[Wittrs] Re: Consciousness in Three Lists
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:12:22 -0000
Stuart writes:
"This business about it being about the hardware is just another false trail of
yours (borrowed from PJ on Analytic since I don't believe you ever made the
point in our earlier discussions on Parr's list)."
I thought you were either retarded or playing a dubious game at Parr's list,
Stuart. That was six years ago. I haven't seen anything to contra-indicate
that either/or today.
So the business is about the software?
Earlier you said that hardware matters for complexity. The CR was underpecked
as you said.
Did you mean underspecked in terms of the complexity of the hardware or the
complexity of the software?
I always thought that the CR was equivalent to a UTM if one understood the
original strong AI thesis.
Even RUNNING PROGRAMS are formal--they don't even get started in playing the
game of what might cause and realize semantics and consciousness.
To think otherwise, you can go ahead and do a conflationary job with the upshot
that it is not someting Searle is arguing against. And here you have to
qualify the upshot by its being presented in a mode which suggests the
contrary. IOW, you are thinking of strong AI in a way which Searle isn't. But
sometimes it appears as if you want your formal programs and their causality in
1st-order terms too.
I think the reason you think distinguishing 1st and 2nd-order properties
pointless is because you are at every turn conflating them with the upshot that
you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Peter Jones at Analytic was
right to catch you harboring a position you were trying (unwittingly as it
turns out) to argue against.
I just happen to think Searle's cake pretty good too. What? No more left?
You Slob!! ;-)
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
