X-Message-Number: 12701 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: more about real creatures versus virtual creatures Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:31:36 +1100 (EST) Hi Mike! Basically I would say that all your 3 cases are the same, but not in the sense you'd want. They are all cases of a computer program in a computer, as distinct from controls inside the robot (the issue doesn't have to do at all with WHERE the program is. The issue has to do with whether or not we produced the program as a set of symbols and can change it as we wish, or the robot has its own directions which can only change with difficulty). Yes, I see no FUNDAMENTAL difference between a program and a much more simple communication. First, the program means nothing at all unless we understand the symbols in which it's written. Second, just like other communications, it's changeable AT OUR WILL rather than fixed in the robot (or even outside the robot, in a separate facility). Third, programs are written for US to use. So we want to make a doll which acts like a baby: crying, wetting its diapers, and all the rest. I see no more reason to attribute independent consciousness to such a device than I would to a simple doll without such features. I've also said that there are cases I'd agree were borderline: suppose we put the guiding program for our device on ROMs inside our devices. Basically the only thing the device sees is a particular set of electrical impulses. The fact that (I assume) the COMPILED AND LINKED program is on ROM makes it much harder to change; even harder if we design our device so that it runs away from us if we try to catch it and change it (not all that harder than making one that searches for an electrical outlet). At one time in the past, we had a discussion about computer viruses. I thought (and still think) that computer viruses are real (though very primitive) forms of life, while a virtual person set up in a computer isn't a form of life at all. The difference is between something which does NOT act like a purely symbolic entity, but does real things in a real setting (in this case, the computers it infects). (And as a corollary, I don't think we'll ever be free of computer viruses, either .. just one more thing to bother over). The virtual person is only a set of symbols, and no more real than a character in a play. The mere fact that this set of symbols has been so organized that it appears to act like a person does not make it a real person, any more than characters in a play are real people. So yes, all 3 of your cases are the same. But all 3 fail to fit my criteria for a real creature, computer or not. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12701