Skorgu's point is very valid.
Do you believe in some 'spark' [...]?
T.H.: "I believe these things are possible, and one day we will try them and see."
T.H.: "We're gonna have uploading technology Real Soon Now and if you don't believe me, you're either really stupid or some kind of religious nut (or both)."
so Vista won't run quickly on a Turing machine. So what?
Crabby Appleton: In other words, I suspect that in order to accurately simulate a brain (or anything else of any size) at the sub-atomic level, one would have to do what the universe itself is doing.
You're looking at the wrong abstraction level, I think.
Crabby: If you're saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?" Fine. You were talking about pseudo-random numbers being useless here? References or gtfo.
Comparing the Singularity to Fundamentalist dogma is kind of offputting.
One side encourages examination & informed criticism.
It's easy to do uninformed criticism. Just point out your lack of a robot friend.
If you'd like to lay out succinctly the arguments you find so compelling to label AI "fanciful" I'll cheerfully address them one by one, your labeling of my arguments "hand waving" notwithstanding.
[...] you're making an equally unsupported assertion: that human consciousness is not reducible to a finite state machine.
« Older First it was Blake's 7, now another Terry Nation c... | The Speculum theologiae... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt