On 7/27/2011 8:04 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com <mailto: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 thing?



I wonder if Craig thinks Watson, the "Jeopardy" playing computer, is intelligent?


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