XPost: sac.politics, can.politics, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality   
   From: David@block.net   
      
   On 6/19/2015 2:21 PM, mur wrote:   
   > On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:21:12 -0600, David Johnston  wrote:   
   > .   
   >> On 6/15/2015 8:57 PM, niunian wrote:   
   >>> On 2015-06-15 12:50 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>>> On 6/15/2015 8:14 AM, niunian wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>> In traditional science, there was a term used to describe   
   >>>>>>>> intelligence. It's called the ghost. And there were scientists who   
   >>>>>>>> were committed to be the ghost chasers. Nowadays, that term is   
   >>>>>>>> conveniently forgotten so that science can take on the project called   
   >>>>>>>> the artificial intelligence when it should have been called the   
   >>>>>>>> artificial ghost according to the tradition. Can you see the irony   
   >>>>>>>> all   
   >>>>>>>> you artificial ghost chasers and researchers out there?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> :-)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You have to consider that well over 50% of modern liberals are   
   >>>>>>> functionally illiterate and below average intelligence of their own   
   >>>>>>> choice.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Does he?  The term was not "conveniently forgotten".  It was never used   
   >>>>>> in that way.  There was never a point at which "traditional" science   
   >>>>>> called intelligence "the ghost".  The philosopher Gilbert Ryle coined   
   >>>>>> the expression "ghost in the machine" to mock Descartes concept of   
   >>>>>> mind-body dualism. It was a turn of phrase that cyberpunk science   
   >>>>>> fiction authors found inspirational.  But actual scientists?  No.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Of course not.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Which means of course that you weren't telling the truth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Too bad you snipped off the rest of my reply. Now, I have no idea what   
   >>> you are talking about.   
   >>   
   >> Now you know that isn't true.  Knowing what I am talking about depends   
   >> on reading what came before what I wrote, not what came after.  As for   
   >> what I snipped, it has no importance given that you just conceded that   
   >> you weren't telling telling the truth when you claimed that in   
   >> "traditional science" the term used to describe intelligence was "the   
   >> ghost".  It was not "the ghost".   
   >   
   >      What was it? What is it now?   
   >   
      
   Intelligence.  Also sometimes sapience.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)