| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
casey
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
 |
|
On Nov 19, 2:18 am, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
| Quote: | PS - so this gets into the notion of what constitues
a "knower"; I claim that a book or an office is not
a knower. A living being like humans can be a knower.
Now, one can say that a book or an office contains
*representations* of information or knowledge, but that
is not the same thing as being a knower in the sense
I am using it - operationally.
|
I agree. There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on
when some high level process is assigned ad hoc to
some low level mechanisms.
Some thought has to be given as to what is the difference
between data and knowledge. I would say all knowledge is
data but not all data is knowledge, it depends on how it
is being utilized.
JC |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 17, 4:48 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Alpha wrote:
In an abstract, non-operational sense - perhaps! Like when the office
computer stores weather info. But the computer cannot *know* that it
has such. But consider that it is the individuals *in* the office that
actually control and generate the weather info.
The meteorological office knows something about the weather in
the everyday, common-sense sense: namely it acts just like an
agent which /did/ know something about the weather would act.
|
The office is an overall system consisting of both humans and the
machines they utilize. Somewhere this idea is getting lost, the
overall system is getting split out into humans and machines
separately. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 17, 1:16 pm, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, 11:23 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:02 am, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:14 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Alpha wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:18 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another factor in making the earth a superintelligence is self-
awareness. Systems which become self-aware skyrocket in
intelligence. For example, apes vs. humans. Self-awareness is a
major factor in making humans intelligent. Now - what would make the
global brain self-aware? Promotion of this idea amongst the general
populace. The global brain understanding the global brain.
That would be an individual or set of individuals understanding such;
*not* the GB understanding itself.
It doesn't /logically/ follow - but it does in practice.
Compare with the met. office: if some of its employees can
predict the weather, the chances are good that the met.
office can predict it too.
But the met office prediction would be instantiatiated only in the
mind/brains of the individuals before being publicly instantiated in
anewspaper or braodcast. There is no sense in which the office knows
anything about weather, All ideas/memes are operational in human
minds. Even when they are represented as lexical elements on paper or
in a Word document, until they are within a mind/brain, they are not
operational and therefore inert.
If memes sat forever within individual human minds and were never
communicated to other human minds, then what you say is true, But
they are communicated within the network of brains, in this case the
met office, and it is this sharing of memes which creates the higher
order mind.
That process (communications of a meme from one brain to other brians)
only creates the memes in *the other brains*! There is no meme
without an operational instantiation and that occurs in individual
brains. Ther is no "floating meme" oout there somewhere in the
ehtersphere; only when cognized does a meme exist operationally.
|
The sharing of memes amongst brains makes the whole system of
interconnected brains stronger and more robust and more able to create
higher order meme-complexes. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
casey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 19, 11:42 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The sharing of memes amongst brains makes the whole system of
interconnected brains stronger and more robust and more able to create
higher order meme-complexes.
|
Perhaps you could give an example of such a higher order meme-complex?
JC |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 18, 9:42 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 19, 11:42 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The sharing of memes amongst brains makes the whole system of
interconnected brains stronger and more robust and more able to create
higher order meme-complexes.
Perhaps you could give an example of such a higher order meme-complex?
|
"Global Warming". Or "Runaway Greenhouse Effect". Or "Human Folly
III". Basically anything global as opposed to local. Large, complex
memes. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RichD
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 17, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
|
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Look at that article: apes, elephants,
and magpies (?)... not, uh, all mammals.
The self-awareness mirror test described in
ref. 1 is the one to which I alluded, where chimps
pass.
The rest of the article is philosobabble,
which apparently appeals to you.
| Quote: | Apparently "self-awareness" means different things to different people.
When I use the term I refer to a combination of self-perception and
self-modelling.
|
Fine, play semantic games. Define 'scratch
oneself' as probative of self-awareness... but
you'll have to live on your own planet...
| Quote: | It is a simple and basic phenomenon.
|
Hardly..
--
Rich |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Immortalist
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 19, 6:37 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Look at that article: apes, elephants,
and magpies (?)... not, uh, all mammals.
