On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > > > People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also. >> > > True. > > >> > In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help you >> determine whether they have a mind or not. >> > > Also true. The Turing Test is not perfect, it is however the only tool > we've got. >
It's not really a tool, it's just a belief that there is no logical way to tell the difference between the mind of a living person and a sufficiently well engineered replica. In practice it may not be so simple. Rather than technology climbing ever closer to devices and graphics which seem genuine and real, we seem to be producing devices which are increasingly used to access other people. There is still nobody that can't tell the df > > > Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is not a theory of the >> origin of either. >> > > As I said on January 24: > > "Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but > once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and > that's a pretty good accomplishment." > No argument here, as I didn't argue then. Darwin was a great scientist. > > And if intelligence came from Evolution > Evolution enhanced intelligence, but it did not create it. A universe of atoms crashing into each other does not evolve any intelligent systems unless the possibility of intelligence through atomic reactions exists in the first place. > and if at least one of those intelligent beings is conscious then it > follows that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and is just > the way data feels like when it is being processed. > Not if consciousness prefigures intelligence, which it must. In order for intelligence to exist, something has to utilize sensory awareness in an intelligent, i.e. sensitive way. Intelligence is sophisticated sensitivity. > > > If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them, are >> we not? >> > > Don't worry about us enslaving computers because enslaving something much > smarter than you is not a stable state of affairs, it would be like > balancing a pencil on its tip, it won't stay that way for more than a few > million nanoseconds. On the other hand computers could enslave us if they > wanted to, although I doubt they'd think we'd be good slaves. > Why would you think that computers would let any living organism survive on Earth? You dodged the question though. It sounds like you understand that you position means that we must be monstrous computer slave-drivers at the moment (and for the foreseeable future, until Skynet becomes self-aware.) Craig > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > >> Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy a >> new one. >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> > although I know I will never be able to prove it. >>>> >>> >>> I agree on that point. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
