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 fallacy). 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 point home.

I do think so.


One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is not a number.



Reply via email to