Re: Challenge to Curt

Alpha wrote:
"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0vRGj.116302$nw4.2148@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alpha wrote:
"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Just out of interest, which AI researchers do you know of who
you think share your views in this area. [...]

And as for views on physics (since you pointed out Penrose below),
Bohm, those that consider the Copenhagen interpretation as the
accepted or received interpretation through the decades, Wheeler,
Stapp etc. are interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation is pure materialism,
as is Wheeler's.

Stapp and the Copenhagen interpretation are instances of the
"Mind Projection Fallacy" - and are totally ridiculous.

So says a naive onlooker that takes what Wiki says as gospel.

I can point you at plenty of detailed critiques of
the Copenhagen interpretation, if you are interested.

As is Evan Thompson, Chalmers and like-minded individuals.
Evan Thompson is a "philosopher interested in neuroscience".

With opinions and theories that affect approaches to AI.

Chalmers could be this guy: http://consc.net/chalmers/ -
"Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Centre for Consciousness".

I had a brief look, but failed to find these guys spouting any
of the stuff you are coming up with here.

Not a very good look and this shows how poorly you understand the issues and this field . Chalmers CAME UP WITH THE HARD PROBLEM! DOH! If you knew *anything* about these issues you would know of Chalmers and his position(s) on these matters. Your ignornace is like someone who wants to discuss relativistic frames of reference not knowing anything about Einstein's contributions.

Why exactly am I supposed to have heard of Chalmers? AFAICS, his
views are all wrong. He's obsessed with consciousness - which
I see as a huge non-problem - while he sees it as akin to a
property of physics. He even takes Sir Roger seriously,
and writes papers about his work! It is not confirmation bias
for me to not be interested in such misguided material.

Your list is pretty miserable, IMO.

I don't have to come up with a list to justify my positions, just as I don't have to come up with references (although that has been my penchant in the past - now it would just be wasted on you), to support my positions.

No, indeed you don't. Certainly, if this is what your list of references of AI researchers who you think share your views,
looks like, you might be better off keeping quiet.

Of the possible AI researchers,
we have two philosophy/neuroscience guys perhaps with minor interests
in AI, who may or may not agree with you, Hofstadter, who doesn't support your position at all, and a bunch of anonymous friends.

I think this should strongly indicate to you that you hold a
minority opinion.

Who supports the idea that neuron firings *are identical with* an experience and what do they base their claims upon, scientifically?

Well, almost everyone in AI, I would think. However, I can't
claim to have access to a survey on that particular point.
Though it seems like a consequence of materialism to me, and
AI researchers tend to be a materialistic bunch. They tend
to think things like the Dartmouth proposal are true: "Every
aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it."

Do you realize that the issues are not resolved!

Well you can always find /someone/ who will argue with any
given proposition. But this is hardly a burning scientific
issue - and those who /are/ hotfooting it after the causal
consequences of "experiences" which are not also causal
consequences of physical brain processes, are wasting
their time, with a high probability, in my view.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
.