On Jan 19, 3:42 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>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

Why don't you think I am locked up in a mental institution? Did I pass
the VanGogh Test?

>
> " 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,

How do you know that rocks fail the Turing Test? Have you administered
such a test to rocks yourself or heard of anyone ever actually doing
that? I understand what you mean, but it's sophistry. Nobody who
understands the word consciousness in a conventional way needs a test
to determine that rocks do not seem conscious.

> 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.

Sure, and if consciousness meant 'not consciousness' then I would have
different ideas about the consciousness of rocks too.

>
> " 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.

It's not deterministic if we are the ones doing the determining. If
you define the universe as deterministic from the beginning, then
everything that happens in it must by definition be deterministic. If
you don't force the universe into a category like that, then you can
see the wide spectrum of variation between absolute determinism and
libertarian free will. The universe supports mechanism to a degree and
solipsism to a degree, but it supports a combination of both to a
greater degree.

>
> "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.

Where there's denial, there is truth.

>
> "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.

Evolution has nothing to say about consciousness.

>
>  " 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.

What sort of evidence would you like? I would have thought that the
blindingly obvious nature of the observation did not require
elaboration. If a five year old child was afraid to delete a file
because they thought it might hurt the file, would you tell them that
it's a good idea not to delete them because data might feel something?
How do you know you are not committing genocide when you format a hard
drive? Should you be imprisoned from crimes against data? 'you can't
even find a single scrap of evidence'? really? Sophistry.

>
> " 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,

Why does size decrease magnificence? Do you have a single scrap of
evidence that would lead someone to think it might be true?

> 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.

Nothing simple can bring about the complex unless that potential is
already present in the simple, which means that it was never simple to
begin with. Only when you understand the truth of that can you see how
reductionism can be catastrophic to understanding.

>
> > "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

All seeing is seeing consciousness directly. Evolution doesn't see
because it's not a thing, it's an idea of how things change over time.

>, so if it were the other way around neither consciousness nor
> intelligence would exist on this planet.

Huh? because you think that you can see intelligence and not
consciousness, that means that intelligence creates consciousness?
Does that mean that ultraviolet light creates color too?

> 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

But you don't know that consciousness is the prerequisite for each and
every incidence of intelligence, now do you?

> and I know for a
> fact that Evolution can see intelligence.

That is delusional. Evolution does not select for intelligence. It
selects for survival and reproduction alone. An environment which
favors intelligence in a particular organism may favor stupidity in
another. You can get worms and bookworms both in a given niche.

> Thus I know for a fact that
> consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and NOT the other way
> around.

Wow, with no facts whatsoever. Impressive absurdity.

>
> > " 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.

Well, the components of a computer may have an awareness but there is
nothing to suggest that organizing them lends any overall awareness to
the machine.

Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to