John the horse whisperer.
18 Apr.
John to Horse
> But then I got to think while I was driving, and I changed my mind.
> Or rather, in spite of the unlikelihood of the argument "going my
> way", I wish to pursue it anyway. Despite your superior expertise, I
> think you're wrong.
I also thought you gave in too easily. I'm a bit rusty on A.I. but
because Horse is wrong regarding the intellectual level - and thus
about the MOQ in general - it indicates that he is wrong on this much-
related issue.
-----------
An aside: Penrose was him with the "exposed brain" experiments that
led to Benjamin Libet's discovery of the "half a second" phenomenon,
i.e. that BEFORE we make up our minds - regardless how
spontaneous we try to be - there is a brain pulse half a second before
the action..
-----------
> Of course, we have to define exactly what we're talking about Of
> course AI is possible. It's more than possible, it's actual.
> Artificial intelligence is all around us. I often wear a wrist
> calculator watch because they're very handy on the job. Especially if
> you can get one with a sq root function! The ability to calculate
> quickly that we term "intelligence", is not only possible, its factual.
Right, but are calculators intelligent? Intelligence is the ability to learn
from experience and/or change behavior accordingly and that is
absent at least in calculators and computers. They would have to
replicate the sense organs before the said ability can be achieved and
- for instance - artificial visual recognition has been impossible to
duplicate.
> Artificial intellect, however, is another story entirely. _And here I
> need make no reference to Penrose, it is Pryor's logical argument
> derived from the Q'm" with which you must contend. For thereby, there
> is only one way to attain intellectual status, and that is by
> encompassing the totality of the inorganic, biological and most
> importantly, social, ways of being.
This is the very point. For Horse & Co. "intellect" isn't the Q-level
above the social, but "a mind out of (brain) matter".
> For even as biological life comes to naught with a dearth of necessary
> inorganic "patterns" upon which to feed, and Social patterns die soon
> when their biological substance subsists, and all intellectual
> patterns die when no social support is given them, so it is and always
> must be, epistemologically speaking that you can't create intellectual
> patterning from inorganic matter and pure intellectual ideas.
Hear, hear!!
> For intellect is born of self / other dichotomy nurtured into existence
> with maternal attention and biological support. There's no way any
> increase of mere intelligence is going to re-create that process which
> is the heart of autonomous self-dom, self-realization or
> value-cognizance. However you wanna spell it, call it consciousness,
> call it "I and I" for all "I" care. It comes only through this social
> creation called infant nurture, coupled with biological analogues of
> felt pain and desire. The whole body is a brain, when it comes down to
> our deepest understandings, and a brain hooked up to an environmental
> matrix that can't be copied by algorithm, program or artificial
> replication.
"Autonomous self-dom" yes, in the sense of regarding ourselves to be
isolated subjects with no access to other subjects or the external
objective material world .... THAT is intellect while it operated as SOM
not controlled by MOQ's revelation of the Quality Context. About the
A.I. as "artificial replication" (of some small segments) Spot on!
Bodvar
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
