3 ms·
Right. I always feel like, if it was a valid proof against AI, it also served as a proof against human intelligence. It just seems to take for granted that th
by kbelder 6y ago
Right. I always feel like, if it was a valid proof against AI, it also served as a proof against human intelligence. It just seems to take for granted that there is a fundamental (near-mystical) difference between the atoms in a brain and the atoms in a computer, even though that's a very extraordinary claim.
- Barrin92 6y agoit's not an extraordinary claim at all. Digital computers and biological brains are not the same thing. Just like you can't build the Golden Gate Bridge out of jell-O, it's perfectly possible that you cannot replicate human intelligence in a completely different substrate. Physical properties matter is what he is saying. He's not denying that humans are intelligent, he's saying that biological intelligence is (likely) unique because of its configuration. The extraordinary claim is actually the almost dualistic view taken by AI people. That intelligence exists in some sort of cloud, distinct from matter or physical properties. It's almost a Descartes like, religious fantasy. Searle isn't denying that you can build AI, but that you can build any AI out of anything. He's saying that if you want to build human like intelligence, it is very likely that you need human like material. Just like when you build a house it actually matters what the house is structurally made of, it matters to an AI what it is made of. You can't make a house just out of some platonic mathematical idea of a house.