On Feb 27, 5:37 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/27/2012 2:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 4:52 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >>>>>>> AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI. > >>>>> They don't have to generate their own software though, we have to tell > >>>>> them to do that and specify exactly how we want them to do it. > >>>> Not exactly. AI learns from interactions which are not known to those > >>>> who write the AI > >>>> program. > >>> ...when we program them specifically to 'learn' in the the exact ways > >>> which we want them to. > >> They can learn by higher level program modifications too, and those can > >> also be random. > >> So there is no evidence that their learning is qualitatively different > >> from yours. > > There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative > > phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock doesn't > > know what time it is. > > Then I guess that means I don't need evidence to infer it does either. It > must be > comforting to live in an evidence free world where your opinion is the the > only standard. >
If you believe that clocks know what time it is, and you need evidence to convince you otherwise, then no amount of argument can persuade you to common sense. I don't need any intellectual crutches to understand that subjective phenomenology has a different standard of epistemology than objective conditions. Craig 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.
