Re: Intelligence-office-whistleblowers-craft-non-human-origin

Scientists Extremely Intrigued to Find Ingredients for Life on Enceladus (msn.com) On Monday, June 12, 2023 at

Re: Intelligence-office-whistleblowers-craft-non-human-origin

Interesting intelligences from some nearby solar system appear too good to be true for me.  On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 08:54:05 AM EDT, Alan Grayson wrote: Stunning UFO crash retrieval allegations deemed ‘credible,’ ‘urgent’ (msn.com) On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:07:51 PM UTC-6 Alan

Re: Intelligence-office-whistleblowers-craft-non-human-origin

Stunning UFO crash retrieval allegations deemed ‘credible,’ ‘urgent’ (msn.com) On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:07:51 PM

Re: Intelligence-office-whistleblowers-craft-non-human-origin

House Oversight plans UFO hearing after unconfirmed claims of crashed alien craft (msn.com) On

Re: Intelligence-office-whistleblowers-craft-non-human-origin

UFO whistleblower has 'impeccable credentials': Reporter Leslie Kean | Watch (msn.com) On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:07:51 PM

Re: Intelligence-office-whistleblowers-craft-non-human-origin

Whistleblower claims US has bodies of alien species | Banfield | Watch (msn.com) On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:41:39 PM

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:33 AM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: I've been over this many times on this list, a rock may be conscious But there's no reason to entertain a rock is conscious to begin with. If the rock behaved intelligently then I would think it's conscious, but it doesn't

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:33:16 AM UTC, zibble...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:59:25 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM, zibble...@gmail.com wrote: Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's intelligent then it's

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 4:47:09 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Dec 2014, at 20:14, LizR wrote: Sometimes allegedly conscious beings behave very unintelligently. However using Bruno's distinction intelligent behaviour is conscious (goal directed etc) but competent behaviour

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:59:25 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM, zibble...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's intelligent then it's conscious. Consciousness is easy but intelligence John - take

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 22 Dec 2014, at 20:14, LizR wrote: Sometimes allegedly conscious beings behave very unintelligently. However using Bruno's distinction intelligent behaviour is conscious (goal directed etc) but competent behaviour isn't. So we have 3 classes of being 1 conscious 2 intelligent 3

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 23 Dec 2014, at 01:37, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:39:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: consciousness is favored. Personally, I think integrated is a vague concept and amounts to and then a miracle happens without some further elucidation. Brent See arXiv:1405.0126

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:05:08 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM, zibble...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected consciousness well it must also detect intelligence. That's not what I said, you've got

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:38:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:05, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM, zibble...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected consciousness well it must also detect

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 22 Dec 2014, at 18:12, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:38:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:05, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM, zibble...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's intelligent then it's conscious. Consciousness is easy but intelligence John - take the amount new knowledge you assert I just the above sentence. From where or what

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

Sometimes allegedly conscious beings behave very unintelligently. However using Bruno's distinction intelligent behaviour is conscious (goal directed etc) but competent behaviour isn't. So we have 3 classes of being 1 conscious 2 intelligent 3 competent 2 inplies 1 but 1 doesn't imply 2 so 1 is

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So we have 3 classes of being 1 conscious 2 intelligent 3 competent And what is the difference between intelligent and competent? I will tell you. If a computer does it then it's just competent, but if a human does the exact same

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 12/22/2014 11:14 AM, LizR wrote: Sometimes allegedly conscious beings behave very unintelligently. However using Bruno's distinction intelligent behaviour is conscious (goal directed etc) but competent behaviour isn't. So we have 3 classes of being 1 conscious 2 intelligent 3 competent 2

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:39:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: consciousness is favored. Personally, I think integrated is a vague concept and amounts to and then a miracle happens without some further elucidation. Brent See arXiv:1405.0126 for a quite explicit quantification of what

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 12/22/2014 4:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:39:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: consciousness is favored. Personally, I think integrated is a vague concept and amounts to and then a miracle happens without some further elucidation. Brent See arXiv:1405.0126 for a

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:46:38 AM UTC, Jason wrote: As with split brain patients and other humans, if some part of the brain isn't connected to the part of the brain that talks, we really can't conclude those other parts doing other processing are unconscious. It's like me

