Re: Guessing?

On Jul 12, 12:18 pm, paul c <toledoby..._at_ac.ooyah> wrote:
> David BL wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 9:27 am, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Lately I have developed an allergic reaction to various ideas
> >> asserting
> >> that brains are somehow magical and mystical, and thought is
> >> something that we not only can't currently explain computationally,
> >> but never will be able to explain computationally. It's just bullshit.
>
> >> Earlier you mentioned "What Computers Still Can't Do."
>
> >> Reading for example this:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Computers_Can%27t_Do
>
> >> I see no argument that doesn't amuse me with its lameness.
>
> > I find the strong AI hypothesis interesting - ie the question of
> > whether it is possible in principle for a computer to be conscious or
> > self aware.
>
> > I agree that some of the arguments against strong AI are very lame.
> > For example Searle says a simulation of mind is not the same thing as
> > mind in the same way that a simulation of a hurricane is not the same
> > thing as a hurricane.   But if mind is computation, isn't a simulation
> > of a computation just an isomorphic computation?
>
> > My guess is that the strong AI hypothesis is true but the
> > repercussions are quite astounding.  If mind is computable then it
> > follows that there exists Turing Machines representing worlds with
> > self aware substructures (SASs) as complex as ourselves.   Presumably
> > many SASs would be tricked into believing in a distinction between
> > platonic existence and their apparent physical existence.   By
> > application of Occam's Razor I would argue that the (mystical)
> > postulate of our own physical existence should be dropped in favour of
> > a less presumptuous platonic existence.   That's ironic because most
> > people would say belief in physical existence is less mystical than
> > belief in platonic existence - but each to their own!
>
> > The best argument against strong AI that I've seen is the White Rabbit
> > Paradox, which basically says that if we are merely computation, in
> > the multiverse of all possible mathematical realities or computations
> > why don't we see bizarre things happen like white rabbits appear out
> > of nowhere.  However there is a possible resolution based on
> > "probability" (or measure) theories on infinite ensembles.   However
> > to really be taken seriously the researchers in this area need to
> > explain our laws of physics.  I do find their simplified explanations
> > of some of the bizarre features of Quantum Mechanics interesting - the
> > Many Worlds Interpretation of QM seems a natural fit with the ultimate
> > ensemble theory.   However I'm not sure whether they even have an
> > explanation of why Hilbert spaces over complex numbers are so
> > important.
>
> > Anyway I don't think there has been any compelling argument either for
> > or against strong AI.
>
> I'd just like to know this:  if what you call strong AI is possible and
> it happened, how would we know?  how could we be sure we know?  (don't
> mean to sound like Joe C and Donald R, can't help it.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's a good question that I've wondered about myself. Is the strong AI hypothesis subject to science? Received on Sat Jul 12 2008 - 07:09:46 CEST