Now, *why* Turing-completness *wouldn't* be enough?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

Replace computer with clockwork and you'd have a better example to argue-- can a clockwork be made to think/feel??

And can a human? Sure, it's a very complicated machine, but what does it do that a Turing-complete machine with sufficient memory and processing speed cannot?

[Jeffr0]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

And can a human? Sure, it's a very complicated machine, but what does it do that a Turing-complete machine with sufficient memory and processing speed cannot?

Let's just pause here and point out something:

Under your worldview, everything is a machine. Biology... chemisty... space... time... it's all machinery.

This is the lynchpin of your world view.

This is your conviction.

This is your belief.

You are so very, very 19th century.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

Let's just pause here and point out something:

Under your worldview, everything is a machine. Biology... chemisty... space... time... it's all machinery.

This is the lynchpin of your world view.

This is your conviction.

This is your belief.

You are so very, very 19th century.

I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be criticism or some sort of in-joke I'm not aware of.

[Jeffr0]

Your conclusion is obvious to you only because you've pretty much assumed it in your world view. Your argument is simply this:

1) Everything is a machine.

THEREFORE

2) AI is possible

COROLLARY

3) There is nothing that humans can think/feel that machines cannot be made to do. There is no difference. Because humans are just complicated machines.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

Your conclusion is obvious to you only because you've pretty much assumed it in your world view. Your argument is simply this:

1) Everything is a machine.

THEREFORE

2) AI is possible

COROLLARY

3) There is nothing that humans can think/feel that machines cannot be made to do. There is no difference.

I'm asking what makes humans anything other than an organic Turing-complete machine for purposes of sapience. So far souls are the best argument I saw.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

1) Everything is a machine.

No; Everything is a mechanical process.

(Okay, so you can add: A "machine" is just a human construct which uses mechanical processes towards designed ends. Whatever. That means that the nature of "machines" is very different today to what it was 200 years ago, let alone 2,000, so the word tends to introduce confusion into discussions.)

If you're saying that not everything is a mechanical process, fair enough. Saying that it is might be called 19th century materialism, I guess, but for that matter saying that it isn't is just Bronze Age dualism. However, Transhuman Space is a pretty openly materialist-mechanistic setting, yeah.

[Jeffr0]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm asking what makes humans anything other than an organic Turing-complete machine for purposes of sapience.

Wait a minute.

Are you saying that you actually believe that humans are merely organic Turing-complete machines.

And that you can simply fold your arms... and smugly wait for someone to provide evidence to the contrary... when you provide no case or evidence for your own expansive, metaphysical claims...?

Wow.

(Are you really a person? Or are you a program created by SJG to help manage these boards...? Because frankly... only a machine could put forward such claims with a straight face!!)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

(Are you really a person? Or are you a program created by SJG to help manage these boards...? Because frankly... only a machine could put forward such claims with a straight face!!)

Does it matter? For all you care, I could be a figment of your imagination. When I visit SJGF, I interact with posts and opinions, not people. Are you implying that you are different?

(No, I'm not advocating solipsism. Solipsism supports the opinion that other minds are not 'real'. I'm simply indifferent.)

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

And that you can simply fold your arms... and smugly wait for someone to provide evidence to the contrary... when you provide no case or evidence for your own expansive, metaphysical claims...?

I considered the opinion to be widely-accepted. If it isn't, I'm pretty sure there will be enough posts that can express opinions to the contrary in an organized manner.

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

No; Everything is a mechanical process.

In the context of this thread, I'm using it as a shorthand for Turing-complete machine, which is a term that doesn't exactly care what it is made of.

[Jeffr0]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Does it matter? When I visit SJGF, I interact with posts and opinions, not people. Are you implying that you are different?

I'm clearly talking to a machine, then-- you seem to lack any trace of a sense of humor. (I thought I was pretty funny there. But then, I am the human being in this conversation.)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I considered the opinion to be widely-accepted.

Now you've gone from circular reasoning to argumentum ad populum.

That should be your second clue to the fact that you are a very zealous, close minded adherent to a strict religious code.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

I'm clearly talking to a machine, then-- you seem to lack any trace of a sense of humor. (I thought I was pretty funny there. But then, I am the human being in this conversation.)

It doesn't take a sense of humour to be funny. :)
Proper adherence to sarcastic and/or ironic phrasing is often quite sufficient.

Originally Posted by Jeffr0

Now you've gone from circular reasoning to argumentum ad populum.

That should be your second clue to the fact that you are a very zealous, close minded adherent to a strict religious code.

I hope you know, you just said several things that we're both going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. You know, for scientific exploration of this wonderful topic.