On 09 Oct 2013, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point is not that they are stupid, its that they are much
stupider about aesthetic realities than quantitative measurements,
which should be or *at least could be* be a clue
If that were true ...
But you don't really address the critic made against that idea. You
seem just to have a prejudice against the possible relation between
machines and aesthetic realities. Your argument takes too much into
account the actual shape of current machines.
that there is much more of a difference between mathematical theory
and experienced presence than Comp can possibly consider.
I keep trying to point to you that there is a mathematical theory of
the experienced presence. Of course the mathematical theory itself is
not asked to be an experienced presence, but it is a theory about such
You confuse the menu and the food.
This is not generalized from a particular case, it is a pattern
which I have seen to be common to all cases,
We cannot see infinitely many examples.
I guess you mean that there is a general argument, but you don't
and I think that it is possible to understand that pattern without
it being the product of any phobia or bias. I would love computers
to be smarter than living organisms, and in some way, they are, but
in other ways, it appears that they will never be, and for very good
That we still ignore. As I said, the phenomenology that you describe
fits well in the machine's machine qualia theory.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.