Hey John,

We get it! You are just making sure that when the Singularity <http://singularity.org/what-is-the-singularity/> happens that the AI Overlords will consider you a useful pet. :-[

On 10/16/2012 11:55 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    > Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules?

I was under the impression that you believed all computers did was blindly follow programed rules. Apparently not. Not only are your ideas foolish they are inconsistently foolish, you can't even organize your nonsense.

    > Computers are unconscious.

How the hell do you know?

    > "They" don't follow anything.

Then why is there a multi-trillion dollar software industry that does nothing but make rules for computers to follow?

    > The parts that computers are made of are ruled by physical
    states, but I would not say that they follow any rules either.

So now not only do conscious computers not exist but even the laws of physics don't exist. Craig, do you honestly believe that spouting crap like that helps anyone figure out how the world works?

    > What exactly do you think that intelligence is?

I refuse to give a definition because when it comes to understanding what words mean examples are FAR more important, in fact examples are where lexicographers go to get the information needed to devise the definitions in their dictionaries. So intelligence is what you need to solve equations or play chess or beat the two best human players on the planet at Jeopardy.

    > To exercise voluntary control is to create your own reason.

And EVERYTHING that is created, including reasons themselves, including even your own reasons, was itself created for a reason, OR it was not created for a 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.

So reasons are not sufficient, that's fine, logic doesn't demand that everything have a reason; and there is a convenient word to describe something that was created for no reason, random.

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

A function is executed?!! A function is a rule, that is all. And yet just a few lines above in this very post you were telling me that computers don't follow rules and that they "don't follow anything". You can't even get your bad ideas straight.

Let me offer a word of advice, when you debate someone a effective strategy is not to simply negate anything and everything that your opponent says, you've got to organize a logical and consistent line of attack.

            >>> 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.

    > ?


    > So now you are saying that we can deduce consciousness from

I am saying I guess consciousness from behavior, and I do so every single hour of my waking life and I have a strong hunch you do too. I can't prove that my guess is correct but I will continue to act as if I can because I could not function if I believed I was the only conscious being in the universe and I have a strong hunch you couldn't either.

        > > 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?

You Craig Weinberg will care. You will care very much when a person or a computer smarter than you uses intelligence to arrange things its way and not in ways that you Craig Weinberg would prefer. When you lose your job because a smarter person or computer can do it better than you and then fools you into giving it all your savings and then tricks you into thinking it would be a good idea to walk into the meat grinder of a dog food factory then you Craig Weinberg are going to care a great deal that YOU LOST.

    > Adults are supposed to have outgrown seeing the world in terms
    of winning.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

     > Do you imagine that consciousness is a game?

How should I know? I don't know diddly squat about consciousness, or to put it another way, I know precisely as much about it as you do. But I do know that games involve intelligence.

  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