From: Vladimir Nesov (robotact@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2009 - 13:09:20 MST
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Johnicholas Hines
<johnicholas.hines@gmail.com> wrote:
> Four points:
>
> 1. Magic consciousness transfer.
>
> Let me say explicitly again: There is no magical consciousness
> transfer. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth, or maybe
> you're arguing against someone else.
>
> 2. The friends and family test.
>
> Suppose a weather simulation can produce images that can fool people
> who have seen weather. Should you base your strategy against global
> warming on that weather simulation? I think the answer is no.
>
> Experts might be fooled by the images as well, but if they compare the
> simulations' internal data structures and algorithms to real-world
> measurements and understanding of weather processes and say "Yes, we
> think this is a faithful simulation." then we might reasonably base
> our global warming strategy on the simulation.
If what you care about is real weather, it doesn't matter if a given
simulation can fool everyone in existence. On the other hand, weather
simulation may happen to be something you genuinely care about, the
same way you care about real weather. If you care about an upload the
same way you care about a person it's an upload of, for all intents
and purposes you may consider that upload to really be that person,
even if you can tell the difference somehow. Maybe the upload will
have worse or better memory, or speech, and you'll be able to tell. On
the other hand, if you don't care about the thing that acts
indistinguishably from a real person, the thing is not really that
person. It may be possible to have this kind of distinction, for
example in the second case the indistinguishable performance may be
some kind of act, lacking all the deeper properties of the person you
care about.
-- Vladimir Nesov http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT