On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:49:03 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> >> But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been 
> >> programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various 
> >> other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is 
> >> really the intelligence of his programmers. 
> > 
> > 
> > This assumes some kind if tabula rasa era toy model of human 
> development. As 
> > you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the 
> same 
> > nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same 
> people 
> > and do not necessarily have the same kinds of intelligences. 
> It's not exactly a tabula rasa since there is an enormous amount of 
> information pre-programmed into a human when they are born. 
> Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental 
> input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce radically 
> different outputs. For example, the environmental input could be the 
> least significant digit in a temperature measurement and be used as a 
> seed in a random number generator. 

What would be the chances of two such divergent computations routinely 
speaking in unison?

> > Human beings 
> > are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own 
> lives, 
> > they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal 
> > preferences. 
> If you prefer, human beings are programmed to to willingly participate 
> in their own lives 

Why do you think that participation in one's own life has to be a program? 
Did the Big Bang need a program? Does arithmetic need a program to know how 
to compute?

and to direct their attention to discover their own 
> personal preferences. "Willingly participate" means they decide to do 
> something that they want to do.

First there has to be a 'they' there who is aware of the possibility of 
their own participation and a capacity to detect and discern the 
possibility of decision within that participation. Computers can't get to 
square one. There is nothing that they 'want' or don't want to do.

> "Unwillingly participate" means they 
> are coerced, for example by threat or by forcibly taking control of 
> their body and moving it. 

This presumes that there is something there to resist such a coercion.

> "Direct their attention to discover their 
> own personal preferences" means they try something and see if they 
> like it, and if they do they store it in memory as a preference. This 
> is something that has evolved because it is adaptive. Organisms that 
> discovered something unpleasant and stored it as a preference did not 
> tend to do as well. 

That can all be done just as well without any experience of 'liking' 
anything. Experiences would be monitored, stored, and analyzed. Results 
would be factored in to future computations. What's to 'like'? It could 
just as easily feel like itchy dizziness or like 7F 20 99 A6 77 01 00 03 
and it would work just as well - better in the latter case.



> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to