Re: [sl4] Re: goals of AI

From: Matt Paul (
Date: Tue Dec 01 2009 - 07:34:40 MST

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:33 PM, John K Clark <>wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <> said:
> >How? I can't see any difference from what you are saying and what the
> >bible thumpers are saying, or at least no more difference from what the
> >Catholics say as opposed to the Protestants, its all complete shit.

> I'm not talking about your "immortal soul" as it were, I'm not talking
> about the universe being conscious, etc.I'm not talking about your
> spirituality, whatever that is. I'm talking about your mind, your
> experience of the processing machine that you are and how that
> effects/is-an-input-to/is-a-subroutine-of/whatever of your intelligence

> >that's why I tried to use a science/math perspective to illustrate.
> >>All you've done is add a layer of pseudo-scientific sounding techno
> babel that helps us not one bit in explaining how the world works.
> > I have NOT been talking about a soul, because it doesn't fit into
> science. Dimensions do
> >>So how does a new direction help us understand the nature of
> >>intelligence? Zero nada zilch goose egg.
Ok, look, the hell with the whole dimensions thing, It is an analogy, an
attempt to conceptualize the idea that something can exist, not be observed
by you, that something could do things that have effects that are observable
by you, and some of those effects might be necessary parts of the machine.
If dimensions don't work, then forget them, just an analogy.

> > Ok, Occam's razor. Sure. But we aren't doing a fine job of explaining it.
> >>Bullshit. The reason AI seems to make so little progress is that as soon
> >>as a computer can do something it is decided that thing is not really
> >>intelligent after all. Fifty years ago people thought solving equations
> >>or playing a great game of Chess required intelligence. No more. Fifteen
> >>years ago people thought it would take a great deal of intelligence for
> >>a librarian to do what Google does. No more. Intelligence is whatever a
> >>computer can't do YET.
Now that is an interesting idea. I'm seriously going to have ponder that

> > Explain imagination, explain art.
> >>Sorry could you repeat the question, I was distracted by playing a sad
> >>tune on my violin while looking at a beautiful Hallmark greeting card
> >>showing dogs playing poker.
It's not really about the velvet Elvises. It's more about the mechanics or
whatever that makeup that creativity, the ability to "what-if" both
logically and irrationally. The part that uses risk as a tool in a sense.
The part that will combine and create nonsensical stuff and discover new
stuff that is valid or useful.
It is my perspectie that these things are not inseperable from human


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT