From: Toby Weston (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 05 2009 - 15:46:31 MST
Sorry if my posts don't clearly show who wrote what - partly me being sloppy, partly my mail client.
On 5 Mar 2009, at 23:13, Toby Weston <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2009, at 18:56, "John K Clark" <email@example.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 "Toby Weston"
What is required for an AI to be conscious?
I did not write that.
That it be intelligent. That is the strategy that Evolution took and it
successfully produced at least one conscious being, probably more.
A super inteligent, but not conscious, AI […..]
If you believe that is possible then I can only conclude that you do not
believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
People can atribute consciousness to inanimate objects like cars or teddies or volcanos. I think a complicated machine could fool people but still be inanimate and not self aware. Are you saying that anything that acts clever enough to <insert test here> is conscious?
I think you are saying: algorithmic complexity = inteligence = consciosness.
This is certainly one hypothosis.
John K Clark
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 23 2013 - 04:01:42 MDT