On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:51:01 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:07:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> The only thing I can ascribe consciousness to with absolute certainty >>>> is me. As for intelligence, if something, man or machine, has no way of >>>> knowing when it made a mistake or got a question wrong it will never >>>> get any better, but if it has feedback and can improve its ability to >>>> correctly answer difficult questions then it is intelagent. The only >>>> reason >>>> I ascribe intelligence to Einstein is that he greatly improved his ability >>>> to answer difficult physics questions (like what is the nature of space >>>> and >>>> time?), he was much better at it when he was 27 than when he was 7. >>>> >>> >>> *> The point I am making is that modern computers programmed by skillful >>> programmers, can improve the "AI"'s performance. * >>> >> >> Well yes. Obviously a skilled programer can improve a AI but that's not >> the only thing that can, a modern AI programs can improve its own >> performance. >> > > I just meant to indicate it can be programmed to improve its performance, > but I see nothing to indicate that it's much different from ordinary > computers which don't show any property associated with, for want of a > better word, WILL. AG > >> >> >>> *> I see nothing to specially characterize this as "artifical >>> intelligence". What am I missing from your perspective? AG* >>> >> >> It's certainly artificial and if computers had never been invented and a >> human did exactly what the computer did you wouldn't hesitate for one >> nanosecond in calling what the human did intelligent, so why in the world >> isn't it Artificial Intelligence? >> > > OK, AG > >> >> John K Clark >> > *Bruno seems to think that if some imaginary entity is "computable", it can and must exist as a "physical" entity -- which is why I think he adds "mechanism" to his model for producing conscious beings. But this, if correct, seems no different from equating a map to a territory. If we can write the DNA of a horse with a horn, does this alone ipso facto imply that unicorns are existent beings? AG *
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/02eba413-dc29-4621-9692-ae9e8cfba125%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/02eba413-dc29-4621-9692-ae9e8cfba125%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30bd8cd9-3132-4699-8437-3a22b4c6d293%40googlegroups.com.
