On Saturday, April 6, 2013 2:53:53 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> If you see the image in the mirror and interact with it, then there has to
> be something conscious somewhere. Just like a human controlling a remote
> control car. The consciousness might exist somewhere else, but the car can
> behave as intelligently as a human.
No, there only has *to have been* consciousness at some time. The 'mirror'
could be a recording that you made of yourself projected behind the glass
in which you can appear to interview yourself for an hour about your
childhood. Could an audience tell that you were not interviewing your
identical twin? What computer programming does is allow us to record
formalized functions which reflect our presence which are so fragmented and
numerous that they can be reconstituted from the bottom-up rather than the
A spoken phrase is digitally synthesized not as a conscious thought or
feeling being stepped down into a phrase made of words, but as an assembly
of dumb phonemes associated quantitatively to a programmatic condition. It
is an an a-signifying sequence which can be replayed as as needed, without
intelligence, understanding, or responsibility, but as a logical<>phonetic
machine...a kind of crossword puzzle for a powered filing cabinet to fill
The intelligence of a computer program is evidence of an intelligent,
conscious programmer's efforts, but that's all. Everything else is the
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>> On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:30:29 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>> On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason)
>>>> There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not involve
>>>> Why do you think so? What algorithm implements purple or pain?
>>>> What make you think that purple or pain don't involve infinities?
>>>> (Also, many algorithm does involve infinities. Machines can provide
>>>> name for ordinals up to the Church-Kleene omega_1^CK ordinal, and they can
>>>> reason in ZF like any of us.
>>>> I don't see why computers cannot beat the humans in the naming of
>>>> infinities, even if that task can be considered as the least algorithmic
>>>> one ever conceived by humans).
>>> I should clarify what I meant by infinities. I meant there are
>>> algorithms that for computing anything that can be solved which does not
>>> require an infinite number of steps or infinite precision to do so. So
>>> unless infinite precision or infinite steps are required to emulate brain
>>> behavior, a computer should be capable of expressing all outwardly visisble
>>> behaviors any human can. (Craig has disputed this point before)
>> A mirror can express all outwardly visible behaviors of a human already.
>> Put a speaker at mouth level behind the mirror, a camera at eye level, a
>> microphone at ear level, and voila, you have a mirror zombie. The only
>> difference with an AI zombie is that the behaviors have been approximated
>> statistically from correlations of analyzed recordings so that the
>> mirroring is divided up into bits and controlled mathematically. Taking
>> this to the level of brain behavior only makes the bits much more numerous.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.