[ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?

Mike Dougherty msd001 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 3 15:32:04 UTC 2014

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:30 AM, William Flynn Wallace
<foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shades of Korzybski and Hayakawa and general semantics:  the map is not the
> territory.  It could be argued that all copies are flawed in some way.
> (Pratchett fans will see a parallel in the dwarf's holy hammer.)
> It used to be thought that neurons were never replaced and now that idea has
> gone out the window.  But do all neurons get replaced?  Dunno.  But perhaps
> the deterioration of them and partial replacement account for many memory
> errors over the years (though confabulation probably accounts for most).

So much of these conversations seem to me to be two people on the same
side of the fence arguing about what it's like on the other side...
using language like "from where I am it looks like this" and the other
person says "no, you're wrong... from where I am it looks like this"
and inevitably the answer is both parties are missing the fact that
they're on the same side of the fence.

Objective death vs Subjective death... You as not-me vs You/I as me...

I feel like the various facets of this armchair philosophy might as as
well be discussing which is the right religion.

... or should I just butt-out?

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list