4 ms·

Knowledge is semantic in nature and thus computers cannot, strictly speaking, know anything. And a group of biological neurons can?

danielam 9y ago
Can they?
goatlover 9y ago
They can by virtue of being embodied. It's the body interacting with an environment that provides semantics. For humans, a lot of that is cultural. Computers only have knowledge to the extent that we deem those patterns of 0s and 1s to be information.
- mcguire 9y ago
  So you're saying we need a robot?
- pixl97 9y ago
  Eh, your idea of embodiment is iffy. Computers can interact with an environment. Eventually computers will be far more able than humans to interact with environments. Humans are equipped with a very advanced set of input devices we call senses, but after that point we have to use technology to translate what we cannot perceive into information we can. You cannot see ultraviolet, you have to translate it into visual light, which is then translated into neural signals. A computer system directly, or indirectly connect with just about any sensor we can think of and directly manipulate that signal.
  - danielam 9y ago
    I don't know what goatlover meant, and I don't presume you are necessarily arguing this point, but adding sensors to computers does not overcome the fundamental nature of computers I described above.
- danielam 9y ago
  Not clear to me what you mean. I can agree that knowledge ultimately is grounded in sense experience ("the body"). Thus, the knowledge of "Horse" (or "Horseness") must ultimately be traced to sense experience involving particular horses. I can agree that the "bits" in a computer (strictly speaking, not bits but physical states under that interpretation) are only meaningful by convention and not intrinsically. Thus, we say in one context that states labeled 11100 represent the integer 28 and a sequence of five Boolean values in another context, depending on the conventions of each context. I can agree that conventional meanings are often cultural like commonly understood meanings of the symbolic which, again, lack that particular meaning intrinsically. E.g., both nodding and the utterance "yes" are generally meant to express agreement (except in countries like Bulgaria). However, I do not understand what is being said when invoking embodiment and culture in this context, specifically.
- thunderbong 9y ago
  That's a really interesting point. I never thought about knowledge like that. I've always thought that the difference between knowledge (or knowing something) and being informed is when you can apply information gained in one realm to another.

danielam 9y ago

Can they?

goatlover 9y ago

They can by virtue of being embodied. It's the body interacting with an environment that provides semantics. For humans, a lot of that is cultural. Computers only have knowledge to the extent that we deem those patterns of 0s and 1s to be information.

mcguire 9y ago
So you're saying we need a robot?
pixl97 9y ago
Eh, your idea of embodiment is iffy. Computers can interact with an environment. Eventually computers will be far more able than humans to interact with environments. Humans are equipped with a very advanced set of input devices we call senses, but after that point we have to use technology to translate what we cannot perceive into information we can. You cannot see ultraviolet, you have to translate it into visual light, which is then translated into neural signals. A computer system directly, or indirectly connect with just about any sensor we can think of and directly manipulate that signal.
- danielam 9y ago
  I don't know what goatlover meant, and I don't presume you are necessarily arguing this point, but adding sensors to computers does not overcome the fundamental nature of computers I described above.
danielam 9y ago
Not clear to me what you mean. I can agree that knowledge ultimately is grounded in sense experience ("the body"). Thus, the knowledge of "Horse" (or "Horseness") must ultimately be traced to sense experience involving particular horses. I can agree that the "bits" in a computer (strictly speaking, not bits but physical states under that interpretation) are only meaningful by convention and not intrinsically. Thus, we say in one context that states labeled 11100 represent the integer 28 and a sequence of five Boolean values in another context, depending on the conventions of each context. I can agree that conventional meanings are often cultural like commonly understood meanings of the symbolic which, again, lack that particular meaning intrinsically. E.g., both nodding and the utterance "yes" are generally meant to express agreement (except in countries like Bulgaria). However, I do not understand what is being said when invoking embodiment and culture in this context, specifically.
thunderbong 9y ago
That's a really interesting point. I never thought about knowledge like that. I've always thought that the difference between knowledge (or knowing something) and being informed is when you can apply information gained in one realm to another.