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, [email protected]
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
