From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 14:10:58 GMT
Hi Patrick,
One side-effect of my 'eudaimonic' campaign is relevant to Turing tests and
associated features. If the fourth level is intellect (ie pre-eminently
logical reasoning) then there is no reason why we should not be able to make
Turing machines to independently function on that level, so humanity can be
seen as a midwife to the fourth level. I think this is the 'mythos' behind
much AI research, and indeed science fiction generally. However, if we take
humanity to be something that can operate on the fourth level in a more
'eudaimonic' fashion, then strong AI is inconceivable. Unless we first
create an 'artifical' life form that can immediately evolve itself to the
fourth level, that is.
BTW Dennett has some very harsh things to say about Penrose in his
'consciousness explained' but I haven't seen anyone refute Dennett on that.
Are you familiar with his criticisms? (I'm not sympathetic to Dennett
myself, in general, but he seems to be making a tremendously strong point)
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick van den Berg" <cirandar@yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: MD Turing machines & turing tests
>
> --- The Pantophobic <trivik@stwing.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> I was talking about turing machines and you are talking about the turing
> test... okay then. Have you heard of Searle's Chinese Room
> thought-experiment? I don't feel like explaining it now, so here's al
> link:
>
>
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/chineser.htm#The%20Chinese%20Room%20Though
t%20Experiment
>
> Jee, in glancing the discussions on the web, I found that most people
> are very eager to refute his argument against artificial computer
> consciousness. I forget that sometimes, that maybe I have an opinion
> that's in minority. No, on second thought, I think most sensible people
> who sit all day behind their computers for work don't think that WORD
> tries to frustrate them on purpose ;-) when yet another automatic
> function which is hard to switch of hinders them. only people having
> their carreers in AI don't like to hear that all their efforts are quite
> intelligent, but that they can't create consciousness.
>
> Well, nobody seems to like or seems interested in the questions I pose
> next, but here they are: how do you know that a person in your dream
> isn't self-aware? OR how do you know that people in a
> near-death-experience really don't meet a Jesus that is aware of
> his-self, and not just a product of their imagination? That is a
> controversial issue in any (serious) research concerning the 'reality'
> of these NDE's.
>
> To answer your question: I think that when I deal with the alien long
> enough, I will intuit or feel eventually with a considerable certainty
> whether the alien is a robot or is a sentient being. Rationally it might
> be hard to say WHY I intuit this, however. Of course, this argument is
> by far not conclusive, I know.
>
> Suggestions for further reading: The mind matters, David hodgson, and
> Roger Penrose's New Emperor's mind. The first author is largely ignored
> in the scientific literature, mr. Penrose has some great deal of
> popularity, but nevertheless his oponents are more multiple. Penrose is
> a very clever man, he's educated in exact science and has contributed a
> lot to different fields of mathematics and theoretical physics. Also he
> wrote more than 700 pages arguing that Turing machines can't be
> sentient. Still most people, or most scientists I should perhaps say
> don't buy his arguments. So who am I to convince you?
>
> (there might be quite some people who aren't educated much in science
> but read his books, are convinced by Penrose. But you don't hear much
> from these 'ordinary' (and sensible, in my opinion) people).
>
> GReetings, Patrick.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> http://hotjobs.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 - 10:38:07 GMT