On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>wrote:
>> To make a AI by reverse engineering it would be enough to have a map of >> how information flows in the brain, >> > > > I'd say you would also have to deal with neuroplasticity. The process > that makes the brain grow is part of what makes it work. > Neuroplasticity means making changes to neural pathways, and the Internet has been doing the electronic equivalent of that every nanosecond of every day of every year for over 20 years. >> It doesn't matter it would still work, >> > > > A few emails ago this wasn't good enough for you. I'm confused. > I said you can know how to build something that works and not have any idea why it works, for that you'd need to know more. I personally would love to know all the details about why a AI works but I may not be smart enough for that, but that doesn't mean a AI can not be built > > I don't think he ever claimed consciousness was a byproduct of > intelligence Because Darwin refused to treat his readers like children by pointing out the obvious and because his book got him into enough trouble as it was. > and you refuse to produce citations. I refused a demand for a citation that said "I Charles Darwin think that I Charles Darwin am conscious". Do you really think such a citation is necessary or do you think the demand was a stalling tactic made by somebody who had dug himself into a logical hole? >> You know you're in trouble when you've got to conjurer up new laws of >> science that do absolutely nothing but shoehorn reality into your >> preexisting ideas. >> > > > I did no such thing. Like hell you didn't. > I made the incidental remark that evolution itself will possibly be eaten > by some more general theory at some point. If you consider the MWI, for > example, you can start to see how Evolution might not be the complete story. > The difference is that MWI cleared up a serious ambiguity in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, namely in determining what exactly is a observation and who exactly is a observer; but even if it existed your hypothetical super duper general theory of Evolution (which you don't describe at all) would solve nothing and do absolutely nothing except make reality conform to your tin pot theories of consciousness. And consciousness theories are a dime a dozen. John K Clark -- 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.
