On Friday, November 16, 2012 8:42:24 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> When I say that all bodies live, I failed to state that they must be 
> monads, which
> means that that they must be of one part.  I don't think mannekins would 
> qualify,
> nor cartoons, which aren't even bodies.  " Of one part" I think means that 
> there
> is something holding the thing (then a substance)  together in some way, 
> like life.
> Or an electromagnetic, biological,  or chemical field. 
>

But mannequins are held together by chemical and electromagnetic fields.
 

>  
>  
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] <javascript:>
> 11/16/2012 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>  
>
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-11-16, 07:16:17
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the 
> intelligenceofcomputers
>
>  
>
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 5:55:41 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> I agree with what you say, but there's no need to humanize
>> the coffee filters nor humanize intelligence or consciousness.
>> I'm not talking here about IQ. My point (speaking here as Leibniz)  is 
>> that 
>> nature down to the lowliest beings (a grain of sand) has intelligence 
>> of some sort. Nature is alive, and life is intelligence.   
>>
>
> My point though is just because we put fibers into a mold or dots on a 
> page into a form we can recognize doesn't mean that we have created new 
> life and intelligence. There is a difference between assembling something 
> from tiny spatial-object parts and something reproducing itself from 
> teleological-experiential wholes. A mannequin is not a person. The plaster 
> and steel the mannequin is made of may certainly have a quality of 
> experience, and although it is hard to speculate on exactly what kinds of 
> experiences those are or what level of microcosm or macrocosm they are 
> associated with, one thing that I am quite certain of is that the plaster 
> and steel mannequin is not having the experience of a human person, no 
> matter how convincing of a mannequin it looks to us to be. The same goes 
> for cartoons, drawings, photos, movies..those things aren't alive or 
> intelligent, but they are made of things which, on some level, are capable 
> of sense participation. Computers are just a more pronounced example. As 
> they improve they may be more convincing imitations of our human 
> intelligence, but that quality of awareness is only a recorded reflection 
> of our own, it is not being generated by nature directly and it is neither 
> alive nor intelligent.
>
> Craig
>
>
>    
>>
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
>> 11/16/2012 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>  
>>
>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-11-15, 13:53:48
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence 
>> ofcomputers
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:42:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>>  
>>> Everything has at least some intelligence or consciousness, according to 
>>> Leibniz's metaphysics,
>>> even rocks.  But these "bare naked monads" are essentially in deep, 
>>> drugged  sleep and darkness,
>>> or at best drunk. Leibniz called such a state the unconscious way before 
>>> Freud and Jung.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that there is an experience on the micro-level of what the 
>> coffee filter is made of - molecules held together as fibers maybe, bit I 
>> don't think that it knows or cares about filtering. It's like if you write 
>> the letters A and B on a piece of paper - I think there is an experience 
>> there on the molecular level, of adhesion, evaporation, maybe other 
>> interesting things we will never know, but I don't think that the letter A 
>> knows that there is a letter B there. Do you? I don't think the letters 
>> have a consciousness because they aren't actually beings, the patterns 
>> which they embody to us are in our experience, not independent beings.
>>
>> Craig 
>>
>>>   
>>> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
>>> 11/15/2012 
>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>>>  
>>>
>>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>>> *From:* Craig Weinberg 
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>> *Time:* 2012-11-12, 09:54:53
>>> *Subject:* Re: My embarassing misunderstanding of the intelligence of 
>>> computers
>>>
>>>  Doesn't mean that a coffee filter is intelligent too? If so, is a 
>>> series of coffee filters more intelligent than one? What about one with a 
>>> hole in it?
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 8:14:05 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> Hi 
>>>>
>>>> I was wrong. 
>>>>
>>>> According to my own definition of intelligence-- that it is the 
>>>> ability of an entity, having at least some measure of free will, 
>>>> to make choices on its own (without outside help)--  a 
>>>> computer can have intelligence, and intelligence in no small measure. 
>>>>
>>>> The ability to sort is an example. To give a simple example, a 
>>>> computer can sort information, just as Maxwell's Demon could, 
>>>> into two bins. Instead of temperature, it could just be a number. 
>>>> Numbers larger than A go into one bin, smaller than A go 
>>>> into another bin.  It does it all on its own, using an "if" statement. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
>>>> 11/11/2012   
>>>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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/-/4uRvNZH9oIsJ.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>
>>> -- 
>> 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/-/Ewl6J7rU8jgJ.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>> -- 
> 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/-/CcSHB3_y74QJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
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/-/X0PwB_Wq7RsJ.
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