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 presence.
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 provide it.

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 reasons.

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 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to