On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > > So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: >> >> In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was >> equal between computers and humans: >> > > I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on > what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the > things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no > sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't > really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm > only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday > computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and > tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has > ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not > *really* intelligent. > > John K Clark >
OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, you know....like hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to say....that for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end failing and so having to keep buggering on. Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking about. Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot like you feel. So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was indistinctness, and still is now. Can't tell if it's less or more because that's indistinctness for you. On the other hand, doesn't matter does it? It was indistinctness then, and that would have been proven if my reading - so my structure of logic I thought best to caste light on that - had bteen correct, the result would be indistinctness now, but clearly visible to you and me together. Which is what there is...indistinctness...for me. But can't say if for you. Can't say how much if any of the meat I tried to contribute was comprehensible, useful, entertained, or just drained like dirty dish water like over somewhere else (no hard feelings dudes). Can't tell man. Cos all you just did was say what you mean in a way failed to see the distinctiveness of, enough to say I agreed and did not disagree or disagreed and did not agree. Currently by the way having a bit of a tease on the other dudes by writing the mother of all verbose incomprehensible no one currently still reading, even I went to sleep a few minutes ago leaving my fingers typing. No one here. No deserving case for anyone to be here. Only my fingers and sad bastards remaining, present company excluding my rattling fingers excepting. So why is it indistinct the same way I was saying about a vastly more complex and subtle system (hence my point the same, hence very hard to characterize in a non-participative process). Your side is easier because it's not a lifes-work though might be on course to be a life's cracked record if your consistency carries on the same way it has continued on. It's indistinct, because there is more than one way, a lot more, to 'complete the argument' by wrapping another argument around it, where the two have certain relationships. In fact...in my view...the certain relations are the opposite...the mirror...of the 'good kind' of same thing between those distributed layers of related but on some measure independent fields of knowledge that are on some measure the whole and the parts of some other field. The kind of logical encapsulation that reverses to be the negative relation - because by no means do all of them do this - is when a sort of cancerous situation takes root where the inner logic - in this case your thought sort of breaches the divide with the outer first in one dimension then more, sort of melding to and then consuming it into itself, in a way that...from the perspective of the source of the logic exactly the expectation derives magically in front of them. In your case it's as simple as just a little bit of rationalizing going on somewhere. I mean..that's what I think it is. Currently anyway. Bruno's theory it isn't as simple as that. The reason I spent so long trying to fuss around the point in more vague ways, was because of all the good things. See..I didn't and don't really know how it might go, or did go in that case. Wasn't about refuting or undermining his ideas. Was trying pretty hard - or fooling myself of that - that the realization when it came if it came would arrive at the same time as the property I thought as my best guess was there, and wanted to study myself because hadn't seen that far this kind of thing before - not with someone elses idea. The property was a re-emergence of something I see a lot, and that is what I describe as a mirror-pairing. Can occur in any dimension or context with any meaning. The significance of this one was that althought the encapsulation layer, logic thing, I am 100% - some minimal amount to keep the popperians off my back, sure about. Which way the problem of 'unrealized assumptions' was going, that is whether it was me doing that, with my logic and reasoning, or whether it was him doing that with his logic and reason, in other words whether my logic was the encapsulation of his, completing his, so revealing oversights in his, or his was encapsulating mine, completing mine so reveal oversights in mine. Couldn't say. Still can't. Wanted to deliver enough all together that he'd get all of that together, else understood a large risk that came with getting anything less than all could be pretty negative one way or another. Failed. Won't try again...can't no point. Only one go between two theories or people or whatever. Way it is. My reading. Don't know if I remembered to say above...none of this to be taken seriously. Except the serious bits naturally. > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
