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

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 
"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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to