Le 07-janv.-06, à 01:17, George Levy a écrit :
I understand Bruno's stand on Machine Theology. After all we are
really talking about the "soul in the machine."
That is already the case with the STRONG AI thesis, which, despite its
name; is much weaker than the COMP hyp.
As the reader of the list know (or should know) I think that to make
prematurely too much precise distinctions is a fallacy ( the 1004
So I do believe that we can identify the soul and the first person (as
you have also suggest somewhere else) until difficulties force us to
add nuances. In that case the "strong AI" thesis can be defined by the
assertion that machine can have a soul, and the whole AI enterprise has
something "theological" in it.
But with comp, which is the doctrine that "I am a machine" (not simply
that machine can think like with the STRONG AI, but that I am a machine
(and I assume that humans can think of course)) the theological aspect
seems to me obvious: it even entails some "ancestors cult" like doing
the backup of parents, grandparents, etc.
I will come back on this in my answer to Benjamin's long post.
It is really controversial but so what? It will certainly drive the
I do think so.
One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is
not a number.