On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/10/2012 7:57 AM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To use this argument, you need to postulate that the physical
universe
exists and is describe by a quantum garden of Eden, that is a
infinite
quantum pattern, and that *you* are that
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi)
can't be
computed as
On 10 Sep 2012, at 16:57, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains
On 9/10/2012 7:57 AM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by
On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi)
can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since
him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
-
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 15:56:55
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-07, 16:10:00
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are the
number one
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-08, 04:44:44
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God.
I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with
On 9/8/2012 10:08 AM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain,
to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 14:06:49
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, William R. Buckley
bill.buck...@gmail.comwrote:
While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is the
fundamental notion of infinite.
No, the fundamental notion of the infinite is that you can make a one to
one correspondence with a proper
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
up with?
The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are
the number one defender of the Christian's conception of God.
OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists.
Incidentally when I went
On 9/7/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that
atheists are the number one defender of the Christian's conception
of God.
OK I see
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at 21:47, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.
A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine
functions, it
If the digital substitution is at the density of 10^90 pixels per
cubic centimeter,
as found in string theory, then digital substitution is essentially analog.
Richard
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at
-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God created the human race.
And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always
Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God created the human race.
And when God asks Himself
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.
The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do
the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 09:51:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 04 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God created
On 03 Sep 2012, at 21:24, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct,
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence
And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be)
then the human race is God.
or life itself.
If as you say
that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-04, 10:20:44
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Maybe not. In Turing's proof he
computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence*
***
** **
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
** **
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.***
*
Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God created the human race.
And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
up with?
God is the uncreated infinite intelligence
There
, September 04, 2012 9:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
Seems funny that Turing .assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers. given that the tape
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence*
***
** **
** **
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
Seems funny that Turing “…assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers…” given that the tape
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers, so if there is a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.
A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine functions, it
can react dynamically to the brain, it can grow, it can heal, it can become
...@verizon.net
9/3/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 12:28:15
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing emulable, and this is
speculative, as
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and brains that is not Turing
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be
something in cells and
On 01 Sep 2012, at 17:52, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
The context is the interpreter; there is no difference between the
two: context vs. interpreter.
Usually, in computer science, the context is the environment or the
inputs. The interpreter is more close to the thinking person
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley
wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as
function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-30, 13:11:51
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig
, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
William,
On 30 Aug 2012
why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley
wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware
form � i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4,
On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that
computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ?
The causal nature of all
At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing everybody will
agree:
1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but in
practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed organization
of the brain makes the mind qualitatively different from computers.
reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
? The self is subjective and I can think of?o way that objective machine
codes and silicon chips could produce that.
That implies that you CAN think of a way
Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 05:28:13
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
William,
On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not
controlled by the genome
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Sense is irreducible.
From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.
No software can control anything,
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:30, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
At this moment of knowledge there is something that I thing
everybody will agree:
1) the basic laws may be the same for computers and for minds, but
in practical terms, the quantitative differences in well designed
organization of the
: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:28 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
William,
On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R
, 2012 2:44 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
Hi Bruno Marchal
Sorry for the continual objections, but I'm just trying
to point out to you a hole in your thinking large enough to drive
a bus through. However, you keep ignoring my
that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31
: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 10:27:35
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
On 31 Aug 2012, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:47:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
what vital ingredient does a neurotransmitter chemical in a brain have
that a electron in a chip does not have?
ROGER: Life.
Yes life, I was afraid you might say that. It may interest you to know that
the Latin word for Life is
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God is necessary because He runs the whole show.
And when in His omniscience God asks Himself How is it that I can run the
whole show? How is it that I am able to do anything that I want to do? How
do my powers work?,
the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:42:26
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
But computers can only do what their programs
: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 15:54:47
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012? Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's
really nothing but an ad hominem
.
- Receiving the following content -
From: William R. Buckley
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:22:31
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Roger:
It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks,
that DNA
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:54:49 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue.
It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack.
It's not ad hominem if its true.
No, it
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:43:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that
machines
@googlegroups.com
Cc: johnkcl...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:54:49 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
do not think that accusations of vitalism add
.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:27:17
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
What is DNA if not software?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wednesday, August 29
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
intelligence
Hi Richard Ruquist
IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.
So
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley
wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware
form – i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I
can
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form –
i.e. DNA).
It
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form -
i.e. DNA
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
The self is subjective and I can think of no way that objective machine
codes and silicon chips could produce that.
That implies that you CAN think of a way that a bunch of cells in your
skull squirting out
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and that it
derails the discussion.
Yes, but I'm surprised you think that's name calling. I'd be insulted if
somebody called me a vitalist but I don't see
: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists
: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-28, 09:39:09
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because
: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely
Time: 2012-08-28, 09:35:36
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You are talking about a robot, not a human.
At the very least, there is the problem of first
Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02
Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Roger, Do you think that humans do not function
in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software?
Richard
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Richard Ruquist
Pre-ordained is a religious position
And we aren't controlled by software
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do.
If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be
absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form –
i.e. DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can
say that cars are controlled by traffic signals,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's
really nothing but an ad hominem attack.
It's not ad hominem if its true. We can't be talking about anything except
vitalism and as one of the most
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that
machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to
construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game.
No
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
If a computer could compute new knowledge, how would you know whether it
is new or not, or even what it means ? This is called the translation
problem.
If a person could create new knowledge, how would you know whether
:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability to make autonomous choices
On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to
imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could
come would
: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and
hardware,
neither of which are their own. And so, machines cannot do anything
not intended by the software author in his software
would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-27, 13:48:40
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012? Roger
computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there
is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in
I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms.
A computer
, rclo...@verizon.net
8/28/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
...@ulb.ac.be
Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have
, 2012 4:07 AM
*To:* everything-list
*Subject:* Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi meekerdb
IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence
because intelligence consists of at least one ability:
the ability to make autonomous choices (choices
, 2012 10:51 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that
before often) and do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to
the issue. It's really
:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:51 AM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
I agree with what Roger is saying here (and have of course expressed that
before often) and do
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote
: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:08 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
It's intentional hyperbole, not a non-sequitur. I am making the comparison
between a program designed to produce simple patterns of pixels achieving
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
