An amoeba is alive but an accurate simulation of an amoeba wouldn’t be alive.
If (1), then an accurate simulation of a human wouldn’t be alive.
So, an accurate simulation of a human wouldn’t be alive.
Something that isn’t alive wouldn’t think.
So, an accurate simulation of a human wouldn’t think.
If an accurate simulation of a human wouldn’t think, Strong AI is false.
Strong AI is false.
Behind (2) is the idea that the best explanation of (1) is that computer simulations of living things aren’t alive. I think (4) is perhaps the most controversial of the premises.
2 comments:
You could also replace (2) with a long list of increasingly complex organisms:
(2*) If (1), then an accurate simulation of mold wouldn’t be alive.
(3*) If (2*), then an accurate simulation of a mushroom wouldn't be alive.
...
(9999*) If (9998*), then an accurate simulation of an ape wouldn't be alive.
(10000*) If (9999*), then an accurate simulation of a human wouldn't be alive.
Yes, Apologetics², (2) could be replaced by such a monstrosity of a slippery slope.
But then again by hypothetical syllogism (2) follows from (2*)-(10000*). If so, then why bother with the slippery slope, when you could have a much shorter, more simple and nice argument.
Example:
(1') If a drawn figure is a square, then that drawn figure is a rectangle.
(2') If a drawn figure is a rectangle, then that drawn figure is a parallelogram.
(3') If a drawn figure is a parallelogram, then that drawn figure is trapezoid.
(4') If a drawn figure is a trapezoid, then that drawn figure is a quadrilateral.
(1) Therefore, if a figure is a square, then that figure is a quadrilateral. (from 1'-4' by hypothetical syllogism)
(2) My drawn figure is a square.
(3) Therefore, my drawn figure is a quadrilateral. (from 1 and 3 by modus ponens)
Why make a slippery slope, when you can have the same argument much, much simpler?
Post a Comment