🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <21745@mimsy.umd.edu> flink@mimsy.umd.edu (Paul V Torek) writes:
>I asked:
>pt>Are you suggesting that
>pt>(a) Some types of conscious thought might go wrong were it not for the
>pt>	"noise", or
>
>kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes:
> .....  For this {"backstop"} argument to work,
>>we need to be sure that we really *can* make an accurate model.  Chaotic
>>systems can mechanically amplify small discrepancies in initial state
>
>But that doesn't matter unless (a) is true.  As many people pointed out
>in reply to you, the fact that an AI system doesn't duplicate the thought
>processes of any *particular* person, is no problem for strong AI.  The
>fact that my thought processes are different from yours doesn't
>necessarily mean I'm wrong (or that I'm not really thinking) -- it just
>means I'm different.

The divergence of the model from the real system means that for any
person, at any time, the model would diverge significantly from that
person's states (assuming that the brain is significantly chaotic, for the
purpose of discussion).  So it's not just that the numerical model can't
simulate me or you, it can't simulate *anybody*, *ever*.  So if we want to
claim that the simulation is close enough to brain function to be
simulated thought, then we have to show that the chaotic aspects of brain
function are inessential to thought.

BTW, my thanks to you and to the others in comp.ai who are participating
in the philosophical discussions here.  You folks have helped me to
clarify my ideas by your constructive and thoughtful comments.  This group
is a good example of the solid intellectual value of Usenet.