From: Mikko Särelä (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 18 2006 - 01:24:47 MST
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Daniel Radetsky wrote:
> > My more important point is that Woody's test is untestable. We have
> > no way to evaluate whether a machine is conscious of the meaning of
> > its inputs in the same way that a human is.
> Are you sure? Perhaps when we have a more complete understanding of the
> way that humans are conscious of the meaning of their inputs, we will
> realize that we can determine whether a given machine is similarly
> conscious. It sounds like you're just making an argument from lack of
> imagination. If you disagree, tell me why I should believe such a test
> is impossible, rather than nonexistent.
Ah, but in science the burden of proof is on the side who claims a
principle. So if you or Searle claim this method, you should also provide
a method with which is can be tested. Until that is done, it should be
And if testing it requires understanding consciousness, it cannot really
help us understand consciousness, can it.
-- Mikko Särelä http://thoughtsfromid.blogspot.com/ "Happiness is not a destination, but a way of travelling." Aristotle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT