On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:22:21 -0700, Jim Balter <jqb at sandpiper.com>
wrote:
>Wim Van Dijck wrote:
>> I once heard a quite strond argument during some introductory AI
>> classes: computer hardware (neural nets not included) work in
>> algoritms. Conscious minds, such as ours, use procedures (or whatever
>> you want to call it) that are not algoritm based. Computers CAN only
>> use algoritms (at least nowadays) so based on this principle, a
>> computer will never gain consciousness, no matter how big or fast it
>> is.
>>If this is a strong argument, I hate to think what a weak one would be.
>This "argument" fails to support the critical claim that conscious
>minds are not algorithm-based and fails to show that algorithm-based
>methods cannot achieve something achieved in some other way.
>It even contains its own refutation: neural nets are commonly simulated.
>
I am aware of the fact that I didn't give background for this
argument. I am indeed to blaim for not looking this up.
I was mainly interested how this argument would be responded to,
since I am not very sure about all this myself yet.
I have already read some interesting responses, though.
BTW, I left out neural nets on purpose. I don't feel informed enough
about them to start discussing about that too, although it is my wish
to be so in the future.
>OTOH, "computer hardware" includes things like photosensors
>that perform important functions that their simulations don't.
>This is not very clear to me. Could you be a bit more specific?
In this world, all you need is honesty and sincerity.
If you can fake those two, you're set for life.
---- Groucho Marx
