On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:49:52 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <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 YOU ARE A HUGE LOSER and VERY SHORT. > 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? Craig > > 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 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/imuH4lND9sUJ. 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.
