On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>> All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
> >>> run
> >>> the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that.
> >> It's not because you can program's them to being slavingly dumb to
> >> do a
> >> thing *that's the only thing they can do*, that's a "program" mean.
> > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
> > anything else than what you already do.
> But is that not what you do, and vindicate, by telling us that you
> don't want to study the work of other people, or that you cannot
> assume comp if only just for the sake of reasoning?
My goal is not to be intelligent or to be interested in every idea, it
is to explore the implications of this particular set of ideas.
> A lot of your comment are preventing the meaning of trying to discuss
> further because you beg the question systematically. In a sense you
> are saying that comp cannot be true, because your know that your
> opinion is the correct one. We can't argue then.
I'm saying that comp does the same thing, as does every religion and
philosophy. They are all different ways of making sense of the
universe and the self. All I'm doing is looking at what they all have
in common - sense.
> > Intelligence is the ability to
> > make sense of any given context and to potentially transcend it,
> I can agree, although then even human might have a limited
> intelligence, as humans cannot a priori transcend all context, or you
> are making a gros assumption on humans. Again a new assumption in an
> already very long and fuzzy list.
I'm not assuming humans have unlimited intelligence. We are smart
monkeys in some ways and really dumb in others.
> > which
> > is why it can't be programmed or simulated (but it can be imitated
> > trivially for specific functions).
> And now a big assumption on machine, which is already refuted by the
> diagonalization routine.
Comp automatically refutes challenges to comp. It does so in the only
way that makes sense in comp terms - by showing that logic compels us
to accept it's evidence. Faith does the same thing in reverse. It says
you have to see through logic and embrace a deeper truth.
> > If it weren't that way we would not
> > be having this discussion. Machines would exhibit creativity and
> > versatility and would be widely considered identical to animal and
> > human life.
> You confuse the conceptually possibility that some machine can think,
> the possibility that actual machine can thing. You might have said
> that the DNA will never reach the moon by looking at bacteria or
> insects. That is not reasoning.
But I still would have said that DNA has a better chance to reach the
moon by looking at bacteria or insects then silicon dioxide has of
reaching the moon. The problem is that machines show no signs of being
anything other than emotionally inert. If it weren't for that fact,
and the nature of that fact as a defining feature of AI thus far, I
would not have a problem with it. I agree that in theory it shouldn't
be a problem, but in theory, DNA shouldn't need to make consciousness
either. Once we allow the common sense notion of inanimate objects
being unconscious to be possibly true, then we can look to understand
why that might be the case, rather than adopting a 'don't ask'
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at