Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Don't Get It

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on December 14, 2001 20:33:52 UTC


But I'm not the one with the burden of proof. The strong AI position is the one with the burden of proof. It is saying that we can do something and I am saying not so fast this is not how computer science currently works.

Dick's argument is completely off the wall solipsism (or something related to it). I am not in the required position to prove that strong AI cannot be done, I only need to offer evidence as to why it is not something that we can assume. I did this with Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment and no one has refuted it. Dick's argument has no merit whatsoever (i.e., that my mental model or whatever he calls it is based on religious concepts - or something to that effect).

Personally I think the strong AI thesis is possible, but I won't accept the argument that the more complex systems are the more intentional they become. That argument doesn't hold any water as far as I can tell (at least I haven't heard anything convincing in that direction).

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins