Right, but that's what I am saying is the problem. It would be like making generalizations about liquids based on water and saying that alcohol can't burn because it's a liquid. A machine and a person might both be able to say 'hello', but the machine was constructed by people who know what hello means, and the person knows what hello means because they were the ones who constructed the word. The word exists to serve their own agenda, not that of an alien programmer. > Anyway, allow me to rephrase the question. > > I assume from the underlined comment that you think that strong AI is > wrong, and that we will never be able to build a conscious computer. How do > you come to that conclusion? > I guess that I came to that conclusion by first trying to exhaust the other alternatives and then by coming up with a way to make sense of awareness as what I call Primordial Identity Pansensitivity. This means that physics and information are incomplete reflections within sense rather than producers of consciousness. Physics is sense experience that is alienated by entropy (spacetime) and information is sense experience which has been alienated by generalization (abstraction). Information cannot be pieced together to make an experience. No copy can be made into an original. This is not because of some special sentimental feeling about consciousness, it's rooted in an a careful consideration of the number of clues that we have about perceptual relativity, authenticity, uniqueness, polarity, multiplicity, automaticity, representation, impersonality, and significance. >> This is an even bigger deal if I am right about the universe being >> fundamentally a subdividing capacity for experience rather than a place or >> theater of interacting objects or forces. It means that we are not our >> body, rather a body is what someone else's lifetime looks like from inside >> of your lifetime. It's a token. The mechanisms of the brain do not produce >> awareness as a product, any more than these combinations of letter produce >> the thoughts I am communicating. What we see neurons doing is comparable to >> looking at a satellite picture of a city at night. We can learn a lot about >> what a city does, but nothing about who lives in the city. A city, like a >> human body, is a machine when you look at it from a distance, but what we >> see of a body or a city would be perfectly fine with no awareness happening >> at all. >> > > Insofar as I understand it, I agree with this. I often wonder "how a load > of atoms can have experiences" so to speak. This is the so-called hard > problem of AI. It is (I think) addressed by comp. > If I'm right, then comp cannot address the hard problem. If we try to make it seem to address it, I think that it would have no choice but to get it exactly wrong. Comp fails because of the symbol grounding problem and the pathetic fallacy. It should be evident from Incompleteness, that no symbol can literally symbolize anything, and that all mathematical systems can only relate to isolated specifics or universal tautologies. Math cannot live because it can't change. It doesn't care. It doesn't know where it's been or where it's going. Comp is only one footprint of the absolute - the generic vacuum which divides experiences from each other. It misses presentation entirely, and so can only be a representation of representation...as Baudrillard would say, a Stage Four Simulacra: "The fourth stage is pure simulation, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims..." This is why the Liars Paradox is not a paradox. These words are not literally meaningful. They require an interpreter who intends them to mean something that relates to their personal experience. To say "I am always lying." is not a paradox because all that can really be communicated is signs, not realities. "I am always lying" really means "Let us suppose that it is possible for someone to say that they are always lying." Every proposition is, from a realistic perspective, merely the proposition of a proposition. Truth cannot be communicated, it can only be understood. Communication can be used to help us understand truths, but it has no literal truth in it. We are all liars, since words are only words and not what we intend them to refer to. Thanks -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.