3 ms·

>Technium with consciousness, but he does assert that as an entity, it possesses something identical to or closely akin to intentionality. Average human brain

>Technium with consciousness, but he does assert that as an entity, it possesses something identical to or closely akin to intentionality. Average human brain has about 100 billion cells, according to some source. Number of Internet-connected devices is approaching 1 billion, and each device is in some ways more capable than one brain cell. The capability of these beings has gone from nothing beyond exact repetition to playing chess and controlling entire systems with humans as elements of the system. They are still children, because they are immature, still developing very quickly, and still unable to reproduce independently. A new being has come into existence. It is gradually developing ideas and intentions. Just as with bio-life, eventually the beings which just happen to have a tendency to self-reproduce and have "motivation" to perservere will win out over other kinds.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Intentionality and consciousness are demonstrably not the result of simple aggregation. You acknowledge this, I think, with the phrase "each device is in some ways more capable than one brain cell". That may be true, but the devices are not linked (and I would suggest, are not likely ever to be linked) in ways that would make them powerful the way neurons are. They are not children. The do not develop. Individual instances are semantically prototypes which are destroyed or powered down, and the information gained from their existence is used by humans to create new ones. There is no "evolution" because there is no mechanism for variation beyond that which we, as humans, introduce. These machines are the perfect material for an intelligent design argument (one to which I do not subscribe). I do not see them as counterparts to, let alone examples of, biological evolution and development. I do not subscribe to these attempts to find correspondences between whatever our current understanding of life/the brain/consciousness is and whatever current technology we have on hand. In the 1800s, people were doing this with hydraulics and gearing. Today, we're doing it with computers. It's so transparently parochial. I don't doubt the theoretical potential for life as well as consciousness to exist on a non-biological substrate. I do very much doubt that the IoT is that substrate, and ditto for AlphaFoobar, GPT-N or whatever other computational marvel one might point to.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Intentionality and consciousness are demonstrably not the result of simple aggregation. You acknowledge this, I think, with the phrase "each device is in some ways more capable than one brain cell". That may be true, but the devices are not linked (and I would suggest, are not likely ever to be linked) in ways that would make them powerful the way neurons are. They are not children. The do not develop. Individual instances are semantically prototypes which are destroyed or powered down, and the information gained from their existence is used by humans to create new ones. There is no "evolution" because there is no mechanism for variation beyond that which we, as humans, introduce. These machines are the perfect material for an intelligent design argument (one to which I do not subscribe). I do not see them as counterparts to, let alone examples of, biological evolution and development. I do not subscribe to these attempts to find correspondences between whatever our current understanding of life/the brain/consciousness is and whatever current technology we have on hand. In the 1800s, people were doing this with hydraulics and gearing. Today, we're doing it with computers. It's so transparently parochial. I don't doubt the theoretical potential for life as well as consciousness to exist on a non-biological substrate. I do very much doubt that the IoT is that substrate, and ditto for AlphaFoobar, GPT-N or whatever other computational marvel one might point to.