X-Message-Number: 4054 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 19:08:08 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Chinese Albinos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- in #4045 Wrote: >Mr. Clark has said before, and now again implied, that all I >know about him I know through observation of his external >behavior. That is correct and in this case, because we've never met, for all you know I could be a AI program, or a 8 foot tall one armed Chinese albino who speaks with a Swedish accent. The only thing you KNOW about me is that I produced a particular sequence of bits, everything else is theory. >I know a great many generic things about him indirectly, >through my general experience of the world and people. Sounds like a fine theory, in fact I use a similar theory about you, but remember, general experience with people means observing their behavior to determine their subjective experience and like the Turing Test (actually, it IS the Turing test) it has not been proved. >In particular, I have good reason to believe that his >physiology is very similar to mine Yes, induction ( also not proved) does gives you good, but not perfect, reasons for your belief. Up to now anything that has been able to produce a sequence of bits similar to the one I produced has been bipedal and made of meat, but that won't always be true. >now since I know I have feeling, and since not only his >behavior but also his appearance and physiology are similar to >mine, I have good reason to conclude that he has a subjective >life also. Until recently nobody knew anything about physiology ( even today most people don't) yet nobody had difficulty concluding that other humans or animals had a subjective life, because they acted like they had one. As for appearance, mannequins resemble you more closely that some human beings with ghastly genetic malformations ( see the movie " The Elephant Man") yet we would have no trouble determining which one was conscious and which one was not. >If I were confronted with a black box, or a tin woodman, I >would have reservations about imputing consciousness to them, >regardless of the quality of their conversation. Let's suppose there were an entire race of completely non biological tin woodsmen and you've known them for years, you've talked philosophy with them and talked trivialities with them , you've seen them happy and sad and brave and frightened, you've laughed at their jokes and they've laughed at yours, sometimes they make you happy and sometimes you make them happy. Let's also suppose you just come right out and ask them the big question " Are you conscious?" and they reply emphatically that they are, and when you express doubts they get downright indignant and say "oh yeah ,well we don't think you're conscious, so there". It seems to me that if they weren't conscious the word would be meaningless to them and they would say so , I don't see any reason they would lie about it, at least not all of them. Granted nothing has been proven in a rigorous mathematical sense about their inner life but could you feel justified in treating them with the same consideration you show a can opener, even if they were screaming in pain and begging for mercy? >Now, what can a rational observer conclude about the >intelligence and consciousness of the Closet? Not much, the Turing Test is sufficient but not necessary in demonstrating intelligence or consciousness. About all we could say would be that at this moment it was not acting intelligently and it's consciousness was undetermined. >We can conclude nothing whatever about the Closet's >consciousness, because we KNOW its conversation could be >reproduced by a relatively simple, unconscious piece of clockwork >; and at the same time it MIGHT be conscious (have subjectivity) >-and indeed it might be conscious even if it could not converse >at all. If it's behavior was as simple minded as you say I would agree with you >Intelligence and feeling are ENTIRELY separate. That does not follow. In your example the closet showed no intelligence or feeling. >robots (without subjectivity) MIGHT (in principle) function at a >high enough effective level "intellectually" to fool any given >observer; and that the presence or absence of feeling and >consciousness can only be determined when we know their physical >nature. You've said many times that we don't know the physical nature of consciousness in people , much less robots, yet you still think other people are conscious, well I do to, because that's the way they act. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBL247pH03wfSpid95AQHvggTw1qnSi0spnAgD9bRuXrUgjFKf6VM5cWoh u09aMorDCSpfpD4qduJuvyhxL0JWk7nuHbjfrMSdqqS0imfgeA+qWC/wmJ/9Gsa4 qrl1qrC3KZkMjcJy2uP2gh7UES58+rOILYyfN1N5d67Bnghg/ZdajQ0ifahpN/kH XdfhyRbsjBpu2SyEhXiiCscRTXyaQKcQPUrHiZrV1dd3gGP+3No= =ISOV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4054