Re: UNIVERSAL-DOVETAILER-ARGUMENT.HTML

Not bad exposition at all. Thanks for the remind, Richard. Except that I am not french, it is much worse: I'm belgian :) (but then we are all Löbian, isn't?) Bruno On 27 Aug 2012, at 18:09, Richard Ruquist wrote: CLUB OF SUPPER CLUB HTTP://CLUBOFSC.BLOGSPOT.COM/2011/08/MY-TOPIC-UNIVERS

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

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 program and constrained by the hardware. So machines cannot make autonomous d

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough 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 program and con

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi John Clark But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices beyond that. They should be able to beat me at poker even though they have no poker program. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

What you are all missing is this: A particular kind of pattern (in sand or salt) can be generated by generating a specific sound (cymatics). The same pattern would be generated whether or not any human ear was present to hear the 'sound' as an audible experience. The same pattern could be manua

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Stathis Papaioannou You are talking about a robot, not a human. At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy. Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an atheist or theist. For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my min

Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2F&ei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http:/

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

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. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stathis Papaioannou > > You are talking about a robot, not a human. > At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy. > Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an > atheist or theist.

Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough 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 could make

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Finally we have the whole story and truth: > > Direct link to PDF in question: > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffile

Re: The hypocracy of materialism

On 27 Aug 2012, at 17:53, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > A popular subproblem consists in explaining how a grey brain can generate the subjective color An outline would be given by 1) a theory of qualia. This just means some semi-axiomatic definition of qua

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Roger, On 28 Aug 2012, at 14:40, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smal

No Chinese Room Necessary

This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. sɹǝʇʇǝl uǝʌǝ ʇ,uǝɹɐ ǝsǝɥʇ If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as a

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Bruno: Will you please cite the theorem of Kleene. All: Living systems are not the material from which they are constructed (upon which they exist). Living systems are rather the systems of processes and higher, which rest upon the material from which they are constructed.

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 nothing but an ad hominem attack. I would only modify Roger's view in two ways: 1. Programs can and do produce outcomes th

Re: The hypocracy of materialism

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> And subjective sensations are qualia. You need more than a dictionary >> list of synonyms and I have no idea how to get more. And if you're not >> clear about what you're trying to explain then your theory explaining that >> vague mush is

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

No, it is not ad hominem. It is a serious issue. The discussion of COMP is one of essentialism. Your first argument hinges upon a non-sequitur. Your second argument hinges upon semiotics. You have no way to compare your experience (conscious or otherwise) to that of any other crea

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: > > No, it is not ad hominem. It is a serious issue. > Are they mutually exclusive? Telling someone they have a bad haircut could be a serious issue too, but it doesn't mean it isn't ad hominem. > > > The discussion of C

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/27/2012 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Aug 2012, at 15:32, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/27/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Aug 2012, at 21:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal w

Why the Church-Turing thesis?

It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. I really wonder why this is so, given that there are simple cases where we can compute something tha

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic. This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies are identical and this by the principle of indiscernible are one and the same mind. There

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Proof of non-sequitur. You assert that GoL cannot invent Elvis Presley. You have no proof of this claim. You simply claim it. Further, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 Your relevant statement is: Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of glider, but it ca

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

My statement is not intended for either of these purposes: 1. (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. 2. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain. It is instead a serious s

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk wrote: > > It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal > turing > machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near > universal acceptance among computer scientists. > > I really wonder why this is so, given t

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 a trivial level of novelty within that constraint of design and the event of any such program achieving an authentic transgression of its own prog

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

The burden of proof is not on me. I am replying to your initial claim, that Elvis will not appear in context of GoL. Intellectual honesty implies the proof is on you. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg S

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

It isn't a claim, is a reductio ad absurdum. Since nothing but pixel configurations have ever appeared in the context of GoL, there is no implied expectation that there ever will be. Elvis fits the criteria, as does ice cream cones, bags of money, nuclear submarines, and a sense of humor, of th

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Your latest argument flies in the face of the Turing Test. If I give you a machine that looks like Elvis, sounds like Elvis, ., you would say (well, typical people would say) that the machine is Elvis. It is nevertheless a machine. GoL is a machine, and it has universal qualities as

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:03 AM, William R. Buckley wrote: > Your latest argument flies in the face of the Turing Test. > > > > If I give you a machine that looks like Elvis, sounds like Elvis, …, you > > would say (well, typical people would say) that the machine is > > Elvis. > > > > It is never

A configured governor marches.

How can a desired vocabulary expand? The hypothesis pours the cuckoo. Sam Spencer mails the Everything list. The distinguishing glass deprives the audio into whatever assembled photo. Sam Spencer syndicates the Everything list. -Sam Spencer -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Stathis, Yes you've got it. 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 '

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Stathis and Craig: If the simulation is kept from you, and you only observe it via and intervening wall (vision is prevented but hearing is facilitated) you will not know the difference. Your arguments adhere to notions of objective reality. There is no such thing, as any competent p

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Stathis, > > Yes you've got it. 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

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

That's exactly what I am saying. Since there is no way to see consciousness outside of yourself, the fact that something designed to fool you into mistaking it for consciousness succeeds in fooling you is no reason to consider that there is in fact any consciousness there. We think that puppets

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic. This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies are identical and this by the principle of indiscer

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012/8/29 Stephen P. King > On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in > arithmetic. > > > This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies > are iden

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation by the UD" might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD execute

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Hi Brent, I didn't wrote what is quoted, it's Stephen ;) Quentin 2012/8/29 meekerdb > On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi Brent, > > Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase "generation > by the UD" might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinati

Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline

Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other "drug