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:20:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, zibble...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Part of how you sum up your core insight: that consciousness has no detectable objective reality No, I'm saying that consciousness DOES have a

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A part of its information processing system that is highly integrated will indeed be conscious. However, IIT research has shown that for many integrated systems,one can design a functionally equivalent feed-forward system

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 5:53:39 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: A part of its information processing system that is highly integrated will indeed be conscious. However, IIT research has shown that for many

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected consciousness well it must also detect intelligence. That's not what I said, you've got it backward. Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 22 December 2014 at 12:05, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected consciousness well it must also detect intelligence. That's not what I said, you've got it

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Friday, December 12, 2014 5:45:04 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:33 AM, zibble...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: I apologize for this unreadable drivel But with a real flare for writing unreadable drivel you could go far in the psychology or philosophy

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: Part of how you sum up your core insight: that consciousness has no detectable objective reality No, I'm saying that consciousness DOES have a detectable objective reality if and only if it's a brute fact that consciousness is

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On 12/20/2014 6:19 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, zibblequib...@gmail.com mailto:zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: Part of how you sum up your core insight: that consciousness has no detectable objective reality No, I'm saying that consciousness DOES have a

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

As with split brain patients and other humans, if some part of the brain isn't connected to the part of the brain that talks, we really can't conclude those other parts doing other processing are unconscious. It's like me concluding your not conscious because I don't know what your thinking. It's

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:33 AM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: I apologize for this unreadable drivel But with a real flare for writing unreadable drivel you could go far in the psychology or philosophy departments at any university. John K Clark -- You received this message because you

Re: Intelligence Consciousness

I apologize for this unreadable drivel On Friday, December 12, 2014 4:45:39 AM UTC, zibble...@gmail.com wrote: hi John, zibbsey here, we left things that I'd get back to you. if ok with you I've some points / questions On Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:57:38 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:

Re: Intelligence is the ability to make deliberate free choices.

Hi Roger, On 14 Aug 2012, at 17:30, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO Intelligence is the ability to make deliberate free choices. One could lie if one chose to. I am OK with this. Löbian machines too. (Löbian machine = universal machine capable of knowing that they are universal). They

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Obviously Watson or Siri give you access to intelligence, but so does a book. A book can contain information that can help you answer questions but can not do so directly, but Watson and Siri can; and all three could

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: TO HELL WITH ELIZA That prehistoric program is NOT intelligent! What makes you sure it isn't intelligent but that other programs are? How the hell do you think?! ELIZA doesn't act intelligently but other programs do.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 15, 1:22 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: TO HELL WITH ELIZA That prehistoric program is NOT intelligent! What makes you sure it isn't intelligent but that other programs are? How the hell do you

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 12, 12:34 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I think you are radically overestimating the size of the book and the importance of the size to the experiment. ELIZA was about 20Kb. TO HELL WITH ELIZA

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 12 Feb 2012, at 06:50, L.W. Sterritt wrote: I don't really understand this thread - magical thinking? The neural network between our ears is who / what we are, and everything that we will experience. If that was the case, we would not survive with an artificial brain. Comp would

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Not only that, a computer implementing AI would be able to learn from it's discussion. Even if it started with an astronomically large look-up table, the look-up table would grow. That is very true! John K Clark --

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I think you are radically overestimating the size of the book and the importance of the size to the experiment. ELIZA was about 20Kb. TO HELL WITH ELIZA That prehistoric program is NOT intelligent! What is the point of

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

I don't really understand this thread - magical thinking? The neural network between our ears is who / what we are, and everything that we will experience. It is the source of consciousness - even if consciousness is regarded as an epiphenomenon. Gandalph On Feb 11, 2012, at 9:34 PM,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/11/2012 9:34 PM, John Clark wrote: You may say that even if I'm right about that then a computer doing smart things would just imply the consciousness of the people who made the computer. But here is where the analogy breaks down, real computers don't work like the Chinese Room does, they

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The rule book is the memory. Yes but the rule book not only contains a astronomically large database it also contains a super ingenious artificial intelligence program; without those things the little man is like a naked

