[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting "Laycock, Jos (OSPT)" <Jos.Laycock at OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK>:

> Hi Platt:
> 
> The non biological urges,
> I can't suggest any that you wont be able to attribute to biology, but you
> can't suggest any human actions that I won't atribute to biology in
> response. (not your own, something you abserve in another). If I choose the
> right definition of "biological urge" and make it species specific then it
> will always explain any obseved human behaviour.

Hi Jos:

What biological urge explains observed human response to Michelangelo's "David?"
 
> Turing tests,
> Of course very familiar, but it is a subjective test, there are turing
> machines already in existence that can fool a fair percentage of questioners
> in double blind experiments, if you put the machine in front of a
> particularily dumb human or one with a poor grasp of the language tested
> they will stand no chance at all. The concept is somewhat flawed in this
> respect as it makes no provision to test the observer. Assume that a turing
> machine is created that convinces all questioners, it still may not be
> concious, you can never really prove it for certain. Equally you may very
> well create a fully concious AI that has no way to communicate with you,
> assuming faliure you disasemble it and start again.

There's not much you can really prove for certain except death and taxes.
In the past, some here have argued that even death is not certain.

> I'm off to see how much PCP it will take for me to start liking Gordon
> Brown.

I'm not familiar with either PCP or Gordon Brown. But if I had to guess PCP
is a drug and Gordon Brown is a rap performer. Close? :-)

Platt

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/