Re: Artificial Philosophizing

From: Quentin Anciaux <quentin.anciaux.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:34:22 +0100

Hi Tom,

Le Mardi 7 Février 2006 18:03, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> If we truly are machines, then by definition we should be able to (in
> theory) figure out the "list of instructions" that we follow. But wouldn't
> this be grasping all aspects of ourselves? If not, then what part of
> ourselves is outside of the realm of being able to grasp, and if so, how can
> we say we are machines in a totally closed rationalistic/naturalistic
> world? Brent and Jef's paragraphs sound mystical to me, as mystical as
> any other "first truth" assumption.
>
> Tom

Knowing a (complex) program, without knowing the input data does not give us
much information...

To the list,

I don't understand how some of you accept the term "we are machine" and not
"we are digitalisable at some level and hence emulable at that level", could
someone enlight me on this apparent contradiction ?

Quentin
Received on Tue Feb 07 2006 - 14:36:48 PST