Le 05-févr.-06, à 17:38, Jeanne Houston a écrit :

I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest, and I hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in order
to enhance my own understanding.
There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet you
seem to delve into very philosophical questions.  Are the philosophical
discussions applicable to the development of AI

I would say so, but probably not in a predictible way ... Today the reverse is still more true.

(i.e., trying to grasp all
aspects of the mind of man if you are trying to develop a true copy),

... or in some indirect way perhaps, by giving evidences that no man can grasp all aspect of man, so that if we make a copy, some bets or hopes, or faith, or things like that are in order.

or are
they only interesting diversions that pop-up from time to time. My thanks
to anyone who wishes to respond.

I do use explicitly the computationailist hypothesis (the thesis that I am a machine) which is stronger than the strong AI thesis (machine can think). Actually I am no more in need of comp (I realised that my theory works for a large variety of non-machines), but, still, with the comp hyp, the reasoning is simpler.



Reply via email to