[FOM] The Lucas-Penrose Thesis

Apostolos Syropoulos asyropoulos at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 14:41:48 EDT 2006

2006/10/3, Eray Ozkural <examachine at gmail.com>:
> Agreed. Here are some ways that a computer program can be more
> conscious than a human.
> 1) It can know its programming precisely.

And how exactly a computer program can know its programming? A program
exists once some computer program enters symbols, which foillow a certain
grammer, into a computer file. As such it has no self-awareness or any other
property: it is just a sequence of symbols.

> 2) It can keep a full trace of execution and then
> change/debug its programming. Using the trace it can
> perfectly recreate previous mental states

A computer program cannot actually decide whether some other program with
some input will halt or not and you expect to have programs that will
correct themselves?
Could you please provide me with a simple example? It would be really
to have a concete example.

> 3) It can rewrite itself from scratch if it feels like.

In other words a computer virus is more conscious than a human! Note, however,
that self-reproducing programs are completely dumb. They appear to be smart,
but this is not the case.

> 4) It can extend its mind, for instance by forming new
> perception systems that can explore another sensory modality.

Programs do not have mind. Maybe one can simulate mental states with
programs, but that's all.

> 5) Turn on/off subsystems at will, precisely manage
> computational power given to processes.
> That is, it can be self-aware at the level of its programming.

Could you please give me an example of a self-aware program?



Apostolos Syropoulos
366, 28th October Str.
GR-671 00 Xanthi, GREECE

More information about the FOM mailing list