On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Fire isn't in the log, but you can approximate a burning log to some
> degree with concrete log and burning gas. It's not a log but it is
> fire in the fireplace. If I turn on cable TV around Christmas, they
> run a video of a log burning. That also is not a log, and it's not
> fire, but it emulates a visual sense of the thing.
> So, in the same way, you can have a program running a YouTube of a
> person, which is like my TV log, you can have a really great android
> brain made out of silicon and plastic which maybe gets you to the
> concrete log, provided that you are connected to a gas utility or
> propane tank - which *would* have to be organic and combustible. Maybe
> nanobot neurons burning glucose would be enough to sustain a spark and
> give you a proper Disneyland level animatronic simulation of a person.


Would you agree that intelligence cannot be faked?  That is to say, if your
youtube program were a good enough representation to give the appearance of
intelligence, is that process necessarily intelligent?  If your youtube
program were presented with SAT questions, and it scored highly, say
representative of a person with a 150 IQ, do you think it is possible to
claim the process is only offering fake intelligence, in actuality it is not
intelligent but just blindly following instructions and not understanding a



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to