Article View: sci.cognitive
Article #235AI need not take stance on non-functional aspects of qualia
From: S. Nev. Institute of Tech.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:37
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:37
19 lines
1470 bytes
1470 bytes
[Sent this before, but the top paragraph was cut off... ] I'm in a _philosophy_of_cognitive_science_ class that has been discussing "qualia" and other internal sensations. I'm planning on writing a paper that asserts that artificial intelligence should not define qualia (or other constructs) on any terms other than functional. If one believes that qualia can be defined in functional terms only, this is pretty obvious. If one believes that functionality doesn't fully define qualia, then I believe that a model that fulfills the functions (even though it lacks "true" qualia) would do what cognitive AI is designed to do (IMHO - to predict, explain, describe, and manipulate human thought and behavior). Does anyone have a good arguement that qualia can not be defined soley on a functional basis? If so, is this qualia outside a formal system? Outside the realm of AI? Any refutation of these arguements?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Nov11.073728.17827@nevada.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!news.unomaha.edu!nevada.edu!snitShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!news.unomaha.edu!nevada.edu!snit From: snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev. Institute of Tech.) Subject: AI need not take stance on non-functional aspects of qualia Message-ID: <1992Nov11.073728.17827@nevada.edu> Originator: snit@helios.nevada.edu Sender: news@nevada.edu (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: helios.nevada.edu Organization: Southern Nevada Institute of Technology Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:37:28 GMT Lines: 21