On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Part of how you sum up your core insight: that consciousness has no > detectable objective reality >
No, I'm saying that consciousness DOES have a detectable objective reality if and only if it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels like when it is processed intelligently. And I'm saying that human beings can detect intelligent behavior and so can the process that produced them, Evolution. > > evolution cannot detect consciousness. > If I accept that Darwin was correct and if I also accept that John K Clark is conscious then I am forced by logic to conclude that consciousness is indeed the way data feels like when it is processed intelligently. As a corollary I MUST also conclude that to whatever degree the Turing Test is successful at detecting intelligence then it must be equally successful at detecting consciousness. John K Clark > > - 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. > -- 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.
