it is much easier to think that you can simply escape
into the nothing after you die.
All the best, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:06 GMT