On Jan 29, 11:30 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I have no chip on my shoulder at all about computers being smart or not, I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion, which evolves from feeling which evolves from sensation, and then detection. I also understand that electronic computers use semiconductors which I know have not evolved into organisms and do not seem to be capable of what I would call sensation. The material they are made of does however detect electromagnetic changes in itself when configured to do so. >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? Logic plays a part but mainly it's that I happened to have been more interested in this subject than anything else for the last 35 years or so. I can't really say I'm interested in much of anything else, to be honest. I have thought about it a lot, was exposed to some influential ideas, had some unusual experiences. I have had some dreams. My house got struck by lightning right after I really figured out the photon theory. I had left my computer on with a website on the biography of Tesla on the screen while we saw a movie. True story. http://www.stationlink.com/lightning/IMG_1981.JPG > > > 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. You don't deny free will, you just deny that it's possible to even conceive of it in the first place. Ohh kayy... > > > > 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. Not really. A genius can be intelligent in one narrow way. 'Computers' that are in use now have not even improved meaningfully in the last 15 years. Is Windows 7, XP, 2000, really much better then Windows 98? Has broadband speed improved? Have the quality of music and video files improved? What really has improved? Cell phones. Social Networking. Cool, sort of but compared to 1900-1914? Hm, lets see. Electric lights, automobiles, flight, radio, motion pictures, plastic, general relativity... At this rate by 2037 we will be on to Windows 11+ which will be about the same as it is now. Watch. Craig -- 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.
