On Monday, February 25, 2013 4:02:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/25/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:01:07 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> You'll forgive me if I don't jump at the chance to shell out $51.96 for 
>>> 300+ pages 
>>
>>   
> It's only $20 (including shipping) from other sellers listed on Amazon
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0195166191/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
>
>   of the same warmed over cog-sci behaviorism-cum-functionalism that I 
>>> have been hearing from everyone.
>>>
>>   
> Well since you don't want to read the book because you already know all 
> the answers, why don't you stop reading this mailing list.  Actually I get 
> the impression that you never have read it.
>

It's not that I think I know all the answers, it's that I doubt assumptions 
beneath the level that the book seems likely to entertain.
 

>
>   
>>> The preview includes a couple of pages that tell me all that I need to 
>>> know: (p.22) 
>>>
>>> 'Building in self-representaiton and value, with the goal of 
>>> constructing a system that could have feelings, will result in a robot that 
>>> also has the capacity for emotions and complex social behavior.'
>>>
>>> No, it won't. And a simulation of water won't make plants grow.
>>
>>
>>   You present no argument, just prejudice. 
>>  
>
> My argument is that he makes an arbitrary assertion. 
>
>
> How do you know it's arbitrary.  He wrote/edited a whole book on the 
> subject - and you (who have never presented anything but unsupported 
> assertions) accuse him of an arbitrary assertion because he doesn't make a 
> complete argument in *one sentence* in the introduction!  
>

I agree that it's not fair to judge the book by one sentence, but I've just 
seen too much of this stuff to be able to give the benefit of the doubt 
without a good reason. The idea that we should make the leap from a logical 
model of self representation to some kind of appearance of emotive qualia 
can only be rooted in the retrospective view of qualia. I can make a movie 
of a movie camera shooting a movie of itself and there is never going to be 
any kind of budding emotion involved. It's too fundamentally misconceived 
for me to want to listen to.

Craig


> Brent
>
>  What the author is saying is really not much different from "If you say 
> the incantation with the right intention, it *will* result in a demon 
> summoning."
>
> Craig
>  
>  
>>
>>
>>  -- 
>> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6123 - Release Date: 02/22/13
>
>
>  

-- 
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