Any such complex act (that can be done by a robot) can be done without qualia. AFAIK, that's not part of the controversy in philosophy of the mind.

Here's a refresher on qualia:
https://iep.utm.edu/qualia/

This doesn't mean, of course, that robots can't experience qualia ever. This all depends on what the exact mechanisms are for producing consciousness, which (as I have said multiple times now) we have no idea atm.

(January 22, 2023 at 5:00 am)GrandizerII Wrote: This doesn't mean, of course, that robots can't experience qualia ever

There are supercomputers that are as powerful as human brains yet computer scientists can't reproduce single artificial quale.

(January 22, 2023 at 5:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:00 am)GrandizerII Wrote: This doesn't mean, of course, that robots can't experience qualia ever

There are supercomputers that are as powerful as human brains yet computer scientists can't reproduce single artificial quale.

How would we know, anyway?

(January 22, 2023 at 5:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:00 am)GrandizerII Wrote: This doesn't mean, of course, that robots can't experience qualia ever

There are supercomputers that are as powerful as human brains yet computer scientists can't reproduce single artificial quale.

For something artificial to be produced, a non-artificial version of it would have to already exist. Since qualia are made-up nonsense in the first place, your repeatedly pointing to a lack of artificial qualia is useless.

Boru

(January 22, 2023 at 5:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: There are supercomputers that are as powerful as human brains yet computer scientists can't reproduce single artificial quale.

For something artificial to be produced, a non-artificial version of it would have to already exist. Since qualia are made-up nonsense in the first place, your repeatedly pointing to a lack of artificial qualia is useless.

Boru

Made up nonsense? Where are you getting this from?

Even Daniel Dennett wouldn't agree with your attitude on this.

(January 21, 2023 at 6:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 21, 2023 at 4:30 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: blindsight was introduced to modern medical science by police detectives who felt they had good reason to believe some people who use medicalily certified blindness as alibi were, in fact, not blind, because they were observed to be able to walk along obstacle laden path without a walking cane

Someone once asked the late, great Ray Charles how he was able to get about with no cane. His answer was hard-soled shoes. He was able to hear echoes from obstacles, provided he was walking on a hard floor.

Boru

Science has known since the 1700s that many blind people who navigate by tapping their canes were listening for echos from obstacles, not feeling physically for obstacles.

Interestingly, MRI show that in blind people who developing the echolocation skills,  the processing of audio input for echolocation occurs in the part of the brain where vision is normally processed, not where hearing is normally processed.   This is just just one example of how flexibly the human brain can repurpose unused parts of itself to fulfill novel processing needs when such need arises.

(January 22, 2023 at 5:46 am)GrandizerII Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: For something artificial to be produced, a non-artificial version of it would have to already exist. Since qualia are made-up nonsense in the first place, your repeatedly pointing to a lack of artificial qualia is useless.

Boru

Made up nonsense? Where are you getting this from?

Even Daniel Dennett wouldn't agree with your attitude on this.

Possibly he wouldn't, but Marvin Minsky would. The existence of qualia seems to be dependent on the notion that feelings (pain, hunger, loneliness - whatever) are essences in and of themselves, rather than a redisposition of resources in response to an event. Qualia are an attempt by philosophers to 'dumb down' things that happen to us and our reactions to them.

Boru

(January 22, 2023 at 5:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:25 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: There are supercomputers that are as powerful as human brains yet computer scientists can't reproduce single artificial quale.

For something artificial to be produced, a non-artificial version of it would have to already exist. Since qualia are made-up nonsense in the first place, your repeatedly pointing to a lack of artificial qualia is useless.

Boru

So computers can't feel pain?

(January 22, 2023 at 6:04 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: For something artificial to be produced, a non-artificial version of it would have to already exist. Since qualia are made-up nonsense in the first place, your repeatedly pointing to a lack of artificial qualia is useless.

Boru

So computers can't feel pain?

Correct. Other things that can’t feel pain: doorknobs, hammers, television receivers, tin openers, and electric saws.

Boru

(January 22, 2023 at 6:00 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 22, 2023 at 5:46 am)GrandizerII Wrote: Made up nonsense? Where are you getting this from?

Even Daniel Dennett wouldn't agree with your attitude on this.

Possibly he wouldn't, but Marvin Minsky would. The existence of qualia seems to be dependent on the notion that feelings (pain, hunger, loneliness - whatever) are essences in and of themselves, rather than a redisposition of resources in response to an event. Qualia are an attempt by philosophers to 'dumb down' things that happen to us and our reactions to them.

Boru

Whatever can be said/argued about qualia, they're strong observations and not something conjured up out of thin air by some philosophers to try to explain something else. Perhaps, upon further reasoning, it turns out qualia aren't real after all (I strongly disagree with this, but that's beside the point now), but it doesn't mean there aren't strong initial justifications for believing they are.