On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Hi benjayk
>> Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires
>> ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term
>> an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence.
>> A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer,
>> even the largest in the world.
> Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware
> Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose
> requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess
> moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in Jeopardy) are
> conscious. I don't dispute that they may be conscious, but if they are
> that contradicts the objective of your proof. If you still maintain that
> they are not conscious, despite their ability to choose, then there must be
> some error in your argument.
Its circular reasoning to look for proof of consciousness since
consciousness is a first person experience only, and by definition cannot
be demonstrated as an exterior phenomenon. You can't prove to me that you
exist, so why would you be able to prove that anything has or does not have
an experience, or what that experience might be like.
Instead, we have to go by what we have seen so far, and what we know of the
differences between computers and living organisms. While the future of
computation is unknowable, we should agree that thus far:
1) Machines and computers have not demonstrated any initiative to survive
or evolve independently of our efforts to configure them to imitate that
2) Our innate prejudices of robotic and mechanical qualities defines not
merely an unfamiliar quality of life but the embodiment of the antithesis
of life. I am not saying this means it is a fact, but we should not ignore
this enduring and universal response which all cultures have had toward the
introduction of mechanism. The embodiment of these qualities in myth and
fiction present a picture of materialism and functionalism as evacuated of
life, soul, authenticity, emotion, caring, etc. Again, it is not in the
negativity of the stereotype, but the specific nature of the negativity
(Frankenstein, HAL) or positivity (Silent Running robots, Star Wars Droids)
which reveals at best a pet-like, diminutive objectified
pseudo-subjectivity rather than a fully formed bio-equivalence.
3) Computers have not evolved along a path of increasing signs toward
showing initiative. Deep Blue never shows signs that it wants to go beyond
Chess. All improvements in computer performance can easily be categorized
as quantitative rather than qualitative. They have not gotten smarter, we
have just sped up the stupid until it seems more impressive.
4) Computers are fundamentally different than any living organism. They are
assembled by external agents rather than produce themselves organically
through division of a single cell.
None of these points prove that the future of AI won't invalidate them, but
at the same time, they constitute reasonable grounds for skepticism. To me,
the preponderance of evidence we have thus far indicates that any
assumption of computing devices as they have been executed up to this point
developing characteristics associated with biological feeling and
spontaneous sensible initiative is purely religious faith.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at