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 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. >
sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. I do agree with this....but wonder how easily such things would be compared. In an early step in your wider argument about consciousness/intelligence, from memory you basically separate them...hence talking here about intelligence alone The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always show up together, never one on its own. Some are more or less intelligence/conscious, but when we aren't conscious, and not in REM, not a lot is going on. In REM - something interesting might be going on, but we probably don't have much conventional intelligence. So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and consciousness are mutually independent? 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've never heard that about Einstein. The guy won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a nobel-genius. There was an earlier discussion we about Hilber having published the complete equations a week earlier...which Hilbert simply didn't bother claiming for...a possible reason the Nobel Committee never awarded Einstein for that one. I remember in that conversation, your main line of argument that Hilbert wasn't credible was that he was a mathematician. I had to think about that...but you are aware that Maxwell, Poincaire, Newton I think...in fact possible the majority of the top table geniuses in science were....possibly. FWIW > I'm only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. > I feel exactly the same way. But....from memory you accept MWI don't you? What sort of results does that explanation produce? > 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. > There's a lot of assumptions going into that. I'd agree 'all else being equal' that you make a reasonable prediction. But how often is all else equal? > > > > > -- 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.