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 10, 3:52 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The rule book is the memory. Yes but the rule book not only contains a astronomically large database it also contains a super ingenious artificial intelligence program;

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 08 Feb 2012, at 18:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/8/2012 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think Quentin has a theory here, that you might be stupid. Joseph Knight has another

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/9/2012 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Feb 2012, at 18:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/8/2012 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think Quentin has a theory here, that you

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 09 Feb 2012, at 13:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/9/2012 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Feb 2012, at 18:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/8/2012 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/9/2012 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Feb 2012, at 13:20, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, My best expression of my theory, although it does not quite rise to that level, is in my last response to ACW under the subject line Ontological problems of COMP. My claim is that your

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: How in hell would putting a computer in the position of the man prove anything?? Because that is the position a computer is in when it runs a program based on user inputs and outputs. The man in the room is a CPU.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 9, 1:26 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: How in hell would putting a computer in the position of the man prove anything?? Because that is the position a computer is in when it runs a program

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 09 Feb 2012, at 17:43, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/9/2012 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Feb 2012, at 13:20, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, My best expression of my theory, although it does not quite rise to that level, is in my last response to ACW under the subject

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 7, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, I can answer all question

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, I can answer all question you ask to Einstein,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/8/2012 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2012, at 18:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think Quentin has a theory here, that you might be stupid. Joseph Knight has another theory, which is that you are a troll. Umm, could

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 6, 10:54 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 5, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The only understanding of Chinese going on is by those Chinese speakers outside the room who are carrying on a one-sided conversation with a rule book. So you say,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, I can answer all question you ask to Einstein, You're assuming that a brain can be emulated in

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: If you are proving that a computer in the position of the man has no understanding then this thought experiment proves it. How in hell would putting a computer in the position of the man prove anything?? The man is just a very

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain, I can answer all question you ask to Einstein,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 7, 1:41 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 7, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: If you are proving that a computer in the position of the man has no understanding then this thought experiment proves it. How in hell would putting a computer in the

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 7, 3:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Feb 7, 3:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

Evgenii, On 05 Feb 2012, at 14:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I would agree that profit should be a tool. On the other hand it is working this way. There are rules of a game that are adjusted by the government accordingly and then what is not not forbidden is allowed. In such a setup, if a

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 06 Feb 2012, at 16:54, John Clark wrote: Well it had better be! If the outside world could be anything we wanted it to be then our senses would be of no value and Evolution would never have had a reason to develop them. In reality if we project our wishes on how we interpret the

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 04.02.2012 21:05 meekerdb said the following: On 2/4/2012 9:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... As for computers having emotions, I am a practitioner and I am working right now closely with engineers. I should say that the modern market would love electronics with emotions. Just imagine

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

Bruno, I would agree that profit should be a tool. On the other hand it is working this way. There are rules of a game that are adjusted by the government accordingly and then what is not not forbidden is allowed. In such a setup, if a new idea allows us to increase profit, then it might be

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 5, 11:55 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: You don't understand Searle's thought experiment. I understand it one hell of a lot better than Searle did, but that's not really much of a boast. The whole point

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 04.02.2012 01:10 meekerdb said the following: On 2/3/2012 1:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 03.02.2012 22:07 meekerdb said the following: On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 03 Feb 2012, at 21:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 03 Feb 2012, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: Consciousness and mechanism are mutually exclusive by definition and always will be. I think you confuse mechanism before and after Gödel, and you miss the 1-indeterminacy. You confuse Turing emulable, and Turing recoverable (by

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 4, 2:23 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Huge abacuses are a really good way to look at this, although it's pretty much the same as the China Brain. I hope you're not talking about Searle's Chinese room, the

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 4, 7:29 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Feb 2012, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:  Consciousness and mechanism are mutually exclusive by definition and always will be. I think you confuse mechanism before and after Gödel, and you miss the 1-indeterminacy. I don't

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/4/2012 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The emotion of your laptot is unknown, and unmanifested, because your laptop has no deep persistant self-reference ability to share with you. We want a slave, and would be anxious in front of a machine taking too much independence. Bruno Yes,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

