Le 26-août-06, à 14:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> > Peter Jones writes: > >>>> That doesn't follow. Comutationalists don't >>>> have to believe any old programme is conscious. >>>> It might be the case that only an indeterministic >>>> one will do. A deterministic programme could >>>> be exposed as a programme in a Turing Test. >>> >>> Then you're saying something strange and non-physical happens to >>> explain >>> why a program is conscious on the first run when it passes the >>> Turing test >>> but not on the second run when it deterministically repeats all the >>> physical states >>> of the first run in response to a recording of your keystrokes from >>> the first run. >> >> It was never conscious, and if anyonw concludede it was on >> the first run, they were mistaken. The TT is a rule-of-thumb for >> detecting, >> it does not magically endow consciousness. > > Are you suggesting that of two very similar programs, one containing a > true random > number generator and the other a pseudorandom number generator, only > the former > could possibly be conscious? I suppose it is possible, but I see no > reason to believe > that it is true. It *has* been proved (by diagonalization) that there exist some problem in number theory which are soluble by a machine using a random oracle, although no machine with pseudorandom oracle can sole the problem. KURTZ S. A., 1983, On the Random Oracle Hypothesis, Information and Control, 57, pp. 40-47. But it is not relevant given that self-duplication is already a way to emulate true random oracle. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
