Re: This is just a copy

Randall R Randall (rrandall6@juno.com)
Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:47:37 -0400

--
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:34:36 -0700 (PDT) John K Clark <johnkc@well.com> writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 rrandall6@juno.com (Randall R Randall) Wrote:

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

Test,         


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

>foundation.

The Turing Test is possibly only incomplete.

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

does         


>        >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
of
>how a tape recorder works, much less the human brain, they don't believe
a
>tape recorder is conscious is because it doesn't act that way, in other
words
>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

similar


>        >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
intelligently
>are conscious, its a reasonable assumption that an intelligent robot is

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

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
>these.
>
>Exactly. Right now there is only one location that contains matter with
the
>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.

--digsig 

         Wolfkin.
     5CaaHx/ncmWI7mi94lMRbZ5naWfoiAiWyG37UUfee/P
     JhDqmp8fo/vv0+nTjnCSCZiGyvX2lepvs9shJRJP
     4h+6UuyAc18Q/wFyynmtFGJFmANjnXlpFh1Dtt32j

wolfkin@flatoday.infi.net | ICQ: 3043097 E-Gold Acct: 100678 @ www.e-gold.com
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 http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]