Re: Intelligence - one of degree?

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Curt Welch" <curt@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:20051231021058.445$yg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > I on the other hand have answerd the question about what is
> > > "intelligence".
> > > > It's just directed change. It's a processes of change directed by
> some
> > > > form of selection. It exists in this universe because of the basic
> > > > properties of the universe. The intelligence of the universe
> > > > (evolution) designed us. We happen to have signal processing
> > > > hardware in our brain which is yet another form of intelligence -
> > > > it's a system of change, combined with selection, known as
> > > > reinforcement learning.
> > >
> > > And you have no evidence, proof, or even interesting argumentation to
> > > justify that statement. It is only justified by word games of the
> > > worst kind.
> >
> > The proof is all in the post above.
>
> Except it isn't. You have given me no reason to think that your
> definition works beyond baldly asserting that that's the way it is and
> that I'm clearly wrong. If you look at MY responses, you can clearly see
> that I list problems with your definitions and reasons why I think mine
> is better. You don't do that.

Sure I have. Not to the previous post of your's but I've take plenty of
time to explain all my postions about about 30 posts here recently. Based
on my beiefs, you argumens are just silly. There's not much point in my
making a reply because the argument is abusrd to start with. If you think
the argument is not abusrd (which clearly you do), then nothing I can say
is going to change your mind. I can't disprove your argument because it's
based on beliefs that I think are flawed but you don't.

The problem is that we have some very different fundimental beliefs about
our existence that there really is no way to prove to prove to each other
differently. You trust what you find in your mind. I don't trust what I
find in mine. I trust what I can see happening in the physical world and I
trust what other people have reported and verified, does happen in the
physical world.

> > Your understanding of these words blind you to the truth. I do play
> > what you are calling "word games" all the time.
>
> Yet you rant about others playing word games while now admitting you do
> it all the time.

If you understood my description of "word games" you would understand that
the type of word games I play are very different than the type I was
complaining about. However, once again, this fact just goes right over
your head and all you seem to understand is nothing more than the face
value of the words I used instead of the meaning behind them.

But let me explain again.

The word games I was complainging about happen when you ground the
definition of words only to other words, and never bother to ground any of
them to our physical reality. That way, you can just keep running in
circles shifting the definition of your words whenever it fits the
argument. What I don't like, is people that don't ground their understand
in the physical universe. People that ground all their understanding to
words, which are grounded only to other words. I use words to try and
communicate facts about the physical world. I use whichever words best fit
what I'm trying to describe about the physical world whether those words
are commonly used that way or not.

> > I fix the errors in our
> > language so I can see the truth about the physical world I exist in.
>
> But you seem to want to fix the errors in language without considering
> how you yourself might be in error. And ignoring others when they point
> out that you MIGHT be in error.

I only ignore others when they are obviously wrong. Many of the things you
have written strike me to be comming from the mind of a 1st grader. They
are so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

And it has nothing to do with how smart or well educated you are. It has
everything to do with the fact that you and I have a very different
conceptual foudation of reality. I've spend my whole life thinking about
things in ways that you just don't seem to even understand exist. And
likewise, you have spent a lot of time thinking about things in ways I
don't understand.

There's no way we can agree on these debates about AI if our entire
perception of reality is based on a different foundation.

For the fun of it, I might however try to respond to some of you points in
the post before last in this part of the thread. Maybe it will give you a
little insight into my twisted little mind.

> > However, people that have been well conditioned to believe what they
> > have been taught, have a lot of problem seperating the bull *** they
> > were taught, from the truth.
>
> And you, of course, are NOT conditioned, right?

Of course I am. I just happened to have been conditioned in an environment
that caused me to actively stay away from words. I've been addicted to
physical stuff since before I can remember. I tore things (everything)
apart to see how they work, and I spent most my childhood drawing designs
of physical machines. I didn't sepend any time talking or thinking about
my feelings. It just didn't happen in my life. It's my conditioning which
has given me this very different outlook on life and reality.

Some people very early get addicted to their mind. They love playing with
words and thoughts and books. When this happens, the world created by all
these words and thoughts becomes your reality and the outside world becomes
secondary to the power of our mind. When you try to understand the meaning
of a word, the first think you turn to, is other words. When I try to
understand the meaning of a word, the first thing I turn to, is everything
I know about the nature of the physical world.

> > How many times for eample did you accuse me of not
> > using words correcty above?
>
> Except I gave you many reasons WHY you weren't using them correctly or
> what problems you would encounter by shifting the definitions that way.
> All of which you completely ignored.

I'll go back and talk to them.

> You cannot overturn a word that is used in a certain way by almost
> everyone without providing a reason why that definiton is problematic or
> incorrect. But the only reason you tend to give is that it doesn't fit
> your own view of the way things are.

Yeah, that's the only reason I have. But my view of the way things are
answers all the questions that other people can't answer and it does it
without creating any contradictions. That's enough for me to believe my
way is right.

> As I've said in other posts. Words are not
> > important, only the ideas they repesent about the physical world are
> > important. And the odd way I used all those words above, correctly
> > represents the universe we live in, even if they fail to follow our
> > culturally conventions on how I "should" use those words.
>
> But that isn't true, since I can point to clear things about the world
> that cause you problems.

Well, I've never yet seen you do it. Point to something physical please
and show me why it's a problem.

> You have no privileged view of the way the
> world really is. And once you get past that, you'll start to be able to
> learn things and get things correct, because then you'll learn to LISTEN
> to other people.

I do a lot of listening and I've been proven wrong many times in my life
(to my surprise when it happens). I just don't feel that this is going to
be one of those times.

> They won't always be correct, but if they raise problems
> about your view there's a good chance that it's something you want to
> think about.

Nothing you have raised is new to me. I've seen it, and debanted it, and
answered it many times here in the past. If you raised one single new
piont that I've not already seen and thought about and answered, then I
would pay more attention.

> > One day, you might see the light. But it's more work than I have time
> > for to educate you. It would probably take a life time to reverse all
> > the brain-washing society has done to you. 100 posts here would not do
> > it. Every time I think you are making a little progress, you mind just
> > snaps right back to the brain washing.
>
> You fall into the same trap again and again: when someone challenges
> you, you fall back on "you're just conditioned by society and brainwashed
> and I don't have to listen to you lalalalala". It's a nice evasive
> method that gets you out of have to actually THINK about the issues
> raised. It seems to me that if anyone is brainwashed, it's you. And you
> can be brainwashed without conforming to the societal view.
>
> I mean, come on. I violate the ideas of society all the time, as
> evidenced by what others say about my posts. Do you really think you can
> justify claiming that I'm just brainwashed by society?

Oh yeah. And I'm not the only one that thinks it so I'm not alone in my
delusion.

I'll go back to your post now and see if I can find one single fact about
the physical world which you brought up to debate my position. And by
"fact" I'm talking about some aspect of the physical world which can be
independently verified.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.