> Plato is Plato.

Can't argue with that logic. (Although perhaps Korzybski might...)  ;)

> And the last thing I want to condone is a special kind of 'modernization':
> to fashion the human complexity (mind?) after the (designed) functions of
a
> machine, which is a partial product of the human mind. -  AI is still "A".
>

Would a artificial self-aware entity emerging from human technology
represent "mind"? Who can tell. But it may not be a meaningful question.
Such a system that might unerringly pass the turing test would probably be
assumed to be thinking and engaged accordingly. Just as I believe I think
but and can only assume that others do based on their behavior
communications. Skinner was not wrong, just woefully incomplete.

Obviously this debate won't be settled to everyone's (anyone's?)
satisfaction here. It may well be settled, though, to all but the most
committed skeptics in the lifetime of some of those on this list, if not in
my own. If so, we most likely will never be sure of the entitys'
"consciousness". And they would just as likely have to take our word about
it regarding ours (our "intelligence" may be even less obvious to them).

Cheers
CMR

Reply via email to