Hi Bruno et al, 3p equivalence -- the condition of success (Mind Reading or Mind emulation by a computer)
I think we can now say something about the condition obtained when a human mental event is emulated by a computer. 1) The only possible comparisons between a human and a computer will be in 3p form. That is, my description of a mental event will be the same as some 3p description arrived at by the computer. 2) Let the goal be 3p(1p), that is, a description I give of some mental event. At this ppoint, it is probably better to let 1p be any 1p in general. 3) We know that a description of a mental event 3p(1p) could possibly be exact but in general will be inexact (imperfectly reported) to some degree. This suggests that ultimately, fuzzy logic might achieve the most accurate result. And success would be given by siome probability statement. But let's not go there yet. 4) Perhaps we can say that success is obtained in general when my description of a mental event 3p(1p) is the same as some description 3p(x) output by the computer. Thus success would be: 3p(x) = 3p(1p) 5) Perhaps given enough time, the computer could match my 3p(1p) or match it to the degree of accuracy. 6) Let us define 3p equivalence more generally at this point by granting equivalence if your description of a mental event is simply that it is in some category, perhaps I, II or III or perhaps some monad ("you are a human") or perhaps a Kantian category. Any comments ?More later. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/22/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen -- 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.