Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow

From: Robin Lee Powell (rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org)
Date: Fri Apr 28 2006 - 15:57:07 MDT


Umm.

I suspect his point was that "Irregardless of whether this is true,"
is a shitty usage of the English language.

-Robin

On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:13:51PM -0400, Woody Long wrote:
> OK, I'll bite.
> My s/s engine has guessed your possible reasons, and responded -
>
> 1. Semantical understanding does not mean consciousness attained.
> False, although true: only to a primitive degree.
> 2. Synatactical simulations can produce emergent syntactical properties
> which can be viewed as consciousness.
> False, if still semantically blind then no MC.
> 3. Where is the hard problem of consciousness solved, where is the machine
> self that is the subjective agent of consciousness? No MS, no full MC.
> Point taken. Will invent.
> 4. Where is the conscious processing of emoting ? Doesn't W. James the
> father of psychology say there are 3 species of conscious processing:
> sensing, emoting and thinking? No 3 species, no machine specimen of fully
> human consciousness.
> Point taken. Will invent.
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Damien Broderick <thespike@satx.rr.com>
> > To: <sl4@sl4.org>
> > Date: 4/28/2006 4:45:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow
> >
> > At 03:18 PM 4/28/2006 -0400, Woody Long wrote:
> >
> > >Irregardless of whether this is true,
> >
> > You might want to run this clunker through your syntactical/semantic
> engine.
> >
> > Damien Broderick
> >
>
>
>

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://intelligence.org/


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT