Re: virus: kurzweil cuts the mustard

sodom (Sodom@ma.ultranet.com)
Tue, 29 Dec 1998 13:50:15 -0500

I think consciousness implies interraction of a unique sort. Verbal or
written banter, opinions, spontaneous creativity, these things would
convince me if they were together, but no single one would. I would be more
skeptical of a machines claim, but not because it is a machine, but because
it is outside my experience. But I see no reason not to consider a machine
that makes that claim convincingly to be an equal conscious being to myself
- regardless of the creator. The same goes for a Dog or a Dolphin. The
moment I am convinced that they are sentient (and at this stage i hold no
thought to as which is more likely)

Bill Roh

Robin Faichney wrote:

> In message <19981228145646.AAA24659@[204.96.32.167]>, Wade T.Smith
> <wade_smith@harvard.edu> writes
> >>Shouldn't we be sceptical of a machine's claim to be conscious?
> >
> >As much as I remain skeptical of anyone's claim, yes....
>
> Umm, I'd think you should be more sceptical of a machine's
> claim than that of a person, simply because you know that
> *you* are conscious, and other people are built the same,
> but that doesn't apply to machines.
>
> >But, maybe we'll know it when it happens?
>
> How will we be able to tell?
>
> >For me, at the moment, if it can learn language in the way humans learn
> >language (by being in the midst of talkers- not by receiving special
> >instruction) then it passes.
>
> I'd be very happy to grant such a machine intelligence,
> and even to say that, in one respect anyway, it's like
> us, but I don't see why I should think it conscious.
> --
> Robin