Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2012, at 00:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote: OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no random oracle is available? I would have thought so. OK.

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe seems rather obvious. I don't think anything is obvious here. What do you mean by a subjective universe? Do you mean that we are dreaming? What is your

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2012, at 06:33, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The choice of the initial universal system does not matter. Of course it does matter epistemologically. If you choose a quantum computing system as initial system,

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2012, at 07:26, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Roger, I will interleave some remarks. On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

2012-08-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:33:48AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: That which exists is fundamentally unknowable, and probably not sensible disucssed, hence I prefer to stick with more neutral labels like syntactic level. I disagree with this. With comp we know that the fundamental reality is

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

2012-08-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:51:54AM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote are you really claiming that roulette wheels are conscious? I can't prove it or the opposite proposition but personally I feel that it's unlikely

How can there be a subjective universe ?

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
How can there be a subjective universe ? This question can be answered by the use of Leibniz's Monadology: See http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm for that. I have no idea why it is on a Marxist website, for it aims to do away with materialism. Monads

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote: Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body? Why would that be considered non-free? In what sense would the choice be mine if it is random? It is like letting someone else take the decision for you. I really don't see how

qualitative recognition

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Brian Tenneson IMHO computers cannot be conscious, or have intuition, since these require the ability to sense and handle qualitative signals-such as seeing colors as colors, not light frequencies- I'm not even sure you could call that information, perhaps recognition would be a better

Re: Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal BRUNO: This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be created itself? ROGER: A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be able to see the future, only intuition and other abilities might do that. So it could not create itself. BRUNO: I argue

Peirce on subjectivity

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal I'm way out of touch here. What is comp ? I don't think you can have a symbolic theory of subjectivity, for theories are contructed in symbols, and subjectivity is awareness of the symbols and hopefully what they mean. CS Peirce differentiates the triadic connections

Re: qualitative recognition

2012-08-14 Thread Alberto G. Corona
I think the Qualia is the philosophical term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia Steven Pinker at the end of his book how the mind works recognizes that all the brain functional modules explained in the book say nothing about the qualia. It says that we can not understand this mystery in the

Epistemology of Peirce and of Mandarin Chinese

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Brian, IMHO machines can compare things, but only quantitatively. Thus meaning cannot be handled. In Peirces' philosophy of categories (which is really an epistemology) comparison is not just quantitative but qualitative, for the comparison is triadic, that is, between a) an object with

on tribes

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal I think that your soul is your identity in the form of point of view. As we grow up we begin to define or find ourselves not out of any great insight but pragmatically, out of choosing what tribe we belong to. We define ourselves socially and culturally. We wear their indian

On Platonism

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal Guitar Cowboy describes my own limited-ability process of composing music. I decide on what audience and what mood, and the rest - at least the melody-- just pops into my head. Or not. If it hasn't come within a few minutes, you can't force things. Mozart, if you look at his

Re: Re: qualitative recognition

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Alberto G. Corona Yes, qualia are the qualitative aspects of an experience, meaning as perceived, such as the redness of an apple. The apple only appears red to us. Dogs or some other animals cannot see red, so it would appear perhaps gray to them. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012

self-determination

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Intelligent means subjectively determined, that is, determined all on our own, autonomously, not by some computer program. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12,

Is matter real ?

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Jason Resch Personally I believe that the physical universe out there is physical, in the traditional sense of the word, and can be characterized for example by physical experiment. So science is fine, as far as it goes. But what we experience of the physical universe is a psychological or

Re: How can there be a subjective universe ?

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
No problem, Roger. You are coherent: you seem to believe in substantial (primitive) matter, and in non-comp. Personally I am not sure about that. What I am pretty sure of, still, is that we can't have both primitive matter and mechanism to be true together. Of course, as a logician, I

Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi John Clark 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, all they can know are 0s and 1s. 2) One can use methods such as statistics to infer something in a practical or logical sense, eg if a bottle of wine has a french label one can infer that it might well

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2012, at 13:36, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal BRUNO: This musical score, does it require work of some kind to be created itself? ? I did not write this. ROGER: A Turing Machine (tapes with holes in them) would not be able to see the future, only intuition and other

Earthquakes

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz' best possible world is a conjecture based on L's two worlds of logic: 1) There is logic that is either always true or false, called the logic of reason or necessity. One could call this theory 2) The logic of contingency, also called the logic of fact,

Re: Peirce on subjectivity

2012-08-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Aug 2012, at 14:00, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I'm way out of touch here. What is comp ? Roughly speaking comp is the idea that we can survive with a computer for a brain, like we already believe that we can survive with a pump in place of a heart. This is the position of the

RE: Peirce on subjectivity

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
Roger and Bruno: Peirce’s philosophy is the strong basis for semiotic theory. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:00 AM To: everything-list Subject: Peirce on subjectivity Hi

The categories of subject, object, physical, nonphysical, nonlocal

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi William R. Buckley Hwere's how I see it: 1. The object is the object of a subject, so is mostly a grammatical term. 2. The subject is the observer or doer and so is grammatical term. 3 The object can be either physical (such as metter) where it has extension in space or nonphysical

Re: Is matter real ?

