Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-02-16 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-15 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-15 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-13 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-12 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-11 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-11 Thread L.W. Sterritt
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

2012-02-11 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-02-10 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-10 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-09 Thread Stephen P. King
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

2012-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-09 Thread Stephen P. King
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

2012-02-09 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-09 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-08 Thread 1Z
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

2012-02-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-08 Thread Stephen P. King
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

2012-02-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-07 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-07 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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

2012-02-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-07 Thread Quentin Anciaux
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

2012-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-06 Thread John Clark
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, but Searle says his idiotic thought experiment has PROVEN it;

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-02-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-05 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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

2012-02-05 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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

2012-02-05 Thread John Clark
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 is to reveal the absurdity of taking understanding for

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-02-05 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-04 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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

2012-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-04 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-02-04 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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

2012-02-04 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-04 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

2012-02-04 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-03 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-03 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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

2012-02-03 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-02-03 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
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

2012-02-03 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-03 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-02-03 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-02 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-02-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
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

2012-02-02 Thread John Clark
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

2012-02-02 Thread John Clark
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

2012-01-31 Thread John Clark
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

2012-01-31 Thread John Mikes
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

2012-01-30 Thread John Clark
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

2012-01-30 Thread meekerdb
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

2012-01-30 Thread John Clark
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

2012-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
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,

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 30 Jan 2012, at 19:36, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 30, 12:47 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: 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. I think that it's a medical fact.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 30, 1:27 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: 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

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread meekerdb
On 1/30/2012 10:27 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 30, 5:16 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Sure it did.  If it had been equipped to express them they would have been something like, This position feels good.  That position feels weak. etc.  Not much range...but emotions nevertheless. You seriously believe that? Wow. That

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread meekerdb
On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 30, 5:16 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: Sure it did. If it had been equipped to express them they would have been something like, This position feels good. That position feels weak. etc. Not much range...but emotions

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdb meeke...@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 unsupported opinion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread L.W. Sterritt
On Jan 30, 5:16 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Sure it did. If it had been equipped to express them they would have been something like, This position feels good. That position feels weak. etc. Not much range...but emotions nevertheless. You seriously believe that? Wow. That

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-30 Thread meekerdb
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 unsupported opinion. Except that my opinion is supported by the

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-29 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not biased against computers, any mechanical object, puppet, device, sculpture, etc is equally incapable of ever becoming smart. So, do you know it can't be smart because it outsmarted you, or do you know it can't be smart

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 29, 11:30 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not biased against computers, any mechanical object, puppet, device, sculpture, etc is equally incapable of ever becoming smart. So, do you know it can't be

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-28 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 27, 9:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Smarter is legitimately ambiguous It's not ambiguous in the slightest, according to you it's all very clear cut: if a human does it then it's smart and if a computer

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-27 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 26, 11:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/26/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: They literally are just internal though. It's only our understanding that links the stops and gos with anything other than exactly what they are. With a computer, the external sources of

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-27 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: If cancer had free will then you could make a deal with it. I do make a deal with cancer, if you die I will stop trying to kill you. They [computers] aren't smarter than us, they just [...] Again with the they

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-27 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 27, 10:47 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:   If cancer had free will then you could make a deal with it. I do make a deal with cancer, if you die I will stop trying to kill you. It's not a deal if

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-27 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Smarter is legitimately ambiguous It's not ambiguous in the slightest, according to you it's all very clear cut: if a human does it then it's smart and if a computer does it then it's not. Nothing could be simpler, or stupider.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-26 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 26, 12:16 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the cancer Yes exactly, I want

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-26 Thread meekerdb
On 1/26/2012 1:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the cancer Yes exactly, I want any cancer in my body to die and I want the guy chasing me with a bloody ax to

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-26 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/26/2012 1:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or    heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the cancer  Yes exactly, I want any cancer in

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-26 Thread meekerdb
On 1/26/2012 2:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/26/2012 1:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-26 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 26, 6:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/26/2012 2:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 26, 5:24 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: On 1/26/2012 1:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or      

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-26 Thread meekerdb
On 1/26/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: They literally are just internal though. It's only our understanding that links the stops and gos with anything other than exactly what they are. With a computer, the external sources of information can never be internalized, just loaded and executed.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-25 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: My chasing you with an ax would be no different than colon cancer or heart disease chasing you. You would not project criminality on the cancer Yes exactly, I want any cancer in my body to die and I want the guy chasing me with

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-24 Thread ronaldheld
Not certain if this goes here What about Data from TNG? He could pass the Turing test, and with his emotion chip on, act like many huminoids. Is he intelligent, conscious, self aware, etc? Ronald On Jan 23, 5:38 pm, Craig Weinberg

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-24 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 24, 7:21 am, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote: Not certain if this goes here What about Data from TNG?  He could pass the Turing test, and with his emotion chip on, act like many huminoids.   Is he intelligent, conscious, self aware, etc?                                        

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-24 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Identical twins have the same genetics and they can disagree with each other. That tells you nothing, a copy of you that was exact down to the limit imposed by Heisenberg would disagree with you about all sorts of things, like

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-24 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 24, 11:41 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Identical twins have the same genetics and they can disagree with each other. That tells you nothing, a copy of you that was exact down to the limit imposed by

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-23 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's simpler than that. Inanimate means it can't move Is a redwood tree an inanimate object? and it's not alive. If it's alive then it's animate and if it's animate then it's alive and round and round to go. Biologist have

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-23 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: How would you recognize the better theory if you are such a strong believer in the Big Bang? If somebody developed a new theory that explained everything the Big Bang did but also explained what Dark Energy is I would drop the

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-23 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Jan 23, 10:57 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's simpler than that. Inanimate means it can't move Is a redwood tree an inanimate object? No. Trees grow and they die.   and it's not alive. If it's

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-22 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote Yes, but there is nothing illogical about infinite progressions; or maybe the Big Bang happened for no reason, nothing illogical about that either. This would contradict with your previous statement: but we also know

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

2012-01-22 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi
On 22.01.2012 18:39 John Clark said the following: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote Yes, but there is nothing illogical about infinite progressions; or maybe the Big Bang happened for no reason, nothing illogical about that either. This would

  1   2   >