Thanks for the clarification. I was not clear in what I said. I meant that the machine cannot be said to have “consciousness” and it cannot be said “lacking consciousness”. The only thing we can go by is that the machine exhibits consciousness as we understand it. Sorry for the confusion.
The same question arises: “how can you tell the difference”? Even more fundamental: “what is the difference”?
Yes. Place them on a distant planet where they can’t have any clue how they got there. Without any evidence for evolution they would have to conclude they were manufactured.
How do you reach that conclusion? Do created beings have to be as perfect as their Creator?
The Intel logo on their chips might be a bit of a giveaway.
No
. When we see flaws in our biology we can attribute them to evolution, or if you wish the Fall. They would also have flaws (no complicated human-made machine reaches anything like perfection) but with no history, no fossils, no books, they could only conclude that they were designed, and that their designer (us) is also imperfect. Put yourself in their shoes. I’m warming to the idea of making this story into a movie.Yeah, actually, I’ve been thinking about that scenario all morning since I first read it, and am surprised there’s not already a book/movie/piece out there that I can recall that begins on that premise. I’m not a sci-fi buff, but I’m sure there are dozens of sci-fi novels that have something like that as the set up, but that would be a great literary device I think. Not only is it an interesting story, but it would be a great context for teasing out so many of these issues about consciousness, computation, origins, biology and machines.The Intel logo on their chips might be a bit of a giveaway.
No
Stanislaw Lem has written a book about something like that: “The Invincible” (here is a link…). It describes a non-biological evolution of machines.
I read the book. It was very impressive. I dislike science fiction, but it is certainly worth the read. Personally though, I would not read it again, but that is only because I would rather read other things.
Very cool.
I am delighted that you read it, and you liked it. Lem was the greatest thinker of the last century, in my opinion. I would recommed all of his books except the first two ones (The Astronauts and The Magellanic Cloud), which were horrible. But his awesome book “The Cyberiad” I take off from the shelf periodically. I cannot have enough of the ideas and the style. A very small excerpt from it I found on-line: Mymosh, the self-begotten (Needless to say, I am sci-fi buff. )Not sure if Im fully convinced. What about fluctuations within the systems that we might not be able to be aware of? Probabalistically it all irons out and works?Thanks for having a go
Chaos is dealt with by replicating all the gate values precisely (ronnie’s alternative biology experiment seems to have the same difficulty here). However the brain inherently has the ability to inhibit feedback and run-away amplifications (except perhaps temporarily in epileptics) so after a settling process we’re neatly back on track.
I think so, yes, the system must be fairly stable to go on working for three score years and ten.
That was kind to call me brother, brother (unless you’re a sister, sister).Thanks for the thought experiments hermano?
I like his train of thought also. Perhaps we have more in common than I suspected. And we agree on something!Very cool.
Well, I would read more of his stuff but there is a limit to how much science fiction I can take in. 
Someday though… he is on my list of authors to continue to read. Of course, that list is miles long with many that are not science fiction, but hopefully someday I will read more of his stuff.You or me?
That doesn’t come into the picture. The question is whether Creation encompasses evolution.