Captain Blackout said:
It doesn't take much to realize my computer doesn't perceive the universe as I do. A simple understanding of medicine and computer science makes this obvious as hell. Furthermore one of the biggest impediments to a true AI is that the machines we have built so far are only data managers. They have NO apprehension of the world behind the data. If you wish to state otherwise you have an impossible mountain to climb.
what apprehension of the world do YOU have beyond the data? without your senses, you wouldn't experience qualia at all. aside from the cogito, essentially every thought we have has been derived from, if not directly resulted from, our sensory experiences.
it's my belief that the biggest impediment to AI is that their sensory apparatus are so primitive compared to humans. obviously that's far from the only issue, but it's one i think goes under recognized.
Captain Blackout said:
My claim isn't baseless, did you get your computer science from a cracker-jack box? I've read the arguments against qualia. Every one I've read has holes in it. Given that I can apprehend my qualia I'd say yes, you are a moron for saying qualia don't exist without a better argument than has been previously presented. You can describe red to someone who has enough senses by using references to other senses. We have a natural reaction to warm and cold that correspond to colors. Your example of lightening is weak. I can describe lightening in terms of other physical phenomena. You can't do that with qualia.
the fact that we both apprehend sensory experience says nothing to their nature or their cause. is the association between red and warmth really inborn? or is it the result of conditioning early in life? you can explain the association between red and warmth to the colorblind, but that won't help them understand the experience of red. to them, hot things will still appear gray. someone with an inverted spectrum will still associate heat with what you consider blue.
of course we can can explain lightning in terms of other physical phenomena now. the ancient greeks couldn't, at least not accurately, because science had not advanced to the point where they could adequately describe concepts like electric charge. the point is, the fact that we don't have the vocabulary to explain the sensation of qualia
now is no indication that that will always be the case.
Captain Blackout said:
Finally, if someone else is making your case for you better than you are, being a tool and jumping (possibly weakening their position) is just as arrogant as anything I've done here.
skeleon posted his response while i was typing mine. i didn't see it until well after i had already posted my reply.
Captain Blackout said:
Don't want responses like this? Don't call me arrogant. I'm arrogant as hell but it's not your job to make that judgement given you have no clue how extensive my background is on all the points I've made here.
Or in short, don't be a tool.
don't want to be called arrogant? don't BE arrogant. i don't care if you have a doctorate in philosophy, this is a complex and controversial issue, and to dismiss the views (held by dozens of doctors of philosophy) contrary to yours as moronic is, by definition, arrogant. i have just as much a right to call you arrogant as you have you call me a moron and a tool. the difference is you've freely admitted your arrogance.
