[ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 17:38:33 UTC 2014

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:58 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>

> Now we have the nub, I think. I am a physical monist, so if there are no
> cells there is no consciousness.

That would be a perfectly logical conclusion, if human cells were the only
physical thing in the universe.

> You sound like a dualist

That's because I am, I believe that nouns and adjectives are not the same

> who thinks that consciousness is not a physical thing.

The way a physical thing behaves is not itself a physical thing. A brain is
a noun, a physical thing that you can touch, but you can no more touch the
intelligence or consciousness in a brain than you can touch the "fast" in a
racing car.

Your particular brain is a physical lump of matter and there is only one of
those, but William Flynn Wallace is the way that lump of matter behaves and
there could be lots of those, if there isn't it's only because technology
isn't yet able to position molecules with nanometer precision that would
allow other lumps of matter to behave in a Williamflynnwallaceian way.

> Do you think you'd be conscious inside a hard drive?

If it was just a hard disk the information on it would never change and
mind can not exist without change, but if the hard drive was hooked up to a
large enough microprocessor then certainly it would be conscious, and if it
was the right information on that disk it would be John K Clark. Unless you
believe in crap like the soul no other conclusion can be reached.

> Conscious of what?  Certainly no senses.

Your computer has no I/O ports?! How did you see my post? How did you type
your reply?

> Just your thoughts?

If you had no I/O ports, that is to say if you were paralyzed from the neck
down and were blind and deaf you'd be conscious of nothing but your
thoughts too.

> Earlier someone said that if something is not impossible then it's
> possible.  Well, I would like to qualify that:  If something is not
> impossible according to what we know now, then it could be possible
> ​, depending on what future science discovers, which might be that it is
> impossible.​
If we wish to put things into the possible or the impossible pile the only
tool we have to accomplish that task is the knowledge  we know (or think we
know) about how the universe operates; we might make a error but the best
we can do is the best we can do. But you seem to be saying that it must be
impossible because it it were not then things would be odd, not illogical
not paradoxical just odd. Well the Universe works the way it wants to work
and if human beings find it odd that's just too bad.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141007/1571b27d/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list