It's our intelligence that forms the basis of our understanding. We must get it right prior to attempting to attribute it or something like it to something else. Wouldn't you say?
— creativesoul
No. I never really understood what Aristotle meant by "art imitates nature." But he considers nature to be a process so art imitates that process. So, nature exhibits intelligence. The modern preoccupation with subjectivity obscures this idea. — Jackson
Artificial intelligence is not even close to being the same sort of thing that human intelligence is. Not even close. The point here is that it is a misnomer that renders the term intelligence meaningless.
— creativesoul
How is AI different from human intelligence? — Jackson
...consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional). — creativesoul
I don’t see that at all. Do you mean that only humans can have the kind of intelligence you’re talking about? I remember a time when people thought that computers would be unable to do many things that we now know they can. — GLEN willows
Of course AI intelligence is different from human intelligence. What we’re debating is whether AI will eventually develop consciousness and I say why not? It could take hundreds or thousands of years of course. I just believe history is littered with the bodies of men who said “your ‘science’ will never explain ….” — GLEN willows
I don't know how long you've had the pleasure of 'interacting' with @Wayfarer, but you've nailed his M.O. to a tee (and after more than a dozen years 'interacting' I'm here to tell you, GLEN, he's immune to even the friendliest persuasion, correction or shaming).↪Wayfarer no offence but I find you’re constantly misinterpreting what I’m saying then Straw Manning me. — GLEN willows
...if a natural process developed consciousness, it can be repeated. In theory, of course, but it’s not illogical. — GLEN willows
Ironically I find the arguments against materialism similar to those for intelligent design. “The eye is just far too complex to have been developed naturally” — GLEN willows
who said quantum mechanics and consciousness were the same. Deepak Chopra? Not me. — GLEN willows
isn't there something called "quantum mechanics" that requires a different approach to particle physics? (not to mention reality itself) — GLEN willows
Ironically I find the arguments against materialism similar to those for intelligent design — GLEN willows
So if consciousness and the material brain are not literally the same thing, how do we avoid dualism? — GLEN willows
From a Wittgensteinian POV it seems that all we're capable of is syntactic manipulation (language + logic), semantics "drops out of consideration". — Agent Smith
Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain but then is separate….where? Floating above the head like a halo? — GLEN willows
This can only conjure up some sort of mystical "mist" floating around somewhere. Unless someone can illuminate that aspect to me. — GLEN willows
Read Searle - not a fan. The Chinese Room hasn't fared well over time. — GLEN willows
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224905185_The_nature_of_the_presentThe feeling of a moving present or `now' seems to form part of our most basic perceptions about reality. Such a present, however, is not reflected in any of our theories of the physical world. In this short note I argue for a tenseless view of time, where what we call `the present' is just an emergent secondary quality arising from the interaction of perceiving self-conscious individuals with their environment. I maintain that there is no flow of time, but just an ordered system of events.
https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/cleansing-mind-accumulation-timeTime is the enemy of man. And that enemy has existed from the beginning of man. And we said why has man from the beginning taken a wrong turn, a wrong path - in quotes. And if so is it possible to turn man in another direction in which he can live without conflict? Because, as we said yesterday, the outer movement is also the same inner movement, there is no inner and outer. It is the same movement carried on inwardly. And if we were concerned deeply and passionately to turn man in another direction so that he doesn't live in time, but has a knowledge of the outer things. And the religions have failed; the politicians, the educators, they have all never been concerned about this. Would you agree to that?
I understand what the Chinese Room is doing...correct me if I'm wrong. It's dispelling that the computer may SEEM like it's doing something that requires complex thought, but it isn't. — GLEN willows
↪Joshs If you read my posts I said I don't agree with the concept of eliminating folk psychology. I do agree with educating people about what's really going on in their brains. — GLEN willows
I understand what the Chinese Room is doing...correct me if I'm wrong. It's dispelling the notion that the computer is doing anything that requires complex thought. — GLEN willows
Choose whether you want your ones to be the top row or the bottom row. You can either start at the top and increase the place value as you go down, or start at the bottom with your tens, hundreds, thousands and so on above you.
Regardless, it still doesn't mean that an AI device can't eventually develop such advanced capacities, and even consciousness. — GLEN willows
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.