On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:42:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 1/23/2013 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another >>> to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. >>> >> >> You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. >> >> >> Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading accuracy). And they >> do have representations of Mars and streets and signal lights and >> pedestrians; otherwise they could not successfully navigate. And no human >> need interpret the representations. >> > > Do you think that a Mars rover knows it's on Mars? > > > Sure. And it knows where Earth is, which way to point its antenna and > what frequency to use in communicating. >
Do think the dishwasher knows when your dishes are dry? > > When it's software was tested in the laboratory, do you think that it > knew it was in a laboratory? > > > I doubt it had the concept of 'laboratory', but it probably knew it wasn't > on Mars since it knows temperature, air pressure, direction of the Earth, > etc. > I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there - just a collection of probes and logic circuits. Without humans to interpret the data coming out of it, it would be obvious that it is as unconscious as a stone. > > > Computers and machines have no representations because they have no > presentations. > > > So you say...over and over; as though repetition were evidence. > I repeat it only because I can't believe that you actually heard what I am saying. If I move an abacus bead from one side of the column to the other, does the abacus know what number it stands for? Does it imagine dots or Arabic numerals? Evidence is not the standard when dealing with the quality of experience, since it is first person only. We have to go by what makes sense - what we have observed by our interaction with machines. > > Computers have parts which are public forms configured to perform public > functions. Representation requires private inference and experience. > Computers do not have that. Which is why I can plot the destruction of all > computers openly on the internet without fear of persecution from > technology. > > > I wouldn't try it if I were you - you might find computers have friends > with guns. > So you admit that computers are utterly helpless to defend themselves or to care about whether they exist or not. Craig > > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AS-Cwhfk8lsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
