[goto11]

Unfortunately you have no way of determining if a machine or animal have this particular experience qualia. You cant even determine of other people beside yourself have it, which gives rise to solipsism.

It like saying that red-headed people doesn't have a soul - there is no way to disprove that assertion.

[_xnmw]

The point is not whether we can prove that machines have such an experience. The point is, most people will agree that it “seems” like machines don’t have feelings, which is itself interesting because it suggests that our intuitive definition of “understanding” is not limited to a logical set of inputs and outputs. It is a proof that when we say “he understands”, we are referring to something more than a logical answer, and whatever that “something more” is, machines don’t have it.

[goto11]

In puppet theater good puppeteers make the figures look like they think and feel very convincingly, even though we know they are just made out of wood. I'm sure the same can be achieved with robots.

[jplayer01]

That's the fundamental issue underlying the discussion. Pointing this out doesn't add anything. It's like saying water is wet. Yes, but how do we quantify human understanding such that we can implement it in AI? Well, we've been puzzling over that for decades and we sill haven't found an answer.