in the worst case, they could publish the full source of the application in order to comply with the gpl... I mean, it is just a tool to copy files from a to b, right? so it is kind of a silly article.
that besides my geiger muller counter, my gas spectroscopy meter, and my decibel meter, I have to carry a terahertz microwave detector with me all the time?
And I am talking about the "experience" aspect of consciousness, which is not well defined (I know), and completely unexplained (I know). In other words, I can build a representation of "pain", but will it be "felt" (by some entity or perhaps by nature)? That is something we do not know.
Note that this "experience" aspect cannot be falsified and hence it is not a scientific concept. We know, however, that it exists (at least I do:-)
All I am saying is that, even though we know little about "experience" of consciousness, we should not ignore it when ethical issues arise. (From an engineering viewpoint, we can of course ignore the issue).
First, yes I would object. For there is no *proof* that, in my experience, this clone would be equivalent to my own body.
Second, no I would not deny that a clone should have human right. The reason, again is that there is no *proof* that a clone would have no consciousness.
The problem is not that it would be impossible to construct an entity that *seems* self-conscious. The problem is that the "experience" part of consciousness is (so far) unexplained.
To make it a little more clear, let me pose a question: should human right laws apply to computers? (if not, why should humans have them then, if they are so similar to computers.)
If computers should have human rights, on the other hand, imagine that a group of people start to simulate the underlying "intelligent" self-conscious algorithm mentioned by the OP, by emulating the registers, and the instructions. For example, each person keeps track of a tiny portion of the memory of the underlying system, and they pass messages to eachother according to the algorithm. Then, the group of people seem to have created a kind of super-consciousness, which acts in a self-conscious way. Now, we may pose the question if, by human right laws, these people are allowed to stop the simulation, or alter it?
Well, ok, when faced by death, I'm sure a lot of people will do a lot of strange things, and all rationality will be lost.
Yes, you read that word correctly: rationality. Because while the "dualist" way seems to be the irrational way to go, the arguments against it seem to have a lot of objections. Please read the wikipedia page on dualism (which by the way contradicts itself somewhat, but is quite a good read).
The concept of dualism may seem silly (or non-scientific), probably because the simplest possible explanation for a certain phenomenon is (usually) to be preferred. However, you have yet to explain how the physical world can bring about the phenomenon of consciousness...
Yes, but consciousness seems to somehow add an "interpretation" to the underlying physical process (why do we experience pain as pain?) Now, for any physical process, we can add an infinity of interpretations, so attached to any physical process there must be an infinite number of consciousnesses, by your reasoning.
But I'm sure you would object against having your brain replaced by a (small) supercomputer, even if I guaranteed that the "observable you" would not change.
There are some other areas where some community funding would be welcome: For example, the implementation of web standards, like HTML5. The sooner it gets done, the better.
ok, what i meant was a "platform-in-a-platform", which has its own operating semantics, independent from the underlying os. in that way, you can still develop for a "locked" phone, since you just target the platform-in-a-platform instead of the real platform.
Okay, perhaps someone needs to develop an application that can run other applications, and which does not impose any copy restrictions. Then you only have to download/buy an application *once*, and you're basically freed from this nonsense. Perhaps also a good idea for the iphone.
Slashdot Mirror
well i think that the gpl only requires you to serve up the source code *upon request*, so MS has not yet broken the law, i suppose.
in the worst case, they could publish the full source of the application in order to comply with the gpl... I mean, it is just a tool to copy files from a to b, right? so it is kind of a silly article.
to make it really rugged, they should have installed linux on it...
Yes but it is 10,000 km long.
Size matters, you know :-)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/27/1455253
is shorter and heavier "more beautiful"?
Google, just WTF where you thinking?
Uhm, 256 MB should be enough for everyone? perhaps?
that besides my geiger muller counter, my gas spectroscopy meter, and my decibel meter, I have to carry a terahertz microwave detector with me all the time?