2012-08-14 Thread Jason Resch
Hi Roger, When I used the term universal system, I meant it in the sense of Turing universality ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_universality ). It is universal in the same sense of the word as a universal remote. A Turing universal system is one that can be used to define/emulate

Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model

2012-08-14 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, all they can know are 0s and 1s. This statement suggests to me that you are not familiar with the levels of abstraction that are

Intelligence is the ability to make deliberate free choices.

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO Intelligence is the ability to make deliberate free choices. One could lie if one chose to. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 05:24:48 Subject: Re:

On the subconscious

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO One way of describing the subconscious might be along Freudian lines. The context of a conscious thought, as in peripheral vision, just out of focus. As in dreams, this context might be in the form of a fuzzy myth, an unclear story, say as presented by a fortune-teller.

Re: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers inAIordescribing life

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal You say, a non living computer can supported a living self-developing life form Do you mean support instead of supported ? Or what do you mean ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list

Is the Turing machine like a tabla rasa ?

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal What is it that Locke and Hume claimed ? That we can think nothing that did not come through our senses, that is, from experience. But Turing machines cannot experience life. They can only experience 0s and 1s. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the

The intuitions of time and space

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal As I recall, Kant did not use time and space as logical categories of thought because time and space are intuited before logic. And Leibniz similarly did not assign monads to them for similar reasons. Thus monadic space has no where or when. Just what. In some sense it would

Apperception or self-awarewess

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal For what it's worth, Leibniz differentiated between ordinary perception (which would include sentience or awareness) and self-awareness, which he called apperception. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal

Re: Re: A possible solution to the incomputability of experience

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal Penrose's noncomputability argument is based on Godel's theorem, which along these lines, IMHO also makes rational thinking leaky. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time:

Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead

2012-08-14 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: But he[me] agrees and even proposes a compatibilist definition [of free will] I'll let him speak to that, but its not the impression I get. All I said was that the only definition of free will that is not

Imprisoned by language (code)

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal Well, I feel like Daniel must have felt when before the Giant. And I can't even find a rock to sling. Nevertheless, as I see it, computers are imprisoned by language (computer code). Like our social selves. But like Kierkegaard, I believe that ultimate truth is subjective

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote: Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...] Turing's entire reason for inventing what we now call a Turing Machine was to prove that computational omniscience is NOT possible. He rigorously

any novel features the center of narrative gravity.

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal Dennet refers to the self as the center of narrative gravity. But if I were reading a novel, the protagonist, not my self, would be the center of narrative gravity. His pains would be my pains, his joys, my joys. At least, that's what happens to me when I read a novel, and

Re: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated!

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Bruno Marchal Memory may be physical, but the experience of memory is not physical. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 12:00:54 Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result

Intelligence vs AI

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi There is Intelligence (which requires a self to decide things) and there is AI, which does not use a self. In AI, the lights are on, but nobody's home. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver:

life and governance

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Unless it is drunk, life must have governance, which means it needs intelligence as a governor. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 04:05:20 Subject: Re:

Anything internally governed must have an intelligence to govern it.

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Anything internally governed must have an intelligence to govern it. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 02:51:22 Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence

Misusing Descartes' model

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Jason Resch You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two completely different substances-- mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to understand. And it was also easy to follow Newton, because bodies acted as if they transferred energy or momentum. In

Re: Re: Leibniz on the unconscious

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Jason Resch I realize that animals can think to some extent, I was just using Leibniz' simplified model. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 18:23:30 Subject: Re: Leibniz on the

On the necessity of monads for perception

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Jason Resch No, the artificial man does not have a conscious self (subjectivity) to experience (to feel) the world. You could show a movie of happenings in his mind, but there'd be nobody there to watch it. Only a monad can do that. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 -

Re: Re: The prison of language and the meanings of words

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi John Clark Good one. Another version is said to have been made by St. Theresa, who said to God, regarding His failure to heal her sickness, No wonder you have so few friends ! Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver:

Re: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI ordescribing life

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Russell Standish Another definition of life (Aristotle's) is that life is anything that is self-activated. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 05:38:16 Subject: Re:

Re: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI ordescribing life

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi Russell Standish Anything self-activated (life) needs intelligence to decide what to do next. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 01:18:27 Subject: Re: Definitions of

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/14 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com wrote: Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...] Turing's entire reason for inventing what we now call a Turing Machine was to prove that

Re: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ?

