ekrodomos.net> d436387b   
   From: this@are.email   
      
   In article ,   
   joss@nospampleasewerebritish.nekrodomos.net says...   
   > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:15:42 +0100, Kevin Calder wrote:   
   >   
   > > Anyone familiar with David Searle and his arguments about the   
   > > difficulties involved in equating simulated consciousness with   
   > > consciousness per se?   
      
   are u referring to John Searle?  "The Construction of Social Reality"   
   "Consciousness and Language", "Intentionality ", etc. ??   
      
   I believe u are and have mixed up the name.. if so then yes, i'm quite   
   familiar with Searle, been reading him since the early 90's.. my brains   
   never quite gone back together again..   
      
      
   > >   
   > > His most famous I think is the "Chinese room argument".   
   > >   
   > > His position in a miniaturised nutshell is that simulations of   
   > > consciousness, computational models of brain activity and the like are   
   > > merely simulations, and are not sufficient for consciousness.  So he's   
   > > claiming that an AI that works by modelling brain function as a bunch of   
   > > computations, or by mimicking behaviour and thereby passing the turing   
   > > test, isn't conscious at all, and can't be.  Basically I suppose he is   
   > > saying that the turing test, and the fields of scientific exploration   
   > > based on the turing test (specially AI, and more specifically the   
   > > "strong AI thesis") are all a load of crap.   
   > >   
   > > Anyone got any objections?   
      
   none.  .. how could i.. he's right ; )   
      
   >   
   > I think that my main argument against the Chinese Room argument is that it   
   > states that there is an unmeasurable, undefined quality ("consciousness")   
   > which cannot be possessed by the AI but is inherently possessed by a   
   > human.   
      
   before we carry this any further .. are u refuting that u possess an   
   "immeasurable, undefined quality" called consciousness?   
      
   i severely doubt u are.  however it is unprovable that u are actually   
   conscious.. that said.. most reasonable men will assume u are.   
      
      
      
    Also, an observer cannot determine whether this quality is   
   > possessed by something else. My point would therefore be that if such a   
   > quality is unobservable and unprovable then it either does not exist, or   
   > its existence is insignificant.   
      
   insignificant to whom?   
      
   the existence of "consciousness" is absolutely unimportant in terms of   
   *results* (ie a machine could function as a simulacra of a human without   
   actually being conscious).. but i find that its quite important to me   
   personally.. even when i'm just lying in bed with my gf doing nothing in   
   particular.   
      
   i would also state that its probably the single most important thing in   
   that *could* exist.. given that the concepts of "importance" and   
   "existence" are constructs of human consciousness.   
      
   can u dig it?   
      
   there is no creation in simulation.   
      
   ..   
   jx   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)