Assume 1) You can make a conscious agent consisting of a robot controlled by some computer; 2) There are no zombies 3) You replace the computer by a chinese-like room version that behaves identically.
Conclusion: The room plus robot is conscious
10
-
1I'm voting to close because while you invoke some basic philosophical language, the idea is poorly developed.– J DAug 23 at 21:10
-
@Kusin So the Chinese-like room is conscious?– Pato GalmariniAug 23 at 21:14
-
@JD then it should be easy for you to point out why the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or are the assumptions somehow not precise enough to you?– Pato GalmariniAug 23 at 21:18
-
1I could write at length, sure, since I'm interested in AGI. But I'd have to start by pointing out that the argument is informal, and not formal, and therefore the metric that applies to it is not soundness and validity, but strength and cogency, and those metrics would be a function of the definitions "conscious", "zombie", "Chinese-like room", "behavior", and "identically", all of which are philosophical topics unto themselves. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic– J DAug 23 at 21:28
-
1@PatoGalmarini if the robot+computer is conscious in your first premise, the argument is valid. You don’t state this in the assumptions however, you say assume the robot is conscious, and not enough about the consciousness of the robot+computer system in premise 1). It’s not valid currently because of that. Also Premise 2) is unneeded, consciousness entails a non-zombie, but it doesn’t impact the validity with it included, it’s just superfluous. It is a bit informal but I don’t think egregiously– J KusinAug 24 at 4:25
|
Show 5 more comments