|
|
#21
01-13-2007, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Non Conscious Entity That Passes The Turing Test.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] people with multiple personality disorders - are they truly separate entities/beings? [/ QUOTE ] No. Discrete entities within one being. [/ QUOTE ] I think it would be more accurate to say discrete entities timesharing a body, not within one being. Multiples frequently change eyeglass prescriptions, allergies, major medical issues, and pain tolerance from one personality to another. 
|
|
#25
01-21-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Non Conscious Entity That Passes The Turing Test.
Great observation, I was thinking the same thing. Problem though, assuming solipsism (only you exist) then the criteria of Turing (or any other) becomes irrelevant. You KNOW there are no other concious entities. I believe Turing posits the question, if it looks like a man, walks like a man, talks like a man, is it a man? Assuming solipsism as a premise, even God cannot exist.
|
|
#26
01-22-2007, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Non Conscious Entity That Passes The Turing Test.
[ QUOTE ]
It also discusses free will and "appears" to wonder about it if the subject arises. It seems inpossible I would be the first to think of this but you never know. The entities I am speaking of are the people you talk to while you are dreaming. [/ QUOTE ] If I remember the test correctly, the test would require an objective judge - who could judge the (subjective) judges. So unless the "subjective judges" could enter the dreamer's mind, they would be left with second-hand testimony from the dreamer to reach their verdict. Then the objective judge of the turing test would have to rely on indirect testimony of the "subjective judges" that was based on indirect testimony of the dreamer. So then we're left with multiple hearsay. I don't think it would hold up, but an attorney could probably better answer.
|
 |
|
|
=
?
Linear Mode
