Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/22/07, *Mark Peaty* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: ... > The idea of the Turing test is that "an algorithmic implementation of > rules" will give the required "degree of spontaneous creativity". If you > don't believe in this, then you don't even believe in weak AI, let alone > strong AI or computationalism. That is not a common position among > scientists and philosophers of mind; even John - anticomputationalism - > Searle agrees that the laws of physics necessitate that > human-indistinguishable AI should be theoretically possible. Roger > Penrose, and Colin, are very much in the minority. > > Stathis: 'I can meaningfully talk about "seeing red" to a blind > person who has no idea what the experience is like ... ' > > MP: OK, but can he or she meaningfully understand you? > > > They can understand many things about sight without actually > understanding what it is like to have it, just as we can understand many > things about a bat's sonar, in many ways much more than the bat > understands. But that part of vision or bat sonar which cannot be > understood unless the observer has it himself, no matter how good the > collected empirical data, is what is meant by first person experience. > > Stathis Papaioannou
I'm not convinced that there is any such first person experience. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
