On 4 October 2013 11:56, chris peck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Liz / pgc > > If I have been abusive to you or Bruno then I apologize without > hesitation. If you would show where I have been abusive though I would > appreciate that, because at the moment I regard the suggestion as low and > mean spirited. > > I have made my points and been misrepresented, misunderstood and disagreed > with. I have clarified as far as I could. No doubt I have misrepresented > and misunderstood people in return. In what way is that out of the ordinary > in debate? In what way is that a disservice to anyone? The points under > debate may seem obvious to you, well I apologise for my stupidity but they > are not obvious to me. I find it stunning that people find anything in the > realm of theoretical physics remotely obvious. > > Bruno should be happy that people are still reading his papers. What more > respect can anyone give him? > > I do not follow his argument. I do not follow his or your attempts to > clarify them. I see flaws in what you say. Does that really insult you? > Not at all, but whoever it was who said something like "step 3 sucks" *was*being rude. However I apologise if I went overboard - when I said I intended to cut out & keep PGC's post I didn't mean specifically for you (or specifically for anyone) - it was just the sort of thing that seems to need to be said occasionally on most forums, so having a well-written version to hand struck me as a good idea. It might come in handy on FOAR next time a certain person starts being rude, for example (and this is someone who really *can* be very rude, even though it's a philosophical / scientific discussion forum!) Having cleared the air, could you point out those flaws you mentioned? I don't know if it helps, but I recently tried to clarify matters by pointing out that if we assume comp, then it is theoretically possible to create an AI, and that Bruno's thought experiments could be carried out on an AI without any of the objections that people automatically apply to human beings, which might make it easier to think about. Also, the physical mechanisms involved would definitely *not* require that we worry about the no-cloning theorem (or whatever), because an AI would "just" be a huge computer programme, no doubt far more bytes than you could shake a current technology disc drive at, but subject to the same principles. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
