On Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:33:16 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:59:25 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's >>>> intelligent then it's conscious. Consciousness is easy but intelligence >>>> >>> >>> > John - take the amount new knowledge you assert I just the above >>> sentence. From where or what do you acquire this position? >>> >> >> I've been over this many times on this list, a rock may be conscious >> > > But there's no reason to entertain a rock is conscious to begin with. > Orchestrating consciousness is a mind-bogglingly complex accompaniment. As > conscious beings this is reasonable from observation. > > We boldy conjecture vast compleixity and stick our necks out in doing so. > If no such complexity is there....we are all washed up and falsified . So > it's a big risk...but it pays off...because we observe our brains are the > most complex objects in the universe ......on some density measure of > complexity per cubic cc. > > You've absolutely no rational logical basis for starting with assumption > consciousness is something generated any old how. So you spun yourself dizz > all a fluster intoxicating potions of specially case Darwinian Natural > Selection. You think natural selection has to *see* subjective inner > experience? Why....it doesn't have to *see* subjective tree-eye views > ecological niches...or *see* the - highly complex computational modes of > the Liver. Or Bladder. Never sees the pretty girl. Mirror's reflection. The > evil of the psychopathic sadist....NS knows evil al the same. > > In all cases, natural selection sits with the universal principle.....the > laws of symmetry, the conservation laws....all of which are variations on > the concept Energy. The universal principles are always about energy. > Natural selection.....is just like 'conservation laws', 'symmetry laws', > non-creative laws...and so on....just otexts of expression for energy. > Natural Selection is simply one further context of energy. > > The more efficient energetic structure, out endures the lesser. Because > they are one and same thing....at different points in history. The more > efficient gstructure is the young low entropy epoch. The lesser efficient > structure is the structure in its old age. Natural selection is a turn of > phrase....the more efficient energetic structure simply will out endure. > > So all this hocus pocus about consciousness being special and somehow > immune from natural selection....really is a big pile of steaming cock and > bull John. Consciousness is the product of millions of small or large > efficiency differences, both in terms of itself, and in terms of some > abstract problem space....a problem that came to be solved by the invention > of consciousness. > > > > but because it doesn't behave intelligently I (and you too) assume it is >> not. And neither of us could function if we thought we were the only >> conscious being in the universe so we assume that our fellow human beings >> are conscious too, be not all the time, not when they are sleeping or under >> anesthesia or dead, in other words when they are not behaving >> intelligently. >> > > No..that's to be resting on a fallacy. We draw on common > human understandings for the knowledge being under anesthesia or > whatever knocks out consciousness. You've no business adding your arbitrary > layer 'in other words not behaving intelligent'. Anyone can add as many > layers as they like but it's just redundant. > > > >> >> >> Some of our most powerful emotions like pleasure, pain, and lust come >> from the oldest parts of our brain that evolved about 500 million years >> ago. About 400 million years ago Evolution figured out how to make the >> spinal cord, the medulla and the pons, and we still have these brain >> structures today just like fish and amphibians do, and they deal in >> aggressive behavior, territoriality and social hierarchies. The Limbic >> System is about 150 million years old and ours is similar to that found in >> other mammals. Some think the Limbic system is the source of awe and >> exhilaration because it is the active site of many psychotropic drugs, and >> there's little doubt that the amygdala, a part of the Limbic system, has >> much to do with fear. After some animals developed a Limbic system they >> started to spend much more time taking care of their young, so it probably >> has something to do with love too. >> > > You're going to summarize that with a totally misshapen and confused > notion about, why would life do things in this sequence, Yes there it is > ...I see it. So you you thinks, if natural did things in that order. The > conscious human intellect, in the technological civilization, despite > blatently following a completely different sequence than biological > evolution.......and has access to energy sources and material bioloy never > has. And a sequence became defined from goal seeking hunter feeler > patterns. > > Despite all that.... an obviously profoundly different oirigins......your > daft cogwheels of