On Feb 27, 5:37 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 2:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 4:52 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>> On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> 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.
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