On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> Then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just for >> intelligence. > > > > It can give an idea that some entity is conscious, if long enough, and > with entity similar to you. It can not work for intelligence. >
Good God! In the final analysis passing the Turing Test just means being observed doing intelligent things, but now you tell me that's not important because doing intelligent things does not require intelligence; if that were true then Einstein could have been a imbecil. And that idea my dear Bruno is just not intelligent. > But then you don't believe the Turing Test even works for intelligence >> because you believe that the ability to do intelligent things has nothing >> to do with being intelligent, an idea so breathtakingly silly nobody would >> dream of uttering it unless they were driven to do so by their fear of >> intelligent machines. I guess "competent machines" sounds less threatening >> to you. > > > ? > ! > I was consider as being crackpot *because* I defended the idea that > machine could be intelligent, and could develop competence. 40 years ago. > It sounds like you were wiser 40 years ago than you are today because today you insist on making a nonexistent distinction between competence and intelligence and worse, much worse, make the breathtakingly silly statement that the turing test doesn't even work for intelligence. This goes beyond normal stupidity and the only hypothesis I can come up with to explain illogic on this massive scale is that you have developed a powerful fear of smart machines that clouds your judgement. If somebody else has a rival theory to explain why Bruno has this blatantly self contradictory belief I'd love to hear it. > > Your stopping at step 3 is just playing words. > The man who insists on redefining "God" and "Atheism" and "Christianity" and now "intelligence" so that they no longer have one particle of meaning accuses me of playing at words?!! > > My work is very modest. > Very modest indeed. > > you are sometimes assuming that there is a primitive physical universe, > and that we have to be dumb to propose a theory not assuming it. > I'm saying that you are lying in the above statement. So logically one of us must be lying, either me in the previous sentence or you above. So to prove to the entire list that I'm the liar just quote me as saying that there is a primitive physical universe and that we have to be dumb to propose a theory not assuming it. Go ahead, I dare you! Quote me! By the way, I am also saying that as far as intelligence and consciousness are concerned it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if there is a primitive physical universe or not. > > Your stopping at step three is unreasonable, > Because I spotted a blunder in the "proof" about 3 years ago and despite reams of blather in hundreds of posts you were unable to fix it. Only a fool would keep reading a mathematical proof after they've spotted an error, and I am not a fool. 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.
