Claim and evidence Close ×
McGinn's review of 1999 of books by Kurzweil, Moravec and Gershenfeld states that the authors take the mind to be essentially a computer, and that uploading into a machine might extinguish consciousness rather than transfer it. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 1999-01-03 · publication Records dated 1999 → Role Earliest located, Contesting Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Engagement Engages a premise. Disputes the premise that a machine reproducing a mind's behaviour would carry its consciousness, on which transfer of a person into a machine depends. Scope and limits McGinn's uploading passage addresses Kurzweil's suggestion; his statement on the computational view names all three authors. He states his own view as a "hunch". A use of the term is not evidence of coinage.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Hello, HAL ↗ The New York Times Book Review (nytimes.com archive), January 3, 1999 · 1999-01-03
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “Kurzweil, Moravec and Gershenfeld take it as a given that the mind is essentially a computer.” Location in source Paragraph beginning "Kurzweil, Moravec and Gershenfeld"
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-11-01
Source details and check notes Authors Colin McGinn Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-31 (SHA-256 899966e82929aaf5ea0afd23bda22eea816cddb45ae874ea003f94323fcb8aa5). The New York Times archive page of the review dated January 3, 1999, of Kurzweil, Moravec and Gershenfeld; not compared with the printed Book Review. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-31 Language English (en) Attribution Colin McGinn, “Hello, HAL”, 1999-01-03. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, machine succession, scale and acceleration (research/heterodox-thought). The quotation (16 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-31. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-01, item 27) classified the record’s passage blind and reached the same stance. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Hello, HAL ↗ The New York Times Book Review (nytimes.com archive), January 3, 1999 · 1999-01-03
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “If people become convinced of the validity of the Turing test on mistaken philosophical grounds, then we might find ourselves in the position of unknowingly extinguishing our consciousness by uploading into machines that are inherently incapable of feeling anything.” Location in source Paragraph on Kurzweil's uploading suggestion
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-11-01
Source details and check notes Authors Colin McGinn Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-31 (SHA-256 899966e82929aaf5ea0afd23bda22eea816cddb45ae874ea003f94323fcb8aa5). The New York Times archive page of the review dated January 3, 1999, of Kurzweil, Moravec and Gershenfeld; not compared with the printed Book Review. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-31 Language English (en) Attribution Colin McGinn, “Hello, HAL”, 1999-01-03. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, machine succession, scale and acceleration (research/heterodox-thought). The quotation (39 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-31. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-01, item 27) classified the record’s passage blind and reached the same stance. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Machine-checked . Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.
Date. The New York Times Book Review, January 3, 1999.
Record ID ht-w03-mcginn-1999-hello-hal