On Aug 15, 10:08 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be a very surprising theoretical result.
Only if you have a very sentimental attachment to the theory. It
wouldn't surprise me at all.
> > Who cares? The main thing is *we can do it using replication*.
> What is the difference between simulation and replication? Perhaps all our
> disagreement stems from this difference in definitions.
The difference is that simulation assumes that that something can
really be something that it is not. Replication doesn't assume that,
but rather says that you can only be sure that something is what it
> > We are in precisely the same position the Wright Bros were when making
> > artificial flight. ****
> > ** **
> > This situation is kind of weird. Insisting that simulation/computation is
> > the only way to solve a problem is like saying ‘*all buildings must be
> > constructed out of paintings of bricks and only people doing it this way
> > will ever build a building.’*. For 60 years every building made like this
> > falls down.
> Its not that all brains are computers, its that the evolution of all finite
> processes can be determined by a computer. There is a subtle difference
> between saying the brain is a computer, and saying a computer can determine
> what a brain would do.
> I think your analogy is a little off. It is not that proponents of strong
> AI suggest that houses need to be made of paintings of bricks, it is that
> the anti-strong-AI suggests that there are some bricks whose image cannot be
> depicted by a painting.
I have no problem with AI brick images making AI building images, but
an image is not a brick or a building.
> A process that cannot be predicted by a computer is like a sound that cannot
> be replicated by a microphone, or an image that can't be captured by a
> painting or photograph. It would be very surprising for such a thing to
That's where you're making a strawman of consciousness and awareness.
You're assuming that it's a 'process' It isn't. Charge is not a
process, nor is mass. It's an experiential property of energy over
time. It is not like a sound or a microphone, it is the listener. Not
an image but the seer of images, the painter, the photographer. It
would be very surprising for such a thing to exist because it doesn't
ex-ist. It in-sists. It persists within. Within the brain, within
cells, within whales and cities, within microprocessors even but all
do not insist with the same bandwidth of awareness. The microprocessor
doesn't understand it's program. If it did it would make up a new one
by itself. If you pour water on your motherboard though, it will
figure out some very creative and unpredictable ways of responding.
> You can build your buildings out of bricks, but don't tell the artists that
> it is impossible for some bricks to be painted (or that they have to paint
> every brick in the universe for their painting to be look right!), unless
> you have some reason or evidence why that would be so.
No, Colin is right. It's the strong AI position that is asserting that
painted bricks must be real if they are painted well enough. That's
your entire position. If you paint a brick perfectly, it can only be a
brick and not a zombie brick (painting). All we are pointing out is
that there is a difference between a painting of a brick and a brick,
and if you actually want the brick to function as a brick, the
painting isn't going to work, no matter how amazingly detailed the
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