On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:55:44 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>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. 
>

You don't understand my ideas and you blame me for it. If I pour water into 
a funnel, would you say that the water is following the funnel's rules? I 
wouldn't say that. You could use the word in a figurative way, like B 
follows A, but that is not what it means to say that a computer follows 
rules. From our perspective it may seem like they follow rules, but from 
our perspective it seems like Bugs Bunny eats carrots. There is no 
computer's perspective though.
 

>
> > Computers are unconscious. 
>>
>
> How the hell do you know? 
>

How the hell do you not know? The minute you start worrying about how your 
computer feels about what you are typing is the moment I can entertain such 
sophistry seriously.
 

>
> > "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? 
>

Because we like to follow rules and we use computers to help us do that.
 

>
> > 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? 
>

That there are literally "laws" which physics obeys is a fairy tale. 
Physical realism is strongly ordered, not by edict from without, but from 
perception and participation within. I don't know about what my write does 
for other people, but I know that I have personally figured out the 
explanatory gap and the hard problem.


> > 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. 
>

I didn't ask for a definition or an example, I just asked what you think it 
is. You have no answer, and so literally have no idea what you are talking 
about. 

>  
>
>> > 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. 
>

How can reason be created for a reason (circular) or created not for a 
reason (something from nothing)?


> > There are sub-personal and super-personal reasons to create a reason
>>
>
> Fine.
>
> > 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.  
>

Your views are constrained by adherence to rigid reference bodies. This 
strategy automatically makes preference incoherent. It's your problem, not 
the universe's. I don't know for sure that you could understand this even 
if you wanted to - just because of variations in cognitive development. 
What I do know is that it seems that you are determined not to understand 
this or admit to understanding this at all costs. You are personally 
invested in it, despite the reasoned arguments presented by many others on 
this list. That's ok with me. Believe what you like, er, believe what you 
must for reasons.
 

>
> >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. 
>

No. A rule is 'don't cross the yellow lines'. A function is the use of the 
steering column to turn the wheels of the car. Huge difference. Rules do 
nothing unless something follows them. Functions potentially cause physical 
changes.
  

> 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.
>

You have no idea what I am talking about.
 

>
> 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.   
>

Let me offer you some advice. If you want me to consider anything that you 
are saying remotely interesting, then you will need to bring out a whole 
new approach. All you have is ad hominem reductionism - which I am already 
quite familiar with.
 

>
> >>> 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 behavior?
>>
>
> 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.
>

Why couldn't you function if you believed you were the only conscious being 
in the universe?
 

>
> > > 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. 
>

Oppressing people does not require intelligence. It requires leverage.
 

> 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.
>

" Don't flatter yourself with your *jealous fantasies" - Oglethorpe*
 

>
> > Adults are supposed to have outgrown seeing the world in terms of 
>> winning.
>>
>
> Where in the world did you get that idea? 
>

>From mature, wise adults.
 

>
>  > 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.
>

Games also involve players.

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/-/82dyXzvr3vEJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to