| Revision as of 00:45, 29 August 2003 editTkorrovi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,655 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:40, 7 March 2004 edit undoPsb777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,362 edits Why is artificial consciousness not consciousness?Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| http://www.ai-forum.org | http://www.ai-forum.org | ||
| ---- | |||
| To say Artificial Consciousness is not Consciousness is simply to define Consciousness as being something human beings cannot build. If "it", whatever "it" is, is built by humans, then '''by definition''' it would not be conscious. The Philosophical Criticisms section of ] applies directly to this topic too. | |||
| What is the special thing about humans that allows them consciousness? Humans are either machines (in which case the ] applies) or they are not (in which case there is some magic spark). You (whoever wrote what I am commenting on) has now to decide: What is it? For you view to be consistent either you require a new computer science possibly requiring new physics, or you have a ]. Speak up now. ] 01:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 01:40, 7 March 2004
A totally and completely false assumption:
There is no accepted definition or understanding regarding real consciousness yet there is a field of artificial consciousness? How absurd!
In ai-forum was a passionate debate about the same question just not to repeat it here, but result was rather that it must be clearly stated that all abilities of consciousness mentioned must be known and observable. AC is not consciousness.
To say Artificial Consciousness is not Consciousness is simply to define Consciousness as being something human beings cannot build. If "it", whatever "it" is, is built by humans, then by definition it would not be conscious. The Philosophical Criticisms section of artificial intelligence applies directly to this topic too.
What is the special thing about humans that allows them consciousness? Humans are either machines (in which case the Church-Turing thesis applies) or they are not (in which case there is some magic spark). You (whoever wrote what I am commenting on) has now to decide: What is it? For you view to be consistent either you require a new computer science possibly requiring new physics, or you have a soul. Speak up now. Paul Beardsell 01:40, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)