Also, if your theory is that we (in the 3-sense) are not Turing emulable, you have to explain us why, and what it adds to the explanation. Bruno, I do not have a theory. As for comp, my only note that I have made recently was that if to look at the current state-of-art of computer

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I hope you're not talking about Searle's Chinese room, the stupidest thought experiment in history. I don't see what is stupid about that thought experiment. And that tells us a great deal about you. Please explain

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/4/2012 9:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Also, if your theory is that we (in the 3-sense) are not Turing emulable, you have to explain us why, and what it adds to the explanation. Bruno, I do not have a theory. As for comp, my only note that I have made recently was that if to look at

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

Hi Evgenyi, On 04 Feb 2012, at 18:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Also, if your theory is that we (in the 3-sense) are not Turing emulable, you have to explain us why, and what it adds to the explanation. Bruno, I do not have a theory. That's OK. Technically, me neither. I am a logician. All

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 04 Feb 2012, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote: On 2/4/2012 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The emotion of your laptot is unknown, and unmanifested, because your laptop has no deep persistant self-reference ability to share with you. We want a slave, and would be anxious in front of a machine

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 4, 1:13 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I hope you're not talking about Searle's Chinese room, the stupidest thought experiment in history. I don't see what is stupid about that thought experiment. And

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 2, 4:05 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: My view is that the whole idea that there can be a 'functional equivalent of emotions' is completely unsupported. I give examples of puppets A puppet needs a puppeteer,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 2, 4:33 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have any examples of an intelligent organism which evolved without emotion? Intelligence is not possible without emotion, That's what I'm saying. Are you

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: An abacus is a computer. Left to it's own devices it's just a rectangle of wood and bamboo or whatever. That is true so although it certainly needs to be huge we can't just make our very very big abacuses even bigger and expect

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 03.02.2012 22:07 meekerdb said the following: On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Feb 3, 11:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: An abacus is a computer. Left to it's own devices it's just a rectangle of wood and bamboo or whatever. That is true so although it certainly needs to be huge we

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/3/2012 1:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 03.02.2012 22:07 meekerdb said the following: On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Huge abacuses are a really good way to look at this, although it's pretty much the same as the China Brain. I hope you're not talking about Searle's Chinese room, the stupidest thought experiment in history. Your position is

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So kind of you to inform us of your unsupported opinion. I was commenting on your

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So kind of you to inform us of your

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Jan 31, 1:33 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: The Limbic system predates the Neocortex evolutionarily. As I've said on this list many times. There is no reason to think that emotion emerged after intelligence. And as I've said emotion is about 500 million years old but

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Jan 31, 3:25 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Craig and Brent: would you kindly disclose an opinion that can be deemed SUPPORTED All our 'support' (evidence, verification whatever) comes from mostly uninformed information fragments we receive by

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: My view is that the whole idea that there can be a 'functional equivalent of emotions' is completely unsupported. I give examples of puppets A puppet needs a puppeteer, a computer does not. movies, trashcans that say THANK YOU,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have any examples of an intelligent organism which evolved without emotion? Intelligence is not possible without emotion, but emotion is possible without intelligence. And I was surprised you asked me for a example of a

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The Limbic system predates the Neocortex evolutionarily. As I've said on this list many times. There is no reason to think that emotion emerged after intelligence. And as I've said emotion is about 500 million years old

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

Craig and Brent: would you kindly disclose an opinion that can be deemed SUPPORTED All our 'support' (evidence, verification whatever) comes from mostly uninformed information fragments we receive by observation(?) of the already accessible details and try to

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion, There is simply no logical way that could be true. However important it may be to us Evolution can not see emotion or consciousness, Evolution can only

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 1/30/2012 9:47 AM, John Clark wrote: I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion, There is simply no logical way that could be true. However important it may be to us Evolution can not see emotion or consciousness, Evolution can only see actions, so either emotion

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Of course evolution can't 'see' intelligence either. As you say selection can only be based on action. But action takes emotion OK I have no problem with that, but then Deep Blue had emotions way back in 1996 when it beat the best

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 30 Jan 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote: On 1/30/2012 9:47 AM, John Clark wrote: I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion, There is simply no logical way that could be true. However important it may be to us Evolution can not see emotion or consciousness,

  1   2   3   >