5 ms·
It's the opposite : you assume that the natural world is smart, but they don't assume anything, they just test the hypothesis that dogs are smart, and in this w
by Majestic121 5y ago
It's the opposite : you assume that the natural world is smart, but they don't assume anything, they just test the hypothesis that dogs are smart, and in this way validate part of your assumption.
I think it's a better way to deal with things, as your assumption might not hold scrutiny very well : what is natural world ? Are worms part of it ? What about rocks ? Can we deduce from there that worms and rocks are able to distinguish intentional from non intentional actions ?
- hutzlibu 5y agoIf you have ever written a game KI or something alike: the most simple algorithms (few lines of code) can perceive the observer into thinking there is advanced KI at work. Same might be the case with natural intelligence.