From: Chris Capel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 12 2006 - 08:17:30 MDT
On 5/12/06, David Picon Alvarez <email@example.com> wrote:
> > If what we mean by the word Singularity is the creation of
> > smarter-than-human intelligence, then I'd say that no-one who argues
> > that such an event is very unlikely can possibly be a top thinker :P
> > (Unless s/he is very poorly informed of a number of topics, or lying
> > about his/her real assessment of the situation for political reasons.)
> I think Penrose is the one here. I think Searle might be considered a top
> thinker by some people, but his Chinese room argument seems dishonest.
As far as I know, Searle doesn't deny that AGI is possible and maybe
practical, or that it will have dramatic effects when created. His
argument realy only pertains to consciousness, and the hard problem
thereof. I could be wrong.
-- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT