On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you believed that our brains were already nothing but computers, then you
> would say that it would know which option to take the same way that Google
> knows which options to show you. I argue that can only get you so far, and
> that authentic humanity is, in such a replacement scheme, a perpetually
> receding horizon. Just as speech synthesizers have improved cosmetically in
> the last 30 years to the point that we can use them for Siri or GPS
> narration, but they have not improved in the sense of increasing the sense
> of intention and personal presence.
> Unlike some others on this list, I suspect that our feeling for who is human
> and who isn't, while deeply flawed, is not limited to interpreting logical
> observations of behavior. What we feel is alive or sentient depends more on
> what we like, and what we like depends on what is like us. None of these
> criteria matter one way or another however as far as giving us reason to
> believe that a given thing does actually have human like experiences.

You're quick to dismiss everything computers do, no matter how
impressive, as "just programming", with no "intention" behind it.
Would you care to give some examples of what, as a minimum, a computer
would have to do for you to say that it is showing evidence of true

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

Reply via email to