Re: We Robot
- From: "*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 23, 12:38 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 Sep, 05:33, Neil W Rickert <rickert...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Try to improve your presentation skills first, then move on to
someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 23 Sep, 02:12, Neil W Rickert <rickert...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The point was that there is a what it is like to be you.
Okay, so you think there is a "what it is like to be you". But I
think that phrase is completely meaningless.
Now that
cleared up, what objections do you have to the reasonings in the
paper?
I could not find any persuasive reasonings in your paper.
Obviously you don't believe computers are conscious. Nor do I.
But what bearing does that have on the question of materialism?
Why does it say any more than that the way computers operate is
very different from the way humans work?
Read the paper. And by the way this is only an opening. Wait until we
get onto representation.
representation.
.
- References:
- We Robot
- From: someone2
- Re: We Robot
- From: Neil W Rickert
- Re: We Robot
- From: someone2
- Re: We Robot
- From: Neil W Rickert
- Re: We Robot
- From: someone2
- Re: We Robot
- From: Neil W Rickert
- Re: We Robot
- From: someone2
- We Robot
- Prev by Date: Re: Always this quiet on a sunday?
- Next by Date: Re: The Orchid
- Previous by thread: Re: We Robot
- Next by thread: Re: We Robot
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|