reasoning still just has to clonk out that we sequenced > feeling and sensing and detecting and responding.....eating and digesting > john? It's one of the stupidest things you've ever said. > >> >> It is our grossly enlarged neocortex that makes the human brain so >> unusual and so recent, it only started to get large about 3 million years >> ago and only started to get ridiculously large less than one million years >> ago. It deals in deliberation, spatial perception, speaking, reading, >> writing and mathematics; in other words everything that makes humans so >> very different from other animals. The only new emotion we got out of it >> was worry, probably because the neocortex is also the place where we plan >> for the future. >> > > Aromatic speculative thinking. You can't use this shit for hard reasoning. > > >> >> So if nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence only >> much much later I don't see why the opposite would be true for our >> computers. It's a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but >> doesn't think than something that thinks but doesn't feel. >> > > Yeah? > > Historical biology was driven by NATURAL SELECTION. The concept of > 'feeling' is just another way of saying primitive chemical pathways sensing > heat, oxygen, nutrion whatever. There is no particular reason for evolution > to have to pass through a stage of primitive chemical pathways sensing > whatever. It happened like that because the environment defined that > arrangement. > > Conscious intelligent technological being choose their own preferred > sequent. There is no feeling or emoting in there, unless it gets put in > there by design. > >> >> >> >> I am certain you have met people in your life that you wouldn't >>>> hesitate to call brilliant, and you've met people you'd call complete >>>> morons, but if you don't examine the same thing that the Turing Test does, >>>> behavior, how do you make that determination? >>>> >>> >>> > John, sure I would examine something empirically >>> >> >> And that is exactly what the Turing Test does. >> > > There are values of a truism nature to what you say here. The Turing test > may SEE insights popping up about intelligence and consciousness. Why not. > > But the point isl the test does not DEPEND on any useful measurements of > such quantities taking place. > > More critically the test does not DEPEND on non-vague definitions of > intelligence or consciousness. There is NO DEPENDENCE on progress being > made defining and understanding this pair of nebulous vague conceptions. > > HAD Turing's test depended AT ALL on breakthrough insights aking > place....the test would be worthless drivel. And Turing wouldn't be the > great genius that plainly he simply just was. > > If you can't get your head around this....then what can I say.....chill > out, relax.....be happy. The turing test you and others seem to revere, is > worh about as much as a brain fart thrown against the wall. > > apologies for the polemic...but man are some of your neural nets in > a tangle. > > > > > >> > if necessary. It often isn't. >>> >> >> It often isn't?!! Then I repeat my question, if you don't use the same >> thing that the Turing Test uses, behavior, how in the world do you tell >> the difference between a genius and a moron? >> > > You don't understand the turing test. why don't you identify a top bod on > the matter.......and ask him whether the turing test involves telling a > moron and genius apart. > > While you're doing the rounds..you might clear up the natural selection > thing. You don't want to hear it from me. Understandable....teenage > dirtbags like me :o) > > >> >> > So it comes down to the logic of the Test. If Turing proposed a test >>> that was based on intelligence testing what is his reason for leaving >>> intelligence testing, which was highly standardized in his time, >>> >> >> Turing didn't need to prove what the best way to test for intelligence >> is, he didn't even need to explain what it means; all he was saying is that >> whatever intelligence is and whatever method you use to test for it you >> should use the same method for both humans and machines. And the Turing >> Test is not perfect even when applied to humans, sometimes a human can >> appear to be smarter or dumber than he really is, nevertheless it remains >> valuable because despite its flaws it's all we've got. >> > > It's feasible he believed in that sort of equality. But that's not > NECESSARY for the turing test. Human intelligence is measured in ways, > incidently, that no A.I. begains to approach solution of. It's for that > reason we put the safety wheels back on. > >> >> >> > I thought maybe you hadn't answered me, johnnyboy, because I'd crossed the line of rudeness even for a bar room brawler like you. But on review of the fracking discussion above, it's pretty obvious i'm well inside queensbury rules equivalents for where you come from.
So then...why you no answer me? you know I love you johnny and want your baby. Why you no answer/ -- 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.
