On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
>> 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. Unless it's a trick and there's a hidden speaker
>> somewhere, you would then have to say that the table is intelligent.
>> You might speculate as to how the table does it and whether the table
>> is conscious, but those are separate questions.
> Who is to say that that table was actually a TV set in the shape of a
> table or a table that had some other means to transmit what would satisfy a
> speech-only Turing test? This goes nowhere, Stathis.
That's why I said "unless it's a trick". The same consideration
applies to anything: how do I know that my neighbour isn't a puppet
manipulated by someone else?
>> 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.
> Could you define "intelligence" for us in unambiguous terms? I don't
> recall Craig trying to do that...
I gave an operational definition. One dictionary definition is "the
ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". It is not
synonymous with consciousness.
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 email@example.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.