I can see it already:
"Hey, sorry people, the concert has been canceled, our power amplifier just died"
"But wait, I have an amplifier tattoo'd on my skin!"
*goes sitting in the back of the stage hooked up to the equipment, while other people are enjoying the concert*
Of course the rate of technological progress has slowed down...
Lately, all the smart people are being hired by an advertisement company!
i have an idea for a new experiment: fire a bullet at it, and see if it can catch it :-) :-)
it would be the ultimate body guard
Um, it would be more impressive if the machinery was slow. I mean, it would then require more intelligence to do the same job.
You forgot the word "post". No wonder you were fast.
standing is a lot more fatiguing than walking actually...
Alien observers must think we are building a metal sphere to hide behind.
They probably have one themselves already... to prevent global warming :-)
And I am talking about the "experience" aspect of consciousness, which is not well defined (I know), and completely unexplained (I know). In other words, I can build a representation of "pain", but will it be "felt" (by some entity or perhaps by nature)? That is something we do not know.
Note that this "experience" aspect cannot be falsified and hence it is not a scientific concept. We know, however, that it exists (at least I do :-)
All I am saying is that, even though we know little about "experience" of consciousness, we should not ignore it when ethical issues arise. (From an engineering viewpoint, we can of course ignore the issue).
First, yes I would object. For there is no *proof* that, in my experience, this clone would be equivalent to my own body.
Second, no I would not deny that a clone should have human right. The reason, again is that there is no *proof* that a clone would have no consciousness.
I hope this clarifies my point.
The problem is not that it would be impossible to construct an entity that *seems* self-conscious.
The problem is that the "experience" part of consciousness is (so far) unexplained.
To make it a little more clear, let me pose a question: should human right laws apply to computers? (if not, why should humans have them then, if they are so similar to computers.)
If computers should have human rights, on the other hand, imagine that a group of people start to simulate the underlying "intelligent" self-conscious algorithm mentioned by the OP, by emulating the registers, and the instructions. For example, each person keeps track of a tiny portion of the memory of the underlying system, and they pass messages to eachother according to the algorithm. Then, the group of people seem to have created a kind of super-consciousness, which acts in a self-conscious way. Now, we may pose the question if, by human right laws, these people are allowed to stop the simulation, or alter it?
You see, there are too many questions left.
Well, ok, when faced by death, I'm sure a lot of people will do a lot of strange things, and all rationality will be lost.
Yes, you read that word correctly: rationality. Because while the "dualist" way seems to be the irrational way to go, the arguments against it seem to have a lot of objections. Please read the wikipedia page on dualism (which by the way contradicts itself somewhat, but is quite a good read).
The concept of dualism may seem silly (or non-scientific), probably because the simplest possible explanation for a certain phenomenon is (usually) to be preferred. However, you have yet to explain how the physical world can bring about the phenomenon of consciousness...
and therefore any metaphysical postulations are, or should be, beside the point in the question of ethical behavior towards the simulation
Not if we are going to replace parts of a functioning brain by a simulation!
Yes, but consciousness seems to somehow add an "interpretation" to the underlying physical process (why do we experience pain as pain?) Now, for any physical process, we can add an infinity of interpretations, so attached to any physical process there must be an infinite number of consciousnesses, by your reasoning.
Somehow, this is difficult to believe...
But I'm sure you would object against having your brain replaced by a (small) supercomputer, even if I guaranteed that the "observable you" would not change.
There are some other areas where some community funding would be welcome:
For example, the implementation of web standards, like HTML5.
The sooner it gets done, the better.
--SC
ok, what i meant was a "platform-in-a-platform", which has its own operating semantics, independent from the underlying os. in that way, you can still develop for a "locked" phone, since you just target the platform-in-a-platform instead of the real platform.
Okay, perhaps someone needs to develop an application that can run other applications, and which does not impose any copy restrictions. Then you only have to download/buy an application *once*, and you're basically freed from this nonsense. Perhaps also a good idea for the iphone.