to be real.
Candice
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:11:04 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
[singularity] John Searle... To: singularity@v2.listbox.com --- candice
schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In all of my previous posts, most of
them anyhow I have mentioned consciousness, today
-0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity] John Searle...
candice schuster wrote:
Richard,
Thank you for a thought provoking response. I admire your ability to
think with both logic and reason. I think what Searle was trying to
get
Pardon me for butting in and apologies if I've missed some crucial point or
complex idea but having dug up a synopsis of John Searles argument:
A man is in a room with a book of rules. Chinese sentences are passed under
the door to him. The man looks up in his book of rules how to process the
On 26/10/2007, Allen Majorovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that Mr. Searles is suggesting that because some people
(intelligences) are cooks, i.e. work from a set of rules they don't
understand, this somehow proves that chemists, i.e. people who *do*
understand the set of rules,
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:02:35 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: singularity@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [singularity] John Searle...
candice schuster wrote:
Richard,
...
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options
Charles D Hixson wrote:
Richard Loosemore wrote:
candice schuster wrote:
Richard,
Your responses to me seem to go in round abouts. No insult intended
however.
You say the AI will in fact reach full consciousness. How on earth
would that ever be possible ?
I think I recently (last
I noticed in a later read that you differentiate between systems
designed to operate via goal stacks and those operating via motivational
system. This is not the meaning of goal that I was using.
To me, if a motive is a theory to prove, then a goal is a lemma needed
to prove the theory. I
Charles D Hixson wrote:
I noticed in a later read that you differentiate between systems
designed to operate via goal stacks and those operating via motivational
system. This is not the meaning of goal that I was using.
To me, if a motive is a theory to prove, then a goal is a lemma needed
to avoid the confusion caused by brief glimpses of the
larger picture].Richard LoosemoreCandice
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:02:35 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re: [singularity] John Searle...
candice schuster wrote:Richard
On 10/25/07, candice schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what Searle was trying to get at was
this...and I have read 'The Chinese Room Theory'...I think that what he was
trying to say was...if the human brain breaks down code like a machine does,
that does not make it understand the logic
Kaj Sotala wrote:
On 10/25/07, candice schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what Searle was trying to get at was
this...and I have read 'The Chinese Room Theory'...I think that what he was
trying to say was...if the human brain breaks down code like a machine does,
that does not make it
candice schuster wrote:
Richard,
Thank you for a thought provoking response. I admire your ability to
think with both logic and reason. I think what Searle was trying to get
at was this...and I have read 'The Chinese Room Theory'...I think that
what he was trying to say was...if the human
--- candice schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In all of my previous posts, most of them anyhow I have mentioned
consciousness, today I found myself reading some of John Searle's theories,
he poses exactly the same type of question...The reason computers can't do
semantics is because semantics
13 matches
Mail list logo
