On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:03 AM, William R. Buckley <bill.buck...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your latest argument flies in the face of the Turing Test. > > > > If I give you a machine that looks like Elvis, sounds like Elvis, …, you > > would say (well, typical people would say) that the machine is > > Elvis. > > > > It is nevertheless a machine. GoL is a machine, and it has universal > > qualities as a machine. Further, we can generalise such machines > > to any purpose we choose. > > > > If I need to make them, I will design machines the size of cells, which > > agglomerate and yield higher-order structures, in exactly the fashion > > that biological cells so agglomerate, metamorphose and differentiate. > > > > How detailed a model is required before you are satisfied?
I think Craig was saying that GoL can only ever be a simulation, so can never have Elvis' mass, for example. That's fair enough. However, Craig will go further and say that even if the simulation talks to you like Elvis, writes Elvis songs, sings like Elvis, etc., it will still be only like a film of Elvis, not like the biological being with Elvis' mind. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.