Popper's model of Worlds 1, 2, and 3, material objects, psychological events, and abstract ideas, fits in with his overall approach of "Scientific Realism". Basically, he points out that, when a mathematician writes down his discoveries, there is an overall interaction of World 1 to 3 objects, abstract ideas end up 'making marks on paper.' — Pantagruel
that way also applies to current, man-made AI systems, — Sir Philo Sophia
In any case, talking about a natural phenomenon most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that human beings also happen to create a model for that phenomenon. — Pantagruel
you can ponder hypotheticals and exalt the human mind as being uniquely non-corporeal all you want, but words mean something. And if the way you state/hypothesis something is using words, if those words also cover automata and simulacra of the ancient, medieval, or modern worlds then those/your definitions and/or theories cannot be seriously considered as meaningful/useful per my above.computational mimicry — Pantagruel
Mind-body is about the interaction of thought and matter. — Pantagruel
not true. AI is about reproducing human thought, which you may anthropomorphically call simulating it. So, you are saying that machines cannot have human kind/level of thought?AI is about simulating thought. — Pantagruel
I disagree. You are talking about current AI state-of-the-art. I am talking about the philosophy of AI (in light of current AI state-of-the-art) as a framework for grounding the philosophy human mind-body. To ignore and discount that, IMHO, it tantamount to a philosophy about what is time ignoring what Physicist theorize time is about wrt the human condition and matter.you are hijacking the thread.. I've studied lots of ...and I'm pretty clear on what AI is and what it isn't. So forgive me if I don't accede to your stubborn, if myopic, fixation — Pantagruel
The mind-body problem is a feature of the universe and has been debated since time immemorial. — Pantagruel
I was not as clear as I could have been. The issue is not that of how self-sufficient forms (such as soul and body) interact. Instead, the issue is how do distinct substances interact.How is the physical body not self-sufficient for Plato? — Pantagruel
nd to date, every Cartesian answer is ultimately reducible to some form of parallelism, magic (transcendence) or “They just do. Isn’t it wonderful?” — Arne
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.