On 21 Jun 2011, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/21/2011 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp implies strong AI (but not vice versa: machine can think does not entail that only machine can think). Comp => STRONG AI: If I am a machine, then some machine can think (assuming that I can think). But comp denies that "we can prove that a machine can think". Of course we can prove that some machine has this or that competence. But for intelligence/consciousness, this is not possible. (Unless we are not machine. Some non-machine can prove that some machine are intelligent, but this is purely academical until we find something which is both a person and a non-machine).

But of course we can prove that a machine can think to the same degree we can prove other people think.

Yes. This means that we can't.

That we cannot prove it from some self-evident set of axioms is completely unsurprising. This comports with my idea that with the development of AI the "question of consciousness" will come to be seen as a archaic, like "What is life?".

Not at all. Life is a third person describable organizational pattern. With consciousness we have no choice than to take into account the first and third person perspective, and this leads to the abandon of Aristotle theology and a coming back to Plato. We know now that quanta are particular case of qualia. The theory of everything, if we assume we are machine, *is*, at the least, a theory of consciousness. The question will never be archaic. On the contrary, it will be hotter and hotter.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to