3 ms·

Appearance is vague to the point of being an argument without merit. If someone can SHOW something to be dissimilar in kind not degree then it would fall upon t

Appearance is vague to the point of being an argument without merit. If someone can SHOW something to be dissimilar in kind not degree then it would fall upon the recipient of that argument to refute it. It is not enough to point and not explicate. One could point at our pre civilized ancestors and point out hunter gatherers can't fly to the moon or build a computer and would never do so. One could go further back yet to the prior species that would someday become humans and point out that their present limitations and claim that one could never produce the other. Both assertions would be obviously wrong only because of the advantage of hindsight. I do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.

lurquer 6y ago
> do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought. If I know everything about the nature of X, yet I know very little about the nature of Y, it would be illogical to say "I will assume Y is like X until proven otherwise."
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  I think computation as a model of cognition is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that will bear fruit and at least it IS a hypothesis instead of hand waving. It is worse to imagine that there is a physical process that exists wholly in the physical world that happens in the world within reasonable parameters cannot possibly be engineered to happen in a controlled fashion. This is a proof that would require a major shift in physics and math and yet we are expected to accept it purely based on intuition without even a compelling theory of how it does work.
  - lurquer 6y ago
    It is worthwhile to pursue artificial cognition. Just as it was worthwhile to pursue manned flight. The difference, though, is that the Wright Brothers were never foolish enough to arrogantly say a bird is actually a type of airplane...
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      A bird is a mechanical device to achieve heavier than air flight.

lurquer 6y ago

> do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought. If I know everything about the nature of X, yet I know very little about the nature of Y, it would be illogical to say "I will assume Y is like X until proven otherwise."

michaelmrose 6y ago
I think computation as a model of cognition is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that will bear fruit and at least it IS a hypothesis instead of hand waving. It is worse to imagine that there is a physical process that exists wholly in the physical world that happens in the world within reasonable parameters cannot possibly be engineered to happen in a controlled fashion. This is a proof that would require a major shift in physics and math and yet we are expected to accept it purely based on intuition without even a compelling theory of how it does work.
- lurquer 6y ago
  It is worthwhile to pursue artificial cognition. Just as it was worthwhile to pursue manned flight. The difference, though, is that the Wright Brothers were never foolish enough to arrogantly say a bird is actually a type of airplane...
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    A bird is a mechanical device to achieve heavier than air flight.