Hi Colin,
I'm having a read through your paper now, and have a few comments to
keep the juices of debate flowing on this list.
Firstly, I'd like to say well done - you have written a very clear
paper in what is a very murky subject.
I have two comments right now - but I haven't finished, so
On 14 Jun 2011, at 21:19, Terren Suydam wrote:
Thanks for the reply Bruno, comments below...
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
doesn't that imply the possibility
of an artificial intelligence?
In a weak sense of Artificial Intelligence, yes. In a
On 6/15/2011 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Doesn't this objection only apply to attempts to construct an AI with
human-equivalent intelligence? As a counter example I'm thinking here
of Ben Goertzel's OpenCog, an attempt at artificial general
intelligence (AGI), whose design is informed by a
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
We just cannot do artificial intelligence in a provable manner. We
need chance, or luck. Even if we get some intelligent machine, we will
not know-it-for sure (perhaps just believe it correctly).
But this is a quite weak statement, isn't it? It just
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed)
universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even
maximally conscious.
What could maximally conscious mean? My intuition says quite strongly that
consciousness is a
Dear Brent,
let me cut in with your last par:
*...There is a tendency to talk about human-equivalent intelligence or
human level intelligence as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved
to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining,
deduction,... There's no reason to
Bruno,
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed) universal
(and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even maximally
conscious.
This sounds like a comp variant of panpsychism (platopsychism?)... in
which consciousness is axiomatically proposed as a
7 matches
Mail list logo