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi meekerdb Excellent point. My only answer is that the self or agent has to be a monad. because only monads can perceive (although indirectly). Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11,

A rat brain robot

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi meekerdb No, except in case anyone's interested, there is a hybrid, which might have a future, the Rat Brain Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list

Re: Re: Leibniz on the unconscious

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi meekerdb Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 18:14:45 Subject: Re: Leibniz on the

Re: Re: Positivism and intelligence

2012-08-14 Thread Roger
Hi meekerdb You're right, random shapes do not show evidence of intelligence. But the carbon atom, being highly unlikely, does. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm... well the halting problem is that there is no *general* algorithm to decide wether or not a given program will stop Yes. it doesn't state that there is no algorithm that can determine if a particular program

Re: On the necessity of monads for perception

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
On 8/14/2012 10:22 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Jason Resch No, the artificial man does not have a conscious self (subjectivity) to experience (to feel) the world. And you know this how? You could show a movie of happenings in his mind, but there'd be nobody there to watch it. I don't think you

RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
John: Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience versus universality, the Turing machine can compute all computable computations, and this simply by virtue of its construction. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ?

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
Oh. Monads. Well I'm glad we didn't leave the explanation in terms of something poorly understood like 'agency'. Brent On 8/14/2012 10:34 AM, Roger wrote: Hi meekerdb Excellent point. My only answer is that the self or agent has to be a monad. because only monads can perceive (although

Re: A rat brain robot

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
On 8/14/2012 10:38 AM, Roger wrote: Hi meekerdb No, Why not? except in case anyone's interested, there is a hybrid, which might have a future, the Rat Brain Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPiF4-iu6g So the neurons of a rat's brain can constitute a mind, but computer chips with the

Re: Leibniz on the unconscious

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
On 8/14/2012 10:42 AM, Roger wrote: Hi meekerdb Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. And I'd say why can't everything just function by itself? If God is just a placeholder word for whatever it is that makes things work it doesn't add

Re: pre-established harmony

2012-08-14 Thread Stephen P. King
Dear Roger, It was not Bruno that wrote what you are attributing to him below. It was me. I think that he might appreciate that you make attributions correctly. Let me fix the attributions. On 8/14/2012 7:36 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Stephen P. King: This musical score, does

Re: Earthquakes

2012-08-14 Thread Stephen P. King
On 8/14/2012 10:45 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz' best possible world is a conjecture based on L's two worlds of logic: 1) There is logic that is either always true or false, called the logic of reason or necessity. One could call this theory 2) The logic of contingency, also

RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
I think the limitation is better expressed as, Halting problem - no one arbitrary algorithm can decide whether or not another arbitrary algorithm will halt. There are some cases, typically one to one, or one to some small and well defined set, where decidability is satisfied. There is

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote: John: Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience versus universality, the Turing machine can compute all computable computations, and this simply by virtue of its construction. wrb John is right -

Re: Earthquakes

2012-08-14 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/14/2012 10:45 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz' best possible world is a conjecture based on L's two worlds of logic: 1) There is logic that is either always true or false, called the logic of

Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model

2012-08-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:01:41 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Roger, You say computers are quantitative instruments which cannot have a self or feelings, but might you be attributing things at the wrong level? For example, a computer can simulate some particle interactions, a sufficiently

Re: A rat brain robot

2012-08-14 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:25:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: So the neurons of a rat's brain can constitute a mind, but computer chips with the same functionality can't? Brent It's begging the question to say the computer chips have 'the same functionality' as a rat's brain and then

RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
Dear Russell: When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice. wrb -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent:

Re: Earthquakes

2012-08-14 Thread Stephen P. King
On 8/14/2012 7:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/14/2012 10:45 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz' best possible world is a conjecture based on L's two worlds of

Re: A rat brain robot

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
On 8/14/2012 6:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:25:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: So the neurons of a rat's brain can constitute a mind, but computer chips with the same functionality can't? Brent It's begging the question to say the computer chips have

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: Dear Russell: When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice. Every machine that built itself was not built by Russell. Brent -- You received this message because

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread Brian Tenneson
John Russell and Katharine Russell might not agree. On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: Dear Russell: When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not its replicant but itself, then I will

RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
I have done exactly as I challenged Russell. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brian Tenneson Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:26 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible John Russell and

Re: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread meekerdb
On 8/14/2012 8:35 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: I have done exactly as I challenged Russell. That you built a machine that built itself would imply that you built yourself. Which implies you arose from nothing, otherwise there would have been a prior part of you which you didn't build.

Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model

2012-08-14 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:01:41 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Roger, You say computers are quantitative instruments which cannot have a self or feelings, but might you be attributing things at the wrong level? For

RE: Why AI is impossible

2012-08-14 Thread William R. Buckley
Ah, someone sharp enough to see the crux of the biscuit. The machine has the interesting property that it can begin its behavior with very much less than one half of itself still not constructed, and yet it can with this small portion construct the remainder of its configuration.