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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to