RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:23:59 -0700

Bruno writes

> > Do you imagine that it's possible that we could go to
> > another star, and encounter beings who discoursed with
> > us about every single other thing, yet denied that they
> > had consciousness, and professed that they had no idea
> > what we were talking about? Yes or No! I want an answer.
> > Do you think that this *could* happen someday?
>
> No. But that does not solve the problem. Even Feigenbaum's Eliza was
> able to talk on consciousness.

Only to the approximate extent that a tape recorder does.
The key difference is that one understands that actual
computations are performed in the legitimate cases of
consciousness.

> 1) Do you agree it is wrong to torture a sensible being? (and right to
> send someone who does that in jail) ?

Certainly.

> 2) Do you agree there is nothing wrong to torture a sculpture or a doll?

I do.

> Now japanese, I have read, makes cleverer dolls who simulate quite well
> "being tortured", or "looking as being sensible", but of course they
> are just zombie, not more clever than Feigenbaum's Eliza.

Exactly.

> But they makes progress. The mind-body problem is: at which stage of
> the progress should we send a doll's torturer in jail?
> Should we wait for the doll being able to win a trial in court? Even
> women in many countries are not yet able to do that, you know.

That's a good question. I strongly affirm that WE NEED IN EVERY CASE
TO MAKE A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE MACHINERY INVOLVED, AND USE
OUR BEST INSIGHTS. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

Lee
Received on Sun May 22 2005 - 14:28:56 PDT