TT; ' You behave as if you have "the subjective
> experience of first person". And it is possible for an enough
> complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour. But in the
> case of the computer, you can see that there is no "subjective
> experience", there are just a lot of electrical phenomena interacting
> with each other.
>
> There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
> person experience.
MP: But surely, if the computer is complicated enough to show up
'THE EXACT SAME' behaviour, then we do not know that 'there is
no first person experience'.
This is the very paradox of experience; the argument from
behaviour cuts BOTH ways.
The danger comes from putting that little word "just" in the
sentence. The fact is if there are a lot of electrical phenomena
[a really, really, BIG lot] then it is quite feasible that the
system may be responding to its own responses, as the
behaviourists like to say. I think the wisely placed betting
money is mainly going to that logical structure as prerequisite
for sentience of any sort. The embodiment, though, would need to
be in a massively parallel, multiply recursive, autonomous
learning system in order to have sufficient scope and depth of
experience to deal with interesting questions.
I heard someone on the radio the other day saying that Moore's
Law [doubling every 2 years] predicts that computers in about
2050 will have gross processing power similar to that of the
human brain. Well the architecture may be a bit of a hurdle, but
then again if each generation of computers acquires software
enabling them to participate in, if not actually direct, the
design of the next generation, it is feasible that during the
second half of the 21Century some computers may start asking US
why we think we are conscious.
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
>> >The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can
>> make computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are
>> enough complicated.
>>
>> But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see
>> how you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the
>> behavior that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is
>> this first person experience.
> What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some
> sort of behaviour. When you claim that you have "the subjective
> experience of first person", I can see that you are just showing a
> special kind of behaviour. You behave as if you have "the subjective
> experience of first person". And it is possible for an enough
> complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour. But in the
> case of the computer, you can see that there is no "subjective
> experience", there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
> with each other.
>
> There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
> person experience.
>
> --
> Torgny Tholerus
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Jun 19 2007 - 14:22:30 PDT