Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Russell Standish writes:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 10:01:36PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting that of two very similar programs, one containing a 
> > > true random
> > > number generator and the other a pseudorandom number generator, only the 
> > > former
> > > could possibly be conscious? I suppose it is possible, but I see no 
> > > reason to believe
> > > that it is true.
> > >
> > > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> > I think this is what Maudlin's argument tells us. Is it that so
> > preposterous to you?
> It seems to me that the idea of a deterministic machine being conscious is 
> assumed to be
> preposterous, for no good reason.

An *obviously* determinstic machine would not pass a Turing test.

> I believe that I could have acted differently even with
> identical environmental inputs, which is what the feeling of "free will" is. 
> However, it is
> possible that I might *not* have been able to act differently: simply feeling 
> that I could
> have done so is not evidence that it is the case.

Pointing that out is not evidence against.

> And even if it were the case, due to true
> quantum randomness or the proliferation of branches in the multiverse leading 
> to the effect
> of first person indeterminacy, it does not follow that this is necessary for 
> consciousness to
> occur.
> > I thought I had another argument based on creativity, but it seems
> > pseduo RNG programs can be creative, provided the RNG is cryptic enough.
> Right, it's the complexity of the program that generates interesting and 
> perhaps intelligent
> behaviour, not its randomness.
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to