3 ms·

Nothing comes out of thin air, as far as we know. My assertion is not something from nothing. It's something truly new and unseen. The idea that electrical tran

Nothing comes out of thin air, as far as we know. My assertion is not something from nothing. It's something truly new and unseen. The idea that electrical transmission over wire is just a better smoke signal seems to deny the most basic differences between the two, or that there was any ingenuity or human contribution in the path from one to another. Many animals have language, the chief instrument of intelligence. But no animals other than humans have put language together to make something new -- like buildings, roads, or power plants. Why is that? Why don't other animals evolve language that makes new things? And why do the things not evolve anything new themselves? I think humans are unique and special. As I said, it could be my own