Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Peter Jones writes (quoting SP): > > >>> The constraints (a) and (b) you mention are ad hoc and an >>> unnecessary complication. Suppose Klingon computers change their >>> internal code every clock cycle according to the well-documented >>> radioactive decay pattern of a sacred stone 2000 years ago. If we >>> got our hands on one of these computers and monitored its >>> internal states it would seem completely random; but if we had >>> the Klingon manual, we would see that the computer was actually >>> multiplying two numbers, or implementing a Klingon AI, or >>> whatever. Would you say that these computations were not valid >>> because it's a dumb way to design a computer? >> >> I'd say that a defintion of "computer" that applies to everything >> is useless. > > > I agree, it's completely useless to *us* because we couldn't interact > with it. That would be the end of the matter unless we say that > computation can lead to consciousness, creating as it were its own > observer. Are you prepared to argue that the aforementioned Klingon > AI suddenly stops being conscious when the last copy of the manual > which would allow us to interact with it is destroyed?
If it's intelligent we should be able to interact with it without a manual. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
