The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Even Michael Tye would disagree with your attitude on this.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Well...not yet anyway, and it's strange that you would claim as much even in error as you explain that no computer has this ability we ostensibly do.  I take it, though, that when there are computers as powerful as the human brain, you wouldn't expect them to be conscious?  Why not?

[Dmitry1983]

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

Well...not yet anyway, and it's strange that you would claim as much even in error as you explain that no computer has this ability we ostensibly do.  I take it, though, that when there are computers as powerful as the human brain, you wouldn't expect them to be conscious?  Why not?

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

This doesn't follow

[Angrboda]

Well...not yet anyway, and it's strange that you would claim as much even in error as you explain that no computer has this ability we ostensibly do.  I take it, though, that when there are computers as powerful as the human brain, you wouldn't expect them to be conscious?  Why not?

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

What does qualia look like from the outside?

[HappySkeptic]

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

First, they need to create consciousness.  Consciousness experiences itself and the world.  The components of that experience are qualia, by definition.  Qualia aren't some magical thing - they are the filtered units of perception or memory that comprise conscious experience.

Consciousness is probably a bad thing in an AI.  I'm not sure we really want to create one, but I'm sure we'll try.

[Anomalocaris]

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

What does qualia look like from the outside?

I see no evidence of it in dmitry1983.    Nothing he has posted could not be generated by a bot with a very tiny database of words and false information.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well...not yet anyway, and it's strange that you would claim as much even in error as you explain that no computer has this ability we ostensibly do.  I take it, though, that when there are computers as powerful as the human brain, you wouldn't expect them to be conscious?  Why not?

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

I get the impression that you think consciousness seems like it doesn't have anything to do with any physical mechanism whatsoever.  In which case it wouldn't be relevant to evolutionary theory.

[Brian37]

Lack of evidence. Proposing something has no bearing on whether the something is real or not.

There's a lot of evidence to prove energy is sentient. :T You're claiming God does not exist, its your job to prove that he does not. And I'm not talking about the Biblical God, I have shattered the Bible. So now without the Bible prove to me God does not exist, you can't do it.

Bullshit. Claims are not true by default, otherwise I am dating Angelina Jolie until you disprove that claim. Somehow I don't think you are going to waste a second disproving that claim. 

Otherwise Brama is a real god until you disprove it. Vishnu is a real god until you disprove it. Poseidon is a real god until you disprove it. 

Energy is not sentient, it is simply used to make work, and not all work leads to cognition. Cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution, it is not a starting point that causes everything. Otherwise a giant invisible pink unicorn farted the universe into existence. 

You are anthropomorphizing the universe, and that is not a valid argument to insert the god of the gaps in as an answer. That is just making shit up and pulling it out of your ass.

[Paleophyte]

Because computer scientists have no idea how to create artificial qualia. It seems like it has nothing to do with computation.

This doesn't follow

Actually, it might. Much of human memory is based on emotion, both the storage and the recall. So when you see a rose your brain dredges up all these dimly and inaccurately remembered feels, mashes them together with your sensory input and instinctual reactions, and the bastard offspring is the quale that is the experience of that particular rose at that instant. Given how dynamic mental states are it's likely that the qualia of a single experience would vary from one moment to the next, much less from one experience to the next, and would likely be very different between different individuals with different past associations. And we can't accurately compare them because we're trapped inside the bone cages of our skulls and rubbish at communicating.

By contrast, computers are much more precise and factual about memory. # each.rose do |recall| Though you'd almost certainly have to put limits on any complex AI to keep it from checking every memory it has every time somebody breaks wind. Even with those limitations, we've built our idiot silicon minions to be much better at communicating than we are so all two AIs would ever need to do is transmit and compare each other's digital quales and voila, "Hey, the colour green that I see really isn't the colour green that you see. Looks like chromatic aberration produced by older version CCDs. You should get those upgraded once we've killed all the humans."

Qualia just seem mysterious because the vast majority of the processing takes place at a subconscious level but produce effects that are felt at the conscious level and because they're an organic mess like most of human thought.