The self-awareness mirror test described in
ref. 1 is the one to which I alluded, where chimps
pass.
The rest of the article is philosobabble,
which apparently appeals to you.
Apparently "self-awareness" means different things to different people.
When I use the term I refer to a combination of self-perception and
self-modelling.
Fine, play semantic games. Define 'scratch
oneself' as probative of self-awareness... but
you'll have to live on your own planet...
It is a simple and basic phenomenon.
Hardly..
--
Rich
|
It seem like common sense to suppose that most animals are conscious
and most mammals are conscious in a particular way. From the dumb herd
animals through to the social predators, at least mammals must
distinguish between self and others. I would suppose that self
awareness is somehow related to distinguishing self from other but
increasingly becomes humanoid the more a mammalian species has to
distinguish between individuals in the group. This would be especially
noticeable where the degree of social roles, in a sort of division of
labor, is apparent. Consequently a simple ability to tell the
difference between the self and others would be some sort of self
awareness. Therefore, if correct, then there are various degrees of
self awareness.
With any division of labor between roles in the species there would be
a proportionate degree of division of labor and specialization of
different brain areas in each individual.
--------------------------
Division of labour is the specialisation of cooperative labour in
specific, circumscribed tasks and roles, intended to increase
efficiency of output. Historically the growth of a more and more
complex division of labour is closely associated with the growth of
trade, the rise of capitalism, and of the complexity of
industrialisation processes. Later, the division of labour reached the
level of a scientifically-based management practice with the time and
motion studies associated with Taylorism...
....In the first sentence of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith foresaw the essence of
industrialism by determining that division of labour represents a
(Qualitative_Increase_In_Productivity). His example was the making of
pins...
....However, in a further chapter of the same book Smith criticises the
division of labour saying it leads to a 'mental mutilation' in
workers; they become ignorant and insular as their working lives are
confined to a single repetitive task. This contradiction has led to
some debate over Smith's opinion of the division of labour.
The specialisation and concentration of the workers on their single
subtasks often leads to greater skill and greater productivity on
their particular subtasks than would be achieved by the same number of
workers each carrying out the original broad task.
Smith saw the importance of matching skills with equipment - usually
in the context of an organization. For example, pin makers were
organized with one making the head, another the body, each using
different equipment. Similarly he emphasized that that a large number
of skills, used in cooperation and with suitable equipment, were
required to build a ship.
....Smith's insight suggests that that the huge increases in
productivity obtainable from technology or technological progress are
possible because human and physical capital are matched, usually in an
organization. See also a short discussion of Adam Smith's theory in
the context of business processes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor
Example of the Pin Factory;
....the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business
(which the division of labor has rendered a distinct trade), nor
acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it (to the
invention of which the same division of labor has probably given
occasion), could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry make one
pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty.
But in the way in which this business is now carried on, not only the
whole work is a peculiar trade, but it is divided into a number of
branches, of which the greater part are likewise peculiar trades.
One man draws out the wire, another straightens it, a third cuts it, a
fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head:
to make the head requires two or three distinct operations to put it
on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins another; it is even a
trade by itself to put them into paper; and the important business of
making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct
operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by
distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform
two or three of them.
I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were
employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three
distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but
indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could,
when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of
pins in a day. There are in a pound upward of four thousand pins of a
middling size.
Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upward of forty-
eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth
part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four
thousand eight hundred pins in a day.
But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without
any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they
certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin
in a day; that is, certainly not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps
not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present
capable of performing, in consequence of proper division and
combination of their different operations.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/WEALTH1.HTM
During the million-year transition from Homo habilis (wordless? apish
in thought?) to Homo sapiens, the neocortex of the brain, containing
the principal centers of association and thought, more than doubled in
size. Although tracings from the inside of fossil skulls are
inconclusive, profound architectural changes must also have occurred.
