On 17 Jan 2014, at 03:11, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 14:17, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Historically, AI researchers did not consider the question of whether
a computer that behaves intelligently was conscious, on the assumption
that intelligence was observable while consciousness was not and
therefore not a fit subject for scientists.
Hence the Turing test.
Ah! Gosh, if you do all the work, I might as well take some holiday,
except that what I like the most in Holiday is to chat with you! I am
stuck in a paradox!
This makes it a bit
confusing when terms such as strong AI/ weak AI are appropriated by
philosophers such as Searle.
Yes, I was finding it a bit confusing, especially since the first
thing I got on to was Searle's "Strong AI hypothesis" !
Searle fight strongly against Strong AI, and comp. But he mixes the
level of descriptions. It is a case closed, imo, by Hofstadter and
Dennett in "Mind's I" (the book the closer to comp's consequence, but
which still misses the FPI and its importance. Dennett get close
though). Searle confuse levels, in the chinese room.
Bruno
--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
