On 3/20/2015 12:51 PM, John Clark wrote:
> 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.
He doesn't. He just makes a big distinction between competence = "doing something
(narrowly defined) well" and intelligence = "being able to learn anything". He thinks
that if you learn one thing well, it inhibits your ability or willingness to learn
something different. He sees them as in opposition. I don't really agree with him on the
generality of his distinction. Sometimes it works that way, but sometimes learning one
thing well may help you learn something else well, e.g. learning English may inhibit your
ability or willingness to learn Finnish, but it improves your ability to learn a lot of
other things. So his belief is not self-contradictory, it's just an exaggerated distinction.
Brent
--
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.
