On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Intelligence is not definable, like God, or consciousness. > Nobody has a definition of consciousness that's worth a damn but examples are FAR more important than definitions and there is a superb example of consciousness, me. But as for the English word G-O-D you can't define it (although other people certainly can) nor can you provide a example of one. > Stupid (unwise) people got the Nobel Prize in physics, like some nazi > The Nazis were evil, by that I mean they had no empathy or even worse had inverted empathy, but they were not stupid. > >> Who needs "intelligence" (whatever the hell that word is supposed to >> mean in your reformulation of English) if you're competent? > > > > Who need the number 17? > I do if I want to say what the successor to 16 is. But let's get back to the subject, since you didn't answer I repeat my question, if I have no "intelligence" but I have enough "competence" to win the Nobel Prize in physics then what on earth do I need with "intelligence" (whatever the hell that word is supposed to mean in your reformulation of English) ? > > You need intelligence at the start to become stupid later, actually. > Crapola. > > I think I remember that Watson was not that bright. > And yet Watson could beat you at solving equations and at playing Jeopardy and checkers and chess and Bridge and probably Poker and Go too. For years everybody said that all these things required intelligence and a great deal of it, but then Watson got a little too good at them and then suddenly these things no longer required intelligence. And that is Bullshit. > > You may be right. Tell me which learning algorithm it was using, please. > For god's sake, did you think the IBM people just dumped a bunch of facts into a computer? Watson consists of thousands of interlocking algorithms that IBM somehow got to work together. For me the most amazing thing wasn't that it found the correct answer but that it could understand the question, questions that were full of rhymes and wordplay and were deliberately phrased in a very convoluted and ambiguous way. > "Silly" is an insult, > Yes. > > and not an argument. > Yes, silly things don't deserve an argument. >>> or a sort of courage making some person able to change its mind, to >>> develop new taste, etc. >> >> >> >> Dictators have far far more of that ability than you or I do or that >> any scientists has, so was Hitler more intelligent than you or me or >> Einstein? > > > If you believe that killing all people a bit different than you is an act > of courage, > I do believe that actually, killing people can be very dangerous. There is a silly custom in our society to call acts that are Evil cowardly. For example people said the 911 hijackers were cowardly but I disagree, there were evil certainly, and they were stupid for believing in the Islamic religion, but they were not cowardly. 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.
