Re: This is just a copy

Randall R Randall (
Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:47:37 -0400

On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:34:36 -0700 (PDT) John K Clark <> writes:
>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 (Randall R Randall) Wrote:

> >No, closer to say that the "Randall Test" *includes* the Turing


> >as it now stands.
>If the Turing Test is unsound so is the Randall Test because that is its


The Turing Test is possibly only incomplete.

> >The fact that a tape recorder can make those sounds, however,


> >not mean that the same processes [consciousness] are going on
in the
> >tape recorder, since it is a different sort of machine.
>But in the real world that's not why people think a tape recorder is
>unintelligent and unconscious. Most people don't have the slightest idea
>how a tape recorder works, much less the human brain, they don't believe
>tape recorder is conscious is because it doesn't act that way, in other
>they use the Turing Test.

Because they have nothing better, yes. However, wouldn't you agree that knowing how a tape recorder works is a much surer route to knowing whether it is conscious? IOW, the Turing Test sorta works for this purpose, but it is not the best way to tell.

> >Since we know, from personal experience, that human brains

*can* be        

> >conscious, and we know that other human brains do cause
> >sounds to ours, we can assume that they are conscious, and
begin our
> >study of consciousness with that.
>I agree its a reasonable assumption that other people who act
>are conscious, its a reasonable assumption that an intelligent robot is

>conscious too, but a reasonable assumption is not the same as a

Nope, but we can base proofs of other things on reasonable assumptions and evidence.

> >>Me:
> >>Where is the spatial location of green, or fast, or the number


> >>eleven?
> >*Certain* locations contain matter with attributes such as
>Exactly. Right now there is only one location that contains matter with
>John Clark attribute, but that might not always be true.

I would say that while consciousness in general is an attribute, a particular consciousness is more complex than that.

> >>Me:
> >>That's remembering the past not detecting time,
> >They are the same thing.
>No, one is subjective and the other objective.

How do you know? Have you ever objectively measured time?

> >>Without senses just how would you detect that I stopped
>your brain >>and then restarted it?
> >I don't know that I could.
>Then you couldn't detect time.

Without the proper instruments, I can't tell the elements that some indeterminate
block of matter is made of. Does that mean that I cannot detect matter?

I may not be able to detect *some*
features of time, but that it exists, I can.


     4h+6UuyAc18Q/wFyynmtFGJFmANjnXlpFh1Dtt32j | ICQ: 3043097 E-Gold Acct: 100678 @
On a visible but distant shore a new image of man, The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.

                                                | Johnny Clegg

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]