Re: virus: Random Chance

JPS (schneids@centuryinter.net)
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 06:38:04 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com: "Re: virus: Memes and Genes"
Previous message: JPS: "virus: obj. exp. of 'religious experience' (formerly Level Three-Belief and Utility))"
Maybe in reply to: JPS: "virus: Random Chance"
Next in thread: David Leeper: "Re: virus: Random Chance"

Kennethe Boyd wrote:
[clip of a quote of mine]
> This is the reason why the Strong AI hypothesis is actually serious.
>
> Systems can exhibit mind-like behavior without having a recognizable
> basis for it. Defined operationally, it is quite possible that random
> selection, plus mutation on a genome that was a short distance away from
> an allele (system) with the solution, could fully duplicate the
> practical effect of the reasoning chain. It just takes longer without
> properly adapted hardware.

Whew! - I do support the strong AI hypothesis, based on similar
(probably
more naive) arguments.

- JPSchneider

Next message: jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com: "Re: virus: Memes and Genes"
Previous message: JPS: "virus: obj. exp. of 'religious experience' (formerly Level Three-Belief and Utility))"
Maybe in reply to: JPS: "virus: Random Chance"
Next in thread: David Leeper: "Re: virus: Random Chance"