On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>  >>I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
>> sensibly with just a few transistors.
> > Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of
> teleology is fully supported from the start.

We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe
allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but
we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate
that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?

> > you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense
> experience.

No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know
for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a
Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior
WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you
disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works
for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this
I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once,
therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of

> Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each
> other?

I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you
expect Adenine and Thymine to serve?

> How do you know?

I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know
because they have none, they only have cause and effect.

> How is it different from our purpose in staying in close proximity to
> places to eat and sleep?

And to think that some people berated me for anthropomorphizing future
supercomputers and here you are   anthropomorphizing simple chemicals.

>> Why is everything aware, why isn't everything not aware?
> Because then we wouldn't be aware of having this conversation.

And we are aware of having this conversation because everything is aware,
except of course for computers.

> >> Robots are something
> > No, they aren't something.

That is just a little too silly to argue.

> > Everything is awareness

Are you certain, I thought everything is klogknee, or maybe its everything
is 42.

> evolution requires that something be alive to begin with.

Evolution requires something that can reproduce itself, there is no
universally agreed on definition of "life" so if you want to say that
viruses and RNA strings and crystals and clay patterns and Von Neumann
Machines are alive I won't argue with you and will agree that Evolution
requires that something be alive to get started.

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to