In article <36ceb6d1.90386 at news-server>, ZZZghull at stny.lrun.com (Jerry Hull) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:01:24 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:
>>>In article <36cd9595.1501951 at news-server>, ZZZghull at stny.lrun.com (Jerry Hull)
>>>On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:24:09 -0500, Michael Edelman <mje at mich.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>The notion that intelligence is merely behavior is an old one, and one
>>>>that's had 80+ years to come up with a good model of human intelligence.
>>>>While the behaviorist model has been very successful at modeling
>>>>conditioned response to stimuli, it has been an abysmal failure at
>>>>modeling or explaining things like language as behavior.
>>>>>>An alternative is to designate the cleverness of computers et al. "machine
>>>intelligence" as opposed to "conscious intelligence".
>>>>And all you have is still a cunning trick,
>>trying to disguise a lie into the truth.
>>There is no such a thing as machine intelligence.
>>It is utter absurd.
>>There still is that cunning trick. Image processing programs DO process
>images; database programs DO process data; at SOME level, Big Blue DOES play
>chase, & a very fine game indeed (sorry, Gary).
>>Better give a name to what machines can do, than pretend they can do nothing.
My humble seaker of THAT WHICH IS,
Please don't engage in substitutions of this grade.
There has never been an assertion that machine
can do nothing. Can you please find a reference to
where it has been stated.
As to the rest of your "argument",
you had an opportunity to see it covered in the
most minute detail by now.
If you still stand on the position you stand,
hey, that is your freedom.
And yet you suck like a monkey ass with this
Processing images, digging the database records,
searching, and all other operations of that grade
do not distinguish you from a machine at the end,
and that is absurd, you see.
Zo, keep sucking till you see THAT WHICH IS.