On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 2:15:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/9/2020 10:08 AM, Jason Resch wrote: 
> > For the present discussion/question, I want to ignore the testable 
> > implications of computationalism on physical law, and instead focus on 
> > the following idea: 
> > 
> > "How can we know if a robot is conscious?" 
> > 
> > Let's say there are two brains, one biological and one an exact 
> > computational emulation, meaning exact functional equivalence. Then 
> > let's say we can exactly control sensory input and perfectly monitor 
> > motor control outputs between the two brains. 
> > 
> > Given that computationalism implies functional equivalence, then 
> > identical inputs yield identical internal behavior (nerve activations, 
> > etc.) and outputs, in terms of muscle movement, facial expressions, 
> > and speech. 
> > 
> > If we stimulate nerves in the person's back to cause pain, and ask 
> > them both to describe the pain, both will speak identical sentences. 
> > Both will say it hurts when asked, and if asked to write a paragraph 
> > describing the pain, will provide identical accounts. 
> > 
> > Does the definition of functional equivalence mean that any scientific 
> > objective third-person analysis or test is doomed to fail to find any 
> > distinction in behaviors, and thus necessarily fails in its ability to 
> > disprove consciousness in the functionally equivalent robot mind? 
> > 
> > Is computationalism as far as science can go on a theory of mind 
> > before it reaches this testing roadblock? 
>
> If it acts conscious, then it is conscious. 
>
> But I think science/technology can go a lot further.  I can look at the 
> information flow, where is memory and how is it formed and how is it 
> accessed and does this matter or not in the action of the entity.  It 
> can look at the decision processes.  Are there separate competing 
> modules (as Dennett hypothesizes) or is there a global workspace...and 
> again does it make a difference.  What does it take to make the entity 
> act happy, sad, thoughtful, bored, etc. 
>
> Brent 
>



I doubt anyone in consciousness research believes this. Including Dennett 
today.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cba4e85c-9709-45b4-aba0-b7cbe2a35bcbo%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to