On 3/16/2015 4:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> you've exaggerated the example to create a straw man. Watson has some
local
database, he doesn't access the web for everything; so my analogy is
correct.
How is that a straw man?? The Jeopardy champagne Watson could't access the web for
*ANYTHING*. All Watson had was his memory, take away that and Watson would be as
clueless as a college professor who had totally lost his memory.
OK, change the analogy a little. Suppose you substituted for Watson's database one
learned entirely from the Conservapedia. Then Watson would be quite incompetent, but I
see no reason to think Watson would be less conscious.
> Bruno would say he's less competent, but more intelligent, but you seem
to
identify competence and intelligence.
If a person behaves is a certain way then he's intelligent, but if a robot behaves in
the EXACT SAME WAY then he's just competent. And that my friend is 100% triple distilled
extra virgin Bullshit.
Wrong distinction. Bruno identifies intelligence with learning. So a small child is very
intelligent, even though he isn't very competent.
Brent
--
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.
