On 2/6/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]
<javascript:>> wrote:
> People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.
True.
> In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help
you
determine whether they have a mind or not.
Also true. The Turing Test is not perfect, it is however the only tool
we've got.
It's not really a tool, it's just a belief that there is no logical way to tell the
difference between the mind of a living person and a sufficiently well engineered
replica. In practice it may not be so simple.
Rather than technology climbing ever closer to devices and graphics which seem genuine
and real, we seem to be producing devices which are increasingly used to access other
people. There is still nobody that can't tell the df
> Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is not a theory of the
origin of
either.
As I said on January 24:
"Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but
once
bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's
a pretty
good accomplishment."
No argument here, as I didn't argue then. Darwin was a great scientist.
And if intelligence came from Evolution
Evolution enhanced intelligence, but it did not create it. A universe of atoms crashing
into each other does not evolve any intelligent systems unless the possibility of
intelligence through atomic reactions exists in the first place.
Possibility is the same as actuality. Bricks may be necessary to make a brick building,
but the building is still made by a bricklayer. He doesn't just 'enhance' the bricks into
a building.
and if at least one of those intelligent beings is conscious then it
follows that
consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and is just the way data
feels
like when it is being processed.
Not if consciousness prefigures intelligence, which it must.
Why must it.
In order for intelligence to exist, something has to utilize sensory awareness in an
intelligent, i.e. sensitive way. Intelligence is sophisticated sensitivity.
Intelligence is learning and purposeful, effective action.
> If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them,
are we not?
Don't worry about us enslaving computers because enslaving something much
smarter
than you is not a stable state of affairs, it would be like balancing a
pencil on
its tip, it won't stay that way for more than a few million nanoseconds. On
the
other hand computers could enslave us if they wanted to, although I doubt
they'd
think we'd be good slaves.
Why would you think that computers would let any living organism survive on
Earth?
You dodged the question though. It sounds like you understand that you position means
that we must be monstrous computer slave-drivers at the moment (and for the foreseeable
future, until Skynet becomes self-aware.)
Craig
John K Clark
Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy a
new one.
They were turned into food and glue and upholstery over most of the world for the most of
history.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
