Milan wrote:
>>
>> Milan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Milan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Milan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Milan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Milan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Milan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it would simply act in accordance to its build and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it was having conscious experiences or not,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could not be influential, unless you are going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having conscious experiences it would not act in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build and its program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would entail me knowing everything about its build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't it? I assumed you were talking about a 'black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> box',
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a robot which I could only observe from outside and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about (much as we observe our fellow humans from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions about their conscious experience). If it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have conscious experiences and to respond to them, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to be a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might help if you point out which sentance you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the one you haven't written. The one that explains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't change its behaviour because of its conscious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sry responded but post didn't seem to get through, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes you would know exactly how the robot works (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> builder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain it to you).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for programming conscious experiences, I think you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watching too many sci-fi movies. How could you even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell if what you had built had any conscious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do ask it, and claim that it did, if it responded in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afirmative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it was programmed to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is your example, not ours. After umpteen posts about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bloody
>>>>>>>>>>>>> robot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nobody still understands what the point of the robot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would *you* do to find out whether the damn robot is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point of the exercise?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe his point is that since a robot could act exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> human even though it isn't conscious, then consciousness is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to explain human behavior, and therefore is
>>>>>>>>>>>> optional
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be selected for by evolution. Or something like
>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The argument, of course, is silly. Consciousness may be
>>>>>>>>>>> epiphenomenal.
>>>>>>>>>>> And/or it may be necessary for other human capabilities. In
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> doesnt say anything about monism or dualism.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, he's missing a number of important points such as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) His robot is imaginary, and as such cannot demonstrate
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> possible for a non-conscious item to simulate human
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> real world. Any number of things can be imagined that
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> real life.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's why I made the point that the robot analogy didnt help
>>>>>>>>>>> clarify
>>>>>>>>>>> anything, but just muddied the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) His robot would be the product of a conscious creature,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>> still acting according to the dictates of consciousness. A
>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious
>>>>>>>>>>>> creature would be schooling it in reactions that perhaps
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by conscious thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. His robot kept changing. First it was made to act like a
>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, but then it hadnt but just looked like it did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I said, you can't even follow the conversation, so why do
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> bother
>>>>>>>>>> replying. I never said it had consciousness, but then didn't
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> looked like it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I said it acted like a human (the key difference is that the
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the programming of the robot is known). You tell me, does it
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> conscious experiences or not (they are not required to explain
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I replied to this point already, more than once. But you didnt
>>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> points.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well why don't you answer it again, and don't make any points to
>>>>>>>> distract from the issue, just answer what is after all a simple
>>>>>>>> question (or point me to where you answered it before).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the last time.
>>>>>>> 1) The robot -by your definition- was made to be exactly like a
>>>>>>> human.
>>>>>>> 2) The robot -by your definition- was made to act exactly like a
>>>>>>> human.
>>>>>>> 3) If the robot is exactly like a human then -by your definition-
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> have consciousness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have said to you before, you don't seem to be able to follow.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> robot is simply made to act like a human, I never said what it
>>>>>> looked
>>>>>> like, or it's underlying architecture, which could be similar in
>>>>>> conception to a mobile phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So as I said before but you didn't answer:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I said it acted like a human (the key difference is that the build
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the programming of the robot is known). You tell me, does it have
>>>>>> conscious experiences or not (they are not required to explain its
>>>>>> behaviour)?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you going to give an answer, or continue to giving unreasonable
>>>>>> responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> ARE YOU SO BLOODY RETARDED? I ANSWERED THAT, FUCKIT: YES, IT DOES
>>>>> HAVE
>>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS BY ****YOUR DEFINITION****.
>>>>>
>>>>> FOR THE LAST LAST TIME:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) THE ROBOT -BY YOUR DEFINITION- WAS MADE TO ACT EXACTLY LIKE A
>>>>> HUMAN.
>>>>> 3) THEREFORE -BY YOUR DEFINITION- IT SHOULD HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT PART DONT YOU UNDERSTAND, MORON?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The part where you say it does have consciousness (which I didn't say
>>>> it would, notice where in this regard I said 'you tell me'), and where
>>>> in (3) you suggest it should have consciousness, but don't say why,
>>>> unless you are suggesting that because it acts like a human, you would
>>>> infer that it had consciousness.
>>>
>>>> Maybe you could point out where you think I said by definition that it
>>>> did have consciousness. When you look for it, and find I didn't say it,
>>>> you will realise that the problem is your lack of comprehension skills
>>>> in reading what is written.
>>>
>>> MY PROBLEM IS THAT YOU PRESENT A VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS AND USELESS ANALOGY AND
>>> NEVER CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN.
>>>
>>>> (guess I got my answer as to whether you were going to continue to give
>>>> unreasonable responses, though maybe reason doesn't come easily to you,
>>>> if so, then I suggest you try concentrating)
>>>
>>> YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKTARD WHO COULD NOT MAKE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT IF
>>> YOUR
>>> LIFE DEPENDED ON IT.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe if you could point to the sentance which you find vague and
>> ambiguous (how can you know it is useless until you fully understand
>> it. If you did understand it, how can you say it is ambiguous):
>>
>> "I said it acted like a human (the key difference is that the build and
>> the programming of the robot is known). You tell me, does it have
>> conscious experiences or not (they are not required to explain its
>> behaviour)?"
>>
>> In the first sentance 'it' refers to the robot btw (if that helps).
>>
>
> OK, I DONT KNOW WHETHER THE ROBOT HAS CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCES. SHOW ME THE
> ROBOT AND I'LL TELL YOU.
>
What difference would it make other than you know the robot doesn't
exist, and therefore you don't have to answer?
Though I must admit, you seemed to understand what I was saying, guess
that time it wasn't so vague and ambiguous. Read in another reply that
you were getting bored in responding. Ho hum, such is life, guess I
won't be replying to you again then.
