On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I think you could tell that the article was almost certainly worthless > from the title alone because it is asking the wrong question. There is a > vastly better question, *Is Intelligence Computable?* > > > OK, although I am not sure a question can be wrong. > In general a question is wrong if contemplating the answer produces nothing of value, and navel gazing about consciousness produces nothing but more navel gazing. Examining the nature of intelligence is a very different matter, it has produced philosophical incites and trillion dollar industries. Examining the nature of consciousness just produces bad books and even worse internet posts. > Then with comp [...] > I am not interested in your homemade word. > Like the UDA shows [...] > I am not interested in the Universal Dance Association either. > >> Consciousness is a vastly simpler phenomenon than intelligence and > that's why all encompassing consciousness theories that explain exactly how > it all works are astronomically easier to find on the internet than all > encompassing intelligence theories; > > > > I am not sure on that. The whole AI tries theory of intelligence and > intelligence grow. > Yes but the ideas about Artificial Intelligence that we have today took decades of hard work to find by lots of brilliant people , but any jackass can post a consciousness theory on the internet that works just as well (or badly) as any other consciousness theory. Feynman said that science was imagination in a straightjacket, the straightjacket being consistency with what we already know and the requirement that our imaginings explain something or do something that previously we could not; it's hard as hell to do all that but it's worth the effort. With consciousness theories there is no straightjacket, it's just imagination, and that's why it's so easy and so worthless. > Comp *is* a theory of consciousness > OK, but there are 6.02 * 10^23 other consciousness theories, and they all bore me. > and intelligence too > Now that is very different! If true then tell me how "comp" says intelligence works in enough detail that I can try it out on my computer. If my computer starts behaving intelligently then I'll know that "comp" is a good theory of intelligence, if not then yet another intelligence theory bites the dust. > and is falsifiable, because it says something about the > possible/necessary physical reality. > I would be enormously more impressed if "comp" said something about how pattern recognition in general and image recognition in particular worked. > Evolution did not produce consciousness, nor intelligence [...] > Evolution produced brain > Evolution produces nouns, and all nouns have adjectives that can be associated with them, adjectives like Bruno Marchal or John K Clark. >> Evolution can't see consciousness. But Evolution can see intelligence. >> > > > Then comp ascribes a role to consciousness, which is a speed-up factor. > If true and consciousness effects behavior then that explains why Evolution bothered to create it. It would also mean that it would be EASIER to make a conscious AI than a non-conscious AI; so just like human beings if a machine is smart it's probably conscious too. 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
