Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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.
I am aware of some of those other sources for the idea: nevertheless,
they are all nonsense for the same reason. I especially single out
Searle: his writings on this subject are virtually worthless. I have
argued with Searle to his face, and I have talked with others
(Hofstadter, for example) who have also done so, and the consensus among
these people is that his arguments are built on confusion.
(And besides, I don't stop thinking just because others have expressed
their view of an idea: I use my own mind, and if I can come up with an
argument against the idea, I prefer to use that rather than defer to
authority. ;-) )
But going back to the question at issue: this "coincidence" is a
coincidence that happens in a thought experiment. If someone constructs
a thought experiment in which they allow such things as computers of
quasi-infinite size, they can make anything happen, including ridiculous
coincidences!
If you set the thought experiment up so that there is enough room for a
meaningless coincidence to occur within the thought experiment, then
what you have is *still* just a meaningless coincidence.
I don't think I can put it any plainer than that.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
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
