Laetoli footprints (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 10, 2010, 22:08 (5340 days ago) @ David Turell


> > To address your deeper question--if this universal intelligence is capable of planning, then why not forsee the issue I raised? Humans of shorter height don't have the same issues with knees and weak back muscles, and--lets face it--THAT is a simple problem if you're already smart enough to tinker with a machine as its being developed. You can't just brush this argument away.
> 
> The biggest word in your reply is IF. You are falling into the same trap. We do not know anything about the universal intelligence. Is the UI capable of planning or just starting? I would hope it can plan, but I don't know. Frank's approach recognized the problem I have not knowing. 'Start and let's see what develops'? 'Intervene'? And of interest in H. sapiens, they were six feet and over before the agricultural revolution, and we are now back there with less hard work and better nutrition. Your should see the height of Elizabethan doors or Henry's 5th armour size. Men were 5' 4" and women less. Our pioneer museums show the same thing. Grantged the lords and ladies were taller, but they ate better and didn't work like the peasants. Lincoln probably had Marfan's syndrome to explain his height, as he started poor aND did lots of manual labor.-I agree. IF the universal intelligence ISN'T capable of planning, than most of the measures we attribute to intelligence are gone. If the creator isn't capable of pre-planning, than it can be no more intelligent than a simple animal, because the two things that enable intelligence on the scale that we can recreate nature are language and a long memory. If the creator has a long memory, than it must be capable of planning. If the creator on the other hand has no long memory, than at best you have a perceptual intelligence that is literally only capable of intelligent decisions in an incredibly small frame of time. In this scenario, the creator could only make consistent decisions if its behavior were strictly limited--in this sense, it would be no different than a computer program, iterative, and with no knowledge of what it did before. If the UI isn't capable of planning--THIS is its nature. Mercurial and barely sentient, with no concept of self and no ability for language of any kind. If it is like this, than it recreates dhw's problem of "who or what set the rules that this "UI" uses in the first place? -We have no choice but to conclude that if there is a UI, then it is capable of planning, otherwise--it isn't intelligent.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"