On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:49:52 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
> > Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't 
>> mean that it is. 
> So now you don't like computers because they don't follow rules, before 
> you didn't like computers because they did follow rules. 

Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules? Computers are 
unconscious. "They" don't follow anything. The parts that computers are 
made of are ruled by physical states, but I would not say that they follow 
any rules either.

> > We should not assume that suddenly a disembodied conscious agent appears 
>> somewhere just because we are impressed with the sophistication of a 
>> particular reflex action. 
> We weren't talking about consciousness we were talking about intelligence, 
> but I can understand why you'd want to change the subject because 
> consciousness speculation is so easy and intelligence speculation is so 
> hard. 

What exactly do you think that intelligence is?

> > Reflexes can be as complicated as we want to make them, it doesn't turn 
>> them into voluntary actions. 
> Just like everything else reflexes and voluntary actions happen for a 
> reason or they do not happen for a reason.

To exercise voluntary control is to create your own reason. There are 
sub-personal and super-personal reasons to create a reason, but they are 
not sufficient to account for the next step of the creation of a new reason 
on the personal level. 

> > The computer still has no choices.
> Just like everything else a computer chooses X and not Y for a reason or a 
> computer chooses X and not Y for no reason.

The computer doesn't choose anything. A function is executed, that is all.

> >It can't throw a match because it doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings.
> Not true. Winning the game might not even be the computer's goal, its goal 
> might be to cheer up the human. 


> And the computer can certainly include the emotional state of it's human 
> opponent in its decision making process if it had a database about how to 
> deduce human emotions from human behavior. 

So now you are saying that we can deduce consciousness from behavior?

> True, the computer might make the wrong connection between behavior and 
> emotion, but the humans might be wrong about that too; in fact we know for 
> a fact that sometimes they are, sometimes people misread people. 

> > What makes intelligence is the ability to step out of the system, to 
>> transcend the rules entirely or understand them in a new context. Computers 
>> don't do that. 
> Hey Craig, no matter how hard you try to spin it, no matter how bad a 
> loser you are, the fact remains that you just got your ass handed to you by 
> a computer in that game of Chess you had with it, and again at checkers, 
> and in that equation solving game, and at Jeopardy. I don't care if you or 
> the computer transcended the rules or didn't transcend the rules because it 
> doesn't change the fact that the computer won and YOU LOST!

Who cares? I fail to see why that makes any difference at all. A telephone 
pole is much taller than you - therefore it is a genius at being tall and 

> I remember when I was in grade school playing softball at recess the 
> losing team ALWAYS accused the winning team of cheating, it was tradition. 
> Adults aren't supposed to do that sort of whining, but often they do.

Adults are supposed to have outgrown seeing the world in terms of winning. 
Do you imagine that consciousness is a game?



>   John K Clark

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