On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or
> computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The fact that
> it is impossible to create a model of a weather system that can predict
> *all* of its future behavior does not equal to a proof that one cannot
> create an approximately accurate model of a weather system. One has to
> trade off accuracy for feasibility.
I agree that's true, and by that definition, we can certainly make
cybernetic systems which can approximate the appearance of
consciousness in the eyes of most human clients of those systems for
the scope of their intended purpose. To get beyond that level of
accuracy, you may need to get down to the cellular, genetic, or
molecular level, in which case it's not really worth the trouble of re-
inventing life just to get a friendlier sounding voicemail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at