On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
" I would not say that passing the Turing Test implies intelligence or > consciousness." You may not say so right now on this list but the fact is you use the Turing Test every hour of your waking life and probably even in your dreams; when you see someone do something that is very smart you think they are very intelligent, and unless you are locked up in a mental institution, and I don't think you are, you are not a solipsist " If we need a Turing Test to tell us that rocks are not conscious, then we > are lost." > No we are not. Ask yourself exactly why you are so certain that rocks are not conscious, I'll tell you why, because rocks as well as dead people fail the Turing Test, they act as if they were neither conscious nor intelligent. I have no doubt that if you grew up knowing that rocks taught physics and philosophy at Harvard you would have very different ideas about the consciousness of rocks. " OK, then there was a reason and its deterministic." >> > " Reason is in the eye of the beholder." > OK, then my reason is not the same as your reason, but if we both had our reasons for doing what we did then our actions were both deterministic, and if we had no reasons our actions were random. "Why would what the brain does be different than evolution? Could it be... > free will?" Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means. "An unconscious universe cannot randomly create conscious agents." > I doubt if that is true but it really does not matter because Darwin's Theory of Evolution is nor random. " Data doesn't feel anything" > You seem to be in the habit of writing declarative sentences that not only you are unable to prove but you can't even find a single scrap of evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true. " because data is just [...]" > Ah, the good old "just". As I've said, if you cut up even the most magnificent thing into small enough pieces eventually you will get pieces that are not very magnificent at all, in fact if that does not happen then you have not cut it up small enough. Only when you know how the simple can bring about the complex and the mundane the magnificent do you truly understand something. > "Why would consciousness be a byproduct of intelligence and not the other > way around?" > Because Evolution can not directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if it were the other way around neither consciousness nor intelligence would exist on this planet. And yet I know for a fact that Evolution did produce consciousness at least once and I know for a fact that Evolution did produce intelligence billions of times and I know for a fact that Evolution can see intelligence. Thus I know for a fact that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and NOT the other way around. > " A computer isn't aware" You seem to be in the habit of writing declarative sentences that not only you are unable to prove but you can't even find a single scrap of evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true. > " because it's just [...]" > Ah, the good old "just". As I've said, if you cut up even the most magnificent thing into small enough pieces eventually you will get pieces that are not very magnificent at all, in fact if that does not happen then you have not cut it up small enough. Only when you know how the simple can bring about the complex and the mundane the magnificent do you truly understand something. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
