From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 02 2004 - 19:15:50 MST
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:42:50 -0500
Randall Randall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> While one can argue that the haphazard design of human
> >> brains makes them susceptible to errors at high complexity
> >> that generic intelligences need not exhibit, the reverse
> >> is also a possibility. That is, it might be that the
> >> structures required for anything we'd recognize as a
> >> person are necessarily limited in complexity.
> > That is not precisely the reverse. What we recognize as a person is a
> > very different discussion from what is the limit of our possible
> > intelligence which is a very different discusion from what is the
> > limit of intelligence universally.
> I'm much less interested in intelligence without personhood,
> since that seems to equate to raw computing power. Useful,
> but not in the same class.
Huh? I didn't mention "intelligence without personhood". I am curious why you went there. Ah, I see. You seem to have jumped from what we recognize as a person to sentient being as such. That is a bit of a leap. What we would recognize as a person is more obviously bound by our own limitations than bound by the limitations of the sentient entity being considered. I would suspect there are levels of intelligence so far beyond our current abilities that we would have a difficult time seeing them as a "person". But this doesn't at all mean such a being is just a mass of raw computing power.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT