On 19 May 2014, at 20:40, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote:
His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that
problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to
make a conscious machine and what are the advantages or
disadvantages of doing so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and
do induction is conscious, which might be testable - but I think it
would fail. I think that might be necessary for consciousness, but
for a machine to appear conscious it must be intelligent and it must
be able to act so as to convince us that it's intelligent.
That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism -
No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think "assuming primary
materialism" is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics
of. Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working
hypothesis; but nobody tries to even define "primary matter" they
just look to see if another layer will be a better layer of physics
or not.
But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics->psychology is
assumed, and that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So
it's not just a matter of "another layer".
Well yes, but if Brent's illustration reflects the actual thinking,
Bruno's position is logically unviable.
What do you mean by "actual thinking". Why would it makes comp
unviable? I have no public position (needed to grasp my reasoning). I
have only a reasoning, and a translation of that reasoning
understandable (in some technical sense) by all Löbian machines.
Bruno
Because although physics-->psychology is assumed..that word
'assumed' sits in a special case tense. It means 'for practical
purposes' and does not mean 'we know what's fundamental and it's
matter so we totally reject the possibility maths or concepts or
sexy fantasies are actually what's fundamental'
So it's a resolvable situation. For Bruno to take his stance, it has
to be the case what Brent says is fundamentally wrong and a brutal
dogma of 'knowing what we can't know' grips science in iron fist.
I don't think anything like that stands up. All the major scientists
wont to nurse a public profile or top up the pension with a popular
science book are very clear on this matter.
--
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/d/optout.
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 [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/d/optout.
