3 ms·
If you add too much complexity of the wrong type, you get a star. Just making something more complex by no means guarantees making it cleverer. And beware of us
by Smaug123 9y ago
If you add too much complexity of the wrong type, you get a star. Just making something more complex by no means guarantees making it cleverer. And beware of using "emergence" to hide the need for an actual explanation: http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/
- ThomPete 9y agoI am not talking about just complexity anymore than an evolutionist is talking about simple randomness in the evolution of species. Emerging in this context means incremental i.e. in small steps based on previous steps. Plants react to light they don't think about what light is. Not sure what that article has to do with what we talk about here.
- Smaug123 9y agoIt is in response to "So while we don't know for sure IF this complexity is fundamental to intelligence we sure seem to be on the right track." Which to me reads as "hey, if we make things more complex then they might become intelligent - who knows!" which seems extremely optimistic.
- ThomPete 9y agothats not what i said. I said if emerging complexity is at the core we are on the right track. I am willing to hear arguments against complexity at the center of this but then that should be what we argue. The star comparison doesent work in this vontext anymore than random does in evolution.