On Friday, December 12, 2014 5:45:04 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:33 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > I apologize for this unreadable drivel >> > > But with a real flare for writing unreadable drivel you could go far in > the psychology or philosophy departments at any university. > > John K Clark >
C.V. multiverse differentiated in accord. In the meantime, I've been thinking about your intelligence consciousness. May I seek your clarification what connection you see between your thinking and the thinking of Alan Turing, reasonably inferred from his Turing Test (say) e.g. Part of how you sum up your core insight: that consciousness has no detectable objective reality (--> evolution cannot detect consciousness). - you assert the position, and follow up your case why this must be so, by demonstrating what you obviously regard as the absurdity of, should your position not be true, evolution detecting consciousness directly would have Turing's test detecting consciousness directly also, and us humans too. Ergo, your position is underwritten by the genius Alan Turing. On a straight forward reading I should say. - Elsewhere you restate and refine a closely related position, via a progression of example scenarios, that artificial Intelligence outperforming humans in tasks involving cognitive heavy lifting are intelligent if we are intelligent, and are more so for doing the task better. Like the Deep Blue chess A.I. You've used other real world examples - which is a good approach IMHO. Most recently Big Data algorithms involving translations with invariant dependence on human translation professionals. It was basically the same point in that different context. So there's the same point, which is good....the point should be invariant. But there's another invariant feature and the implication you include, all you have said is only what can be found by extrapolating Turin's position on Intelligence defined in the Turing Test. Summing up: I requested your clarification. The above two examples, I make explicit what I think you is front and centre in your argument. Therefore the clarification, if possible John, is that you agree that your arguments embed the assertions as exampled? Or am I inaccurate? Assuming you concur with my reading, the sneak preview why the links you make are illegitimate, the most obvious first item from two lists are: e.g. 1 (above): No the Turing Test would remain as it was originally defined, regardless what evolution is found to be able detect directly of consciousness. The Turing Test defines one special case set of conditions, in which the detection of consciousness was both viable, definable.....and airtight. What it was not, John, was a definition of intelligence as being as good or better than we are, at specific TASKS in isolation. Turing absolutely never suggested anything of the sort. No suggestion is implicate of the Test environment. The opposite is true, very much so. Turing tacitly acknowledged neither intelligence nor consciousness reflected adequate captures for definitions and benchmarks in detail to be approached. He side stepped intelligence just as he side stepped consciousness. Instead he characterized the human self-insight of human intelligence and consciousness. In the event an A.I. reproduced identically a human conscious intelligence, Turing observed that another human would find a difference were it not so. That's very fucking holistic John. It ain't playing chess > -- 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.
