On 24 Aug 2005, at 05:02, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Not at all and it is a key point. You confuse what I call comp, (I am a machine, "Yes doctor", en gros), the strong AI thesis, that is machine have phenomenal qualia (say), and BEH-MEC, behavioral mechanism: machine can behave *like* if they had phenomenal qualia.
This looks suspiciously like confusing 1st person and 3rd person aspects! But whatever the case, I disagree. Unless a means can be found to record and playback (as in the movie Brainstorm) phenomenal qualia we have nothing but factually unjustified belief in YD. With out proof all that one has is BEC-MEC, i.e. the Turing Test.
I don't understand any sentences in that paragraph. If you have the time to develop it a little bit, I would appreciate.
To be clear: to refute mec-beh you need to prove that ALL machine (note one!) fail the turing test (en gros), to refute the strong AI thesis, you need to prove that ALL machine cannot have phenomenal experiences (or subjective, first person, private, etc.).
Not really, all that is required is that it is in principle impossible for the class of Machines to emulate minds. IF minds are purely classical, AI goes through. IF minds as some aspect that is QM that is indispensable, the proof holds. QED.
Remember that comp could be true even in the case my brain is a quantum computer. That makes the "doctor" and "teleportation" thought experiments more complex, but the once the Universal Dovetailer is invoked those supplementary difficulties disappear.
Unless there exists a subclass of Machines that satisfies the all of the requirements to emulate an arbitrary Mind then Strong AI is ...
You are unclear for me, I'm afraid.
To refute comp (see the definition in my SANE paper) you need to show that for all level of digital description of yourself, none can be turing emulable.
This is too high a bar to ask for! In effect you have made comp unfalsifiable!
Not at all. Remember that I have shown that if comp is true then physics is given by a precise theory. If that theory is in contradiction with known physical facts then comp is refuted. Comp has already pass the test of the non booleannity of the observable propositions.
Like I stated in the first place, you are asking for a skeptic to prove a negative!
Here too, if you could say a little more. The point is not a question of true and false, but of the consistency of related set of beliefs. I maintain that comp ==> STRONG AI ==> MEC-BEH, and I don't understand what is wrong with that.
Have a nice week-end,