Douglas, (1) what makes you think that anyone was suggesting that “AI” and “soul” have the same meaning?, (2) in what way would “an AI is not a soul” be a useful substitute for anything else said in this discussion?, and (3) why should comparing the two notions lead to any problems, and in particular to whatever you’re calling “the problem” here?
I don’t think it’s any more obvious that there are no AIs than that there are no souls. That is: perhaps, despite appearances, my computer is really intelligent, and thinks in some manner quite different from the computational processes I know it performs, but which is none the less somehow based on them. There is just as much evidence for this (admittedly bizarre) hypothesis as there is for the existence of souls.
(On some side issues: I think “God” should be capitalized when it’s being used as a proper name, and not otherwise. Thus, “the Christian god” but “May God bless you” or “Oh God, what a stupid idea”. Note that this has nothing to do with, e.g., whether one believes in the existence of any such being or one’s opinions about whether he/she/it does/would deserve respect. I don’t understand why “eternal” should be part of the definition of “soul”. The point of Aumann’s theorem is that observing someone else’s opinion and how it changes gives you information about what the other person knows that you don’t.)
Douglas, (1) what makes you think that anyone was suggesting that “AI” and “soul” have the same meaning?, (2) in what way would “an AI is not a soul” be a useful substitute for anything else said in this discussion?, and (3) why should comparing the two notions lead to any problems, and in particular to whatever you’re calling “the problem” here?
I don’t think it’s any more obvious that there are no AIs than that there are no souls. That is: perhaps, despite appearances, my computer is really intelligent, and thinks in some manner quite different from the computational processes I know it performs, but which is none the less somehow based on them. There is just as much evidence for this (admittedly bizarre) hypothesis as there is for the existence of souls.
(On some side issues: I think “God” should be capitalized when it’s being used as a proper name, and not otherwise. Thus, “the Christian god” but “May God bless you” or “Oh God, what a stupid idea”. Note that this has nothing to do with, e.g., whether one believes in the existence of any such being or one’s opinions about whether he/she/it does/would deserve respect. I don’t understand why “eternal” should be part of the definition of “soul”. The point of Aumann’s theorem is that observing someone else’s opinion and how it changes gives you information about what the other person knows that you don’t.)