Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and consciousness
Message-ID: <jqbD05Ayq.JFp@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <CzsIwC.DFv@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01oB1.JG8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D03qpH.7C9@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3bl2so$5u@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:49:38 GMT
Lines: 69

In article <3bl2so$5u@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Jeff Smith <smithjj@cat.com> wrote:
>In article <D03qpH.7C9@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>|> In article <D01oB1.JG8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>|> Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>|> >In article <Czzp43.2x7@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>snip
>|> If you stick to your position about "gold", then you must be referring to 
>|> some "ideal" of gold which has properties about we even now do not know.
>|> BTW, which isotope of gold are you referring to?
>|> 
>For me, any isotope of gold is "gold"--the criteria I use to define "goldness"
>is the number of protons in the nucleus, not the electrons or neutrons.

Well, this is the point.  For someone whose criteria are "shiny, metallic,
golden", pyrite is gold.  To say that they are mistaken is as absurd as to say 
that you are mistaken if, at some time in the future, it becomes normal to
reserve the term "gold" for gold-197 only.

Jeff wants to say that gold is defined as "the stuff these coins in my pocket
are made out of".  This appears to be some sort of Platonism where the ideal
forms are found in Jeff's pockets rather than in Heaven.  Of course, among its
other problems, this demands that we can only call "gold" that which has the
precise amount and type of impurities and isotope mix as what happens to
be in Jeff's pocket when he points to it.

>|> >>>Certainly the idea that something might be the case even though
>|> >>>I can't tell doesn't bother me; moreover, there must be many things
>|> >>>of that sort.  E.g. did Napoleon have an egg for breakfast 3 days
>|> >>>after his 7th birthday?  (I'm trying to pick something that won't
>|> >>>be in any records -- substitute a different example if there's one
>|> >>>you prefer.)
>|> >>>
>|> >>If you allow that the above fact is not in any records, then there is no way
>|> >>to establish it and then it does not make sense for me to discuss if this
>|> >>was a case or not. Claiming that it is a "matter of fact" what he had for
>|> >>breakfast on that day even if it cannot be possibly established comes down to
>|> >>misuse of words, very much as argued by Wittgenstein.
>|> >
>|> >Nonehteless, Napoleon did either eat an egg or not for breakfast
>|> >that day (counting not hvaing breakfast on the didn't eat an egg
>|> >for breakfast side).  That's all I mean by saying there's a fact.
>|> >If Wittgenstein's an anti-realist about the past, then I'd say
>|> >he's wrong.
>|> >
>|> The point is that there is no way to know it, i.e. it does not make any 
>|> difference. Discussing it makes as much sense as counting angels on a pin head.
>|> Classifying it as "a matter of fact" is misuse of the term, since it puts it
>|> on par with real "matters of fact", about which we can have evidence.
>|> It obscures the fact that our knowledge of the world comes from interacting
>|> with it and ultimately only this interaction counts.
>This is a very interesting point of view.  My own belief is that every fact
>is ultimately verifiable.  Reality to me consists of everything that exists,
>whether I can know it or not, at all times.  Certainly your view is simpler,
>but I feel that much of the unexplained in our universe can be explained
>through what we can not directly verify.
>
>How can I believe that every fact is ultimately verifiable?  In one of 
>two ways: 1) God exists and knows every fact and can give any one of them 
>to us. 2) Since many do not believe in such a God, the alternate tack is
>the belief it is possible for some intelligence in the universe can at
>some point in time know how the universe works, and gather all the informa-
>tion contained in the universe at all times, and thus provide verification.

How are you going to verify facts about God?  How can this intelligence
*know* how the universe works without verifying this "knowledge"?


-- 
<J Q B>
