On 19/02/2008, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, but I do not think your conclusion even remotely follows from the > premises. > > But beyond that, the basic reason that this line of argument is > nonsensical is that Lanier's thought experiment was rigged in such a way > that a coincidence was engineered into existence. > > Nothing whatever can be deduced from an argument in which you set things > up so that a coincidence must happen! It is just a meaningless > coincidence that a computer can in theory be set up to be (a) conscious > and (b) have a lower level of its architecture be isomorphic to a rainstorm.
I don't see how the fact something happens by coincidence is by itself a problem. Evolution, for example, works by means of random genetic mutations some of which just happen to result in a phenotype better suited to its environment. By the way, Lanier's idea is not original. Hilary Putnam, John Searle, Tim Maudlin, Greg Egan, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers (see the paper cited by Kaj Sotola in the original thread - http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) have all considered variations on the theme. At the very least, this should indicate that the idea cannot be dismissed as just obviously ridiculous and unworthy of careful thought. -- Stathis Papaioannou ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
