On Sat, Jan 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not biased against computers, any mechanical object, puppet, device,
> sculpture, etc is equally incapable of ever becoming smart.

So, do you know it can't be smart because it outsmarted you, or do you know
it can't be smart because your brain is squishy and a computer is not? And
we both agree you did not become aware of all this through logic, so how
did you obtain this marvelous new knowledge, was it in a dream?

> Is there some language on Earth that shares your pathological denial of
> the concept of free will?

For the 900'th time I DO NOT DENY FREE WILL, for me to do so there would
have to be something there to deny, but in the case of the ASCII string
"free will" there is no there there.

> > When you try to swat a fly but it outsmarts you over and over, does that
> make the fly smarter than you?

At that one task obviously the fly outsmarted me, but intelligence is not
that narrow and that's why I don't claim that computers are smarter than
humans. Yet. However if the fly could outsmart me at every task then it
would be equally obvious that the fly was smarter than me. Up to now I have
not encountered such a fly.

> The fact is that I see this narrow view of intelligence is a toxic
> misunderstanding.

Exactly, being good at just one narrow thing does not make you intelligent,
being good at everything does. Computers will soon (15 to 65 years) be good
at everything.

> if my verbiage is mindless, then why or how can you respond?

A question I am asking myself with increased frequency.

 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to