[alicebot-aiethics] FW: [alicebot-general] ZOMBIES

[Robby Garner]

Christopher said:

> What strikes me about his naysayers is this: I really can't tell where
> they stand on the nature of consciousness. They don't tell us where they
> fall on a core aspect of the definition of consciousness. It seems that
> you can only be in one of two camps:
>
> 1) Consciousness is a real phenomonon, inexplicable by the laws of
> physics (and very likely unique to humans).
> 2) Consciousness is not a real thing, but rather a perceived effect of
> an enormously complex mechanism. It is not necessarily restricted to
> human minds, or even to biological minds.
>

...

> Anyway, my real question is: Shouldn't AI theorists be required to
> choose which of the above two definitions of consciousness they
> subscribe to? I think many AI-naysayers subscribe to #1 (Searle, for
> example) but refuse to admit it since it is, at its core, utterly
> unscientific.

I believe that consciousness is a real thing, and is a phenomenon that is
inexplicable at this time, but that may some day be mapped out like the laws
of physics. But hopefully, quantum mechanics will be more clear to us by
that time, and we'll have a few more tools in the drawer of understanding.

The bottom line is this:  If a thing performs a given task as well as a
person might have, does it matter how it got from A to B? I say not only
does it not matter, but who cares?

Robby.