Serpent, I am going to be VERY clear toyou here. Read PROPERLY what other people say in their posts before replying. To not do so is VERY rude.
To address your ill-constructed post one stage at a time:
"Ushgarak said:
Serpent- YES. Just because there is no perceived difference it does NOT mean there is no difference. It just means that difference cannot be seen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is NOT what you originally said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ushgarak previously:
we shall have no way of realising we have done so for there is no way for us to distinguish a true AI and a perfect (seeming) simulation of one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
That IS what I originally said. If you do not think so it is because you are either blind or stupid. There is no way FOR US to tell. Just because we cannot tell, that does not mean there is no differnce.
"Yes, but there are test which can DISCERN that one twin has cancer. What you are claiming is that even if all the tests for cancer on both twins come back negative, that one twin STILL has cancer because you SAY that he does based on no perceivable/discernable evidence. "
Again, either blind or stupid. I specified in my example that even if there was no way for us to TELL that he had it, that does not mean he does not. It is a theoretical situation of undetectable cancer- something that happens all the time. And I do not give a shit about discernable evidence- in my example the Twin still hans cancer, but we cannot see it. The fact that no-one can see it does not matter. This is REALLY simple stuff!
"Only if there is a possible way to discern a difference between the two. If there is no possible way to detect a difference, then what is gained by claiming that there is a difference based on no evidence?"
How obtuse can you be? I am saying there IS a difference but it cannot be seen. What is the point in ignoring the fact that truth is independant from observation? The twin has the cancer whether observed or not. It will still kill him. His own belief on the situation means nothing.
"“external observation” … are you implying that an entity has to be made of flesh and blood to be truly conscious? Would an intelligent alien based on a different type of physiology (say silicon) classify as conscious in your mind, or does something have to be a white anglo-saxon male to be considered sentient?"
No! I am NOT saying that! Do not put words in my mouth! How could you possibly infer that? What I said was that true sentience in an AI would not be something you can discover by external observation. This, as I say, is an aceepted fact in AI circles and is the point of the Chinese Box Demon theory which shows how fallible sentience-via-observation is.
Now, your replies are getting annoying because you are not reading what I say properly and are raising false points and observations, even saying I am saying things that I did not REMOTELY say.
This stops, clear?