<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I am certain that consciousness and intelligence are correlated. After all<br>
intelligence is a semantic property as well. But they might be seperable.<br>
Like the stroke victim who is aware of everything going on around him but<br>
lacks the motor control with which to express "intelligent behavior".<br></blockquote><div> <br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I</div>intelligent behavior<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> implies consciousness but the lack of </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I</div>intelligent behavior<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> does not imply a lack of consciousness or even a lack of intelligence; Einstein may be awake and alert but just not prefer to say or write anything at the moment and would rather just sit there and think. For all I know rocks may be doing the same thing.</div></font><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>something could behave intelligently and not be conscious.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Maybe. If true I could be the only conscious being in the universe and maybe I am, but I sorta doubt it.</div> </font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>If you think that fact holds down to the level of a single bit flipping<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>its value, then you would belong to the "consciousness is trivial"<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>school.<br></blockquote><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Well, I do belong to the school that intelligence is a far harder nut to crack than consciousness, and a much more interesting one too. </div> </font></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>am stuck with a result restricted to Turing machines.<br></blockquote><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">That doesn't sound like much of a restriction to me. What intelligent behavior can a non-Turing Machine perform that a Turing Machine can't?</font></div></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I am saying that the Turing test won't be conclusive for either<br>
intelligence or consciousness</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I agree the Turing Test is not conclusive but it's all we've got and all we'll ever have. There will always be ch</div>arlatan<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">s who's only skill is the ability to fool people into thinking they are smarter than they really are, and nobody will ever prove that rocks are smart but shy, but one does the best one can with the tools at hand.</div></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>What I am saying is that due to Rice's Theorem, any Turing-like test for<br>
any semantic property (consciousness, intelligence, etc.) applied to a<br>
Turing machine is reducible to the halting problem </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="4">Forget semantic, all problems period are reducible to a halting problem. Sometimes the problem will halt, that is to say we'll find the answer, sometimes it won't halt and our brain makes a judgement call and causes us to become bored, so we give up, stop, and look for a different problem. Maybe it's the wrong call, maybe 5 more seconds will produce the answer, maybe 5 hours, maybe 5 billion years, maybe never. Turing tells us there is no way to know. </font> </div></div><div> <br></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div><font size="4">consciousness theory#93,642: conscious beings must be squishy</font></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Well people who think that belong to the "consciousness is null" school.<br>
Unfortunately my theorem does not rule that out either.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Yep, that consciousness theory is as good (or bad) as any other consciousness theory.</div> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></font></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> John K Clark</div></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><br></div></div>