On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable assumptions to
>
> > be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, wherein it is assumed
> > that it mu
On 2/19/07, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You can't prove that a machine will be conscious in the same way you
> are.
> > There is good reason to believe that the third person observable
> behaviour
> > of the brain can
Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
>
> Hi Bruno:
>
> In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
>
> The first has to do with the process of making a list.
>
> The assumption is:
>
> Making a list of items [which could be some of
> the elements of a set for ex
Le 18-févr.-07, à 05:03, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
> http://www.capitolannex.com/IMAGES2/CHISUMMEMO.pdf
>
> What can you say?
This is frightening, but perhaps not so astonishing when you realize
that since about 1500 years the scientific method (the doubting
procedure mainly) is still
On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MP: Well at least I can say now that I have some inkling of what 'machine's
> theology' means. However, as far as I can see it is inherent in the nature
> of consciousness to reify something. I have not seen anywhere a refutation
> of my favoured u
Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit :
> My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
> assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis,
> wherein it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate
> some or all of a person's body/brain funct
Pls see after Jason's remark
John
- Original Message -
From: Jason
To: Everything List
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROT
Stathis (barging in to your post to Mark);
Your premis is redundant, a limited model (machine) cannot be (act, perform,
sense, react etc.) identical to the total it was cut out from. So you
cannot prove it either. As i GOT the difference lately, so I would use
'simulated' instead of 'emulated' if
Stathis:'Would any device that can create a representation of the world,
itself and the relationship between the world and itself be conscious?'
MP: Well that, in a nutshell, is how I understand it; with the proviso
that it is dynamic: that all representations of all salient features and
relati
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
> > > laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would
On Feb 19, 7:50 am, "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pls see after Jason's remark
> John
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Jason
> To: Everything List
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
>
> On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papa
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit :
>
> My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
> assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis,
> wherein it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate
>
Tom Caylor wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven (but really from you) an
>I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various
>reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the possibility
>that consciousness is substrate-dependent. Let's say that when you rub two
>carbon atoms together they have a scratchy experience, whereas when you ru
On 19 Feb, 18:48, "Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:50 am, "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Pls see after Jason's remark
> > John
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Jason
> > To: Everything List
> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
> > Subj
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, go
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
> > whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that
> > positivism is the right way of
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
> > > whole post (and previous ones). These q
Hi Bruno:
At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:
>Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
>
> >
> > Hi Bruno:
> >
> > In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
> >
> > The first has to do with the process of making a list.
> >
> > The assumption is:
> >
> > Making a
On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > These are positivist questions. Thi
20 matches
Mail list logo
