On 3/1/2013 5:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?
For one thing because you contradict them yourself. You just posted, in reply to
Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think" Then you turn around and
assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms."
If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated
assertions can become evidence?
If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.
Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a choice?
Sure. But it'd be same kind of speculation as to how a human might prefer potatoes to
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.