On Thursday, February 14, 2013 6:45:27 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >> I think you're conflating "intelligence" with "consciousness".
> > Funny, someone else accused me of the same thing already today:
> > "You've conflating 'real intelligence' with conscious experience."
> > Real or literal intelligence is a conscious experience as far as we
> > Metaphorically, we can say that something which is not the result of a
> > conscious experience (like evolutionary adaptations in a species) is
> > intelligent, but what we mean is that it impresses us as something that
> > seems like it could have been the result of intelligent motives. To fail
> > note that intelligence supervenes on consciousness is, in my opinion,
> > clearly a Pathetic Fallacy assumption.
> If I move my arm, that is a behaviour. The behaviour has an associated
> experience. The behaviour and the experience are not the same thing,
> even if it turns out that you can't have one without the other. It's a
> question of correct use of the English language.
They are both the same thing and not the same thing. Moving your arm is
exactly what it is before being linguistically deconstructed - a united
private-public physical participation.
> >> If the
> >> table talks to you and helps you solve a difficult problem, then by
> >> definition the table is intelligent.
> > No, you are using your intelligence to turn what comes out of the tables
> > mouth into a solution to a difficult problem. If look at the answers to
> > crossword puzzle in a book, and it helps me solve the crossword puzzle,
> > doesn't mean that the book is intelligent, or that answers are
> > it just means that something which is intelligent has made formations
> > available which my intelligence uses to inform itself.
> I meant if the table talks to you just like a person does, giving you
> consistently interesting conversation and useful advice on a wide
> variety of subjects.
Why would it matter how convincing the simulation seems?
Unless it's a trick and there's a hidden speaker
> somewhere, you would then have to say that the table is intelligent.
It's not a hidden speaker, it is a collection of modular recordings which
are strung together to match the criteria of canned algorithms. We do not
at all have to say the table is intelligent. To the contrary, computers are
literally less intelligent than a rock.
You might speculate as to how the table does it and whether the table
> is conscious, but those are separate questions.
The only thing to speculate on is whether there is reason to suspect that
the table has been designed specifically to convince you into believing it
is intelligent, or feeling comfortable pretending that it is intelligent.
> >> How the table pulls this off and
> >> whether it is conscious or not are separate questions.
> > I think that assumption and any deep understanding of either
> > or intelligence are mutually exclusive. Understanding begins when you
> > what you have assumed.
> I think you're using the word "intelligent" in a non-standard way,
> leading to confusion. The first thing to do in any debate is agree on
> the definition of the words.
I think that any debate that even considers word definitions to be real is
a waste of time.
> Stathis Papaioannou
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.