From: Matt Mahoney (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 30 2009 - 19:09:19 MST
Perhaps this discussion would be less of a shouting match if Matt Paul could define precisely this thing that he thinks exists but isn't a soul.
-- Matt Mahoney, email@example.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Paul <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 5:36:06 PM
Subject: Re: [sl4] Re: goals of AI
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:35 PM, "John K Clark" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> You are stuck on this damn soul thing. It's aggravating.
> The truth can be painful.
>> I don't know why you insist that everyone is stuck in some sort of
>> medival way of thinking.
> You're talking about something that the scientific method cannot detect
> that is nevertheless of enormous importance, just like the soul.
Why do you assume that the scientific method cannot detect it just because it hasn't so far. I'm not talking about something immortal like the soul you speak of. It probably isn't unique either, but you can't duplicate it until you find it. Until you find it so you can duplicate it, you will not be duplicating human intelligence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT