On 20 Mar 2015, at 20:51, John Clark wrote:
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!
Let us hope.
In the final analysis passing the Turing Test just means being
observed doing intelligent things,
The Turing test measure the ability in the domain "passing a Turing
tests".
but now you tell me that's not important because doing intelligent
things does not require intelligence;
Doing intelligent things does require intelligence.
Being competent in some domain, does not imply intelligence.
Plant can manage insect is taking their seminal product from a male to
a female at a distance. can you do that? Can we say that plant are
intelligent, because doing that seems rather intelligent to me, for
creature which can move to each other. But that does not imply
intelligence locally. On which I am more neutral.
if that were true then Einstein could have been a imbecil. And that
idea my dear Bruno is just not intelligent.
Einstein is then an imbecil as Einstein thought he was an imbeci
himself for having said that you need to be an imbecil to enter in an
army.
Of course, with one of the theory I gave, this shows him rather
intelligent, as being able to change his mind.
> 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.
Translate your "intelligence" by competence, and try to understand
what I mean by intelligence. I gave to different, but compatible,
definition. They differ only by the spectrum of the entity considered
as intelligent.
The more general one, is the easiest to define mathematically (indeed
it is just "consistency"), but it entail that pebbles are intelligent,
a bit like the mathematical definition of curves entails that the line
is a curve.
This goes beyond normal stupidity
This is only insult. Not an argument, and bad evidence for your
intent. As you know that what you call intelligence, I name it
competence. And they have different mathematical definition.
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.
This is refuted by the fact that I am advocating intelligent and
competent machines, and indeed I assume that we are ourselves
machines, in the main reasoning.
If somebody else has a rival theory to explain why Bruno has this
blatantly self contradictory belief I'd love to hear it.
If somebody can tell me which self-contradictory belief John is
talking about, please help.
Like I said, I introduce a nuance between two things, then of course I
say different things on each of them, then John abstract from the
nuances made, and of course I can only look contradictory.
Against it is only a rhetorical trick.
> Your stopping at step 3 is just playing words.
The man who insists on redefining "God"
No, using the definition of the Platonists. Well known by any
philosophers interested in the subject.
It is close to Einstein's Spinoza's god.
and "Atheism" and "Christianity"
You have just never reply to may argument. And please note that I was
talking about the non agnostic atheists. They believe in the christian
concept of god, to disbelieve, well, apparently in all notion of god.
and now "intelligence" so that they no longer have one particle of
meaning accuses me of playing at words?!!
Yes, because none of us have understood your "fatal flaw argument" in
step 3. Which by the way, was the point here.
> 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.
Oh, I might be wrong. Glad that you are open with the idea that there
is no primitive universe.
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.
You will eventually explain my theory to me.
> 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.
Not only I spotted the mistakes, but many others too. You are the one
alone on this, and you are the one insulting all people having done
the verification. You might add some metaphysics which is not there,
very young people grasped this, some find such thing by themselves,
and as Quentin explained it is used by Everett in the quantum setting.
You are talentuous in rhetorical trick, and I am tired of your
insinuation, rethorical tricks and lack of any genuine argument for
not moving to step 4.
Only a fool would keep reading a mathematical proof after they've
spotted an error, and I am not a fool.
Here you illustrate that you have no idea of what are mathematicians.
Only a fool would stop at a non convincing step, if only because the
next steps might help him to see that his refutation, although right
in some sense, might be non relevant for the conclusion.
And you have not spotted en error. Or tell me what you predict the guy
in Helsinki should predict for its possible accessible next experience.
You have in fact never reply to many of my questions. Are you OK that
the guy can bet he will got a cup of coffee in the protocol where both
reconstituted guy will have a cup of coffee? If not, what is P(first
person-experience-get-a-cup-of-coffee).
If three people asks me to no more answer to Clark, I will avoid it.
There is something like not feeding the troll.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
