From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sat Mar 27 1999 - 18:14:01 MST
hal@rain.org wrote:
>
> A. It is a matter of interpretation whether a given system can be
> described as a computer running a specified program P
>
> B. Any conscious entity can be created ("instantiated") by running the
> proper program
>
> C. It is an objective matter whether a given conscious entity exists
This is one of the best summations of the dilemna I've ever seen.
I should note that one of the reasons I choose to deny B is because I
feel that the "spirit" of physical law strongly differs from the
"spirit" of Turing computability, and I imagine that physical law will
eventually be found to be noncomputable.
Examples would be quantum randomness and the lack of a space of simultaneity.
Given that the physical Universe is probably noncomputable, why *should*
I believe B, when it seems not to fit A and C? I've seen no
counterexample of A and have no strong reason to doubt C.
But show me an objective way to define "instantiation" (that I can't
poke three dozen holes in), and I'll certainly have to rethink my position.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/singul_arity.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:24 MST