Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal. When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure. QED. The physical universe is purely subjective. wrb From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roger Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:35 AM To: everything-list Subject: Why AI is impossible Hi Evgenii Rudnyi This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry. Life is whatever can experience its surroundings, nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference. Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is selecting. So only life can have intelligence. Life is subjective, nonlife is objective. Computers cannot experience anything because they are not subjective, only objective. Everytthing must be in words, not directly experienced. Thus computers cannot be (truly) intelligent. And AI is impossible, because only living items can experience the world.. Roger , <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 8/12/2012 ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Evgenii Rudnyi <mailto:[email protected]> Receiver: everything-list <mailto:[email protected]> Time: 2012-08-11, 10:22:44 Subject: Re: Definitions of intelligence possibly useful to computers in AI ordescribing life On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following: > On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >> On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following: >>> The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of >>> life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent. >>> >>> The study of artificial life by the same reason need not be a study of >>> artitificial intelligence, although because of a biases as an >>> intelligent species, a significantly higher fraction of alife research >>> is about AI. >>> >> >> What does intelligence means in this context that life is >> unintelligent? Let us compare for example a bacterium and a rock. >> Where there is more intelligence? >> >> Evgenii >> > Dear Evgenii, > > A bacterium and a rock should not be put head to (no)head in this > question. A bacterium has autonomy while a rock does not. It is better > to see that the rock is just a small piece of an autonomous whole and > then compare that whole to the (whole) bacterium. > My goal was just to try to understand what Russell meant by life is unintelligent. Say let us take some creations of AI and compare them with a bacterium. Where do we find more intelligence? Evgenii -- 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]. <mailto:%[email protected].> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. <mailto:%[email protected].> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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. -- 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.
