Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]As I've written elsewhere today, the design you accept which keeps you agnostic, logically requires a very powerful mind.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Of course if God exists, he has a powerful mind. How does that make dabbling less concrete than inventing autonomous intelligence?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Same response. Obviously I don't really know how God controls or manufactures evolution.[/i]
> 
> None of us knows. So the theoretical invention of autonomous intelligence is no more concrete than the theoretical invention of hands-on dabbling.
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> dhw: [i]There are only two ways you can study any living being: 1) the material workings, and 2) the behavioural. How do you know that human memory, storage of information, communication, ability to change behaviour are not “nothing more” than chemical?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]At the basis they are chemical also, but the use of charged ions is directed into complex networks of axons and changeable dendrites to create human n=mental capacities. The bacterial memory is extremely simple arrangement of ions.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]So bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. I think most of us can accept that.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Good[/i].
> 
> dhw: [i]Thank you for agreeing that bacterial intelligence is not as advanced as human intelligence. This can only mean that you have agreed that bacteria are intelligent. Progress at last![/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Your view of 'intelligence' is never mine. I'm just trying to be agreeable.[/i]
> 
> What attributes would you regard as proof of intelligence?
> 
> xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> DAVID: [i]Animals and plants must have protective sensors to recognize problems.[/i]
> 
> dhw:[i] As do we. The cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we. More progress: animals and plants have their own forms of cognition, memory, communication, information-processing, decision-making etc. – all elements of what we call intelligence.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]And I view these sensors as automatic protections, as usual.[/i]
> 
> So do I. Our own sensors are also automatic. As above, “the cognitive part is how they use these sensors to solve the problems – as do we.”