On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:15:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  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 <whats...@gmail.com>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.
>

Not in the English language. It's possible that I could have a pile of gold 
bars laying in the middle of my kitchen, but in actuality, I do not.
 

> 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.
>

You've got it backwards. The bricklayer is necessary to build buildings. He 
can use a lot of different things as bricks. A builder of skyscrapers 
enhances the techniques of the bricklayer, but the bricklayer's techniques 
do not arise from bricks themselves.
 

>
>
>   
>  
>>  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.  
>

Because if you are the universe, and you are unconscious, how can you tell 
the difference between something that is intelligent or not? If you are 
conscious, you can be intelligent or not, you can recognize intelligence 
greater than your own or not, but if you are unconscious, and never become 
conscious, then you cannot cognize, recognize, think, understand, nothing, 
nada.
 

>
>  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.
>

Effectiveness, learning, and purpose are all aspects of sensory awareness. 
They are values and experiences of cognitive qualities through time. 


>   
>  
>>  
>>  > 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.
>
>
Well sure, but they were also beloved and pampered all over the world too. 
You might not care if you hurt a horse, but some people would be very 
seriously and righteously enraged. Nobody is righteously enraged when a 
computer is unplugged and scrapped, and the reasons for that are blindingly 
obvious. It's the same reason why we build them in the first place - 
because we know they can't feel anything and can't complain or go on strike 
when we make them do mindlessly repetitious tasks. If you have a mind, you 
tend to rebel at the idea of having to do mindless tasks, yet computers, 
even Deep Blue, excel at doing just that. It will play the same match over 
and over again for 10,000 years if you want, and you won't even have to ask 
twice.

Craig

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


Reply via email to