|
Philosophy Corner: Ontology | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 06:51:21 |
|
A self-evidential event of the subjective ego | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:26:49 |
|
Would be Descartes-esque. | by krikkert | 2009-08-24 07:33:06 |
|
Actually, I was thinking more of conditions that | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:38:07 |
|
As with anything like this, we need a framework... | by jdelphiki | 2009-08-24 08:02:09 |
|
How about "adaptive behavior"? | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 08:30:22 |
|
That's an interesting approach. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 08:34:59 |
|
Perhaps it does | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:26:36 |
|
How would you be able to tell | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:33:52 |
|
No, an external test is sufficient | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:47:07 |
|
I'm not as sure as you seem to be | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:59:26 |
|
Most programs are written deliberately to assist | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 10:47:04 |
|
You can determine whether another person | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 10:51:07 |
|
How is it absent? | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 11:16:26 |
|
I'm wondering if things like | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 11:28:16 |
|
But, again, would a conversation with a strong AI | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 11:52:24 |
| One difference between |
by MatthewDBA |
2009-08-24 12:28:51 |
| a conversation with a strong AI and a conversation on this forum is that it's taken as a given that none of the posts are originated from within the forum - they're from outside, displayed in the forum. You might have an argument if the AI *were* posting on UF; but if the conversation is with the AI using no intermediary, then, it seems to me, the human would be much more likely to identify the originator as "just a machine" and therefore not intelligent. There's a lot more similarity between a human and a horse than between a human and a computer - at least, as most people are accustomed to thinking of a computer. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Yes, but, by market statistics, most people | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:11:20 |
