Hi,
>> >> Because some folks find that they are not subjectively sufficient to >> explain everything they subjectively experience... >> > That would be more convincing if such people were to show evidence that > they understand what algorithmic processes are and can do. I'm almost > tempted to class such verbalizations as "meaningless noise", but that's > probably too strong a reaction. Push comes to shove, I'd have to say I'm one of those people. My subjective intuition says that algorithmic processes don't exhaust the universe, even though they exhaust the space of what can be scientifically validated/falsified or verbally described. I can't prove that to you, but if I fill your brain with enough of the right sorts of drugs I may be able to convince you 8-D I do suspect there's a nonalgorithmic aspect to consciousness, for instance -- but I also suspect this is not something you need to BUILD ... it's something that's gonna be there anyway once you build your digital algorithmic mind. Panpsychism in other words... I see nothing wrong with such intuitions or beliefs, so long as one doesn't mix them up with science. I think that die-hard scientific rationalists could sometimes use a little more humility in the face of the unsolvability of Hume's problem of induction ;=) Yes, you can work around it by assuming Occam's Razor as a sort of primal religious principle ... but then you're making a big assumption pulled out of the glorious subjective nothing ... which is fine, but you should acknowledge that's what you're doing... ben g ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