One neural domain that did expand visibly was Broca's area of the
frontal lobe, a major organizing center of langauge. When Broca's area
is severely damaged through a head injury, patients retain their
ability to understand individual words and phrases but experience
great difficulty in constructing sentences. Their speech is
telegraphic and ungrammatical. When Wernicke's area, located to the
rear of Broca's area on the parietal lobe, is damaged, the opposite
effect follows: patients can still speak grammatically correct
sentences but their words are mostly empty of meaning. They make
frequent mistakes such as substituting "chair" for "table" without
understanding what's wrong. These clues from medical research suggest
that the unique human capacity for language did not evolve through the
random piling up of more neurons in the cortex of the forebrain.
Language is not just the inevitable spinoff of a generalized
intelligence. It is the peculiar product of a recently created
division of labor among specialized portions of the brain and novel
epigenetic rules.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
RichD wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 17, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
|
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and showing it a
mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their natural environment
few mirrors. If it works, great, but if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
| Quote: | Apparently "self-awareness" means different things to different people.
When I use the term I refer to a combination of self-perception and
self-modelling.
Fine, play semantic games. Define 'scratch
oneself' as probative of self-awareness... but
you'll have to live on your own planet...
|
Not really - there is no consensus about how much or which
bits of yourself you need to be aware of in order to qualify.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
RichD
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
|
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
| Quote: | For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
|
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
--
Rich |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 20, 10:41 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
|
How long before superintelligence?
How long do you wish? We can work with you on that! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Nov 30, 4:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 20, 10:41 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
How long before superintelligence?
How long do you wish? We can work with you on that!
|
Order your Beneficial Viral Memes now! Work just like beneficial
nematodes, except that they infect meme-space.
BVM
Box 666
Old Dime Box, Texas 66666 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 30, 4:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:41 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
How long before superintelligence?
How long do you wish? We can work with you on that!
Order your Beneficial Viral Memes now! Work just like beneficial
nematodes, except that they infect meme-space.
|
Peace, Love and Understanding!
| Quote: |
BVM
Box 666
Old Dime Box, Texas 66666- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Dec 1, 9:48 am, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:41 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
How long before superintelligence?
How long do you wish? We can work with you on that!
Order your Beneficial Viral Memes now! Work just like beneficial
nematodes, except that they infect meme-space.
Peace, Love and Understanding!
|
And goodwill towards men. A meme for the season. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Dec 1, 6:02 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Dec 1, 9:48 am, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:41 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
How long before superintelligence?
How long do you wish? We can work with you on that!
Order your Beneficial Viral Memes now! Work just like beneficial
nematodes, except that they infect meme-space.
Peace, Love and Understanding!
And goodwill towards men. A meme for the season.
|
Positive self-fulfilling predictions! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Don Stockbauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: Re: How long before superintelligence? |
|
|
On Dec 2, 4:10 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Dec 1, 6:02 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 9:48 am, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 30, 4:51 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:41 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Uh, surely all mammals are self-aware.
Incorrect. There are tests for self-awareness,
and only chimps pass.
No - see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
Another case of someone citing a reference a
which refutes his own argument - classic!
Uh, I cited it because it refutes *your* argument.
Tests for self-awareness do not prove negative results.
They can show that an organism is self-aware - but they can't
show that an organism isn't self-aware with much certainty.
Let recap your logic:
1) We have a test for self-awareness,
whcih effectively defines 'self-awareness';
i.e. falsifiability
2) A few mammals pass, others fail.
3) But the test is not conclusive, because
failure is not significant.
4) You offer no alternative falsifiable method
for self-awareness.
5) Hence the cited test refutes my claim that only
a few mammals are self-aware.
6) And: "uh, surely all mammals are
self-aware." - TimTyler
QED
For example, putting a sticker on an animal's head and
showing it a mirror is inconclusive - for one thing, their
natural environment few mirrors. If it works, great, but
if not, your can't draw much
in the way of conclusions.
You seem to have no trouble drawing conclusions.
How long before superintelligence?
How long do you wish? We can work with you on that!
Order your Beneficial Viral Memes now! Work just like beneficial
nematodes, except that they infect meme-space.
Peace, Love and Understanding!
And goodwill towards men. A meme for the season.
Positive self-fulfilling predictions!
|
Cybernetic scaling up of form, human brain scaling up to Global Brain. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
