On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> 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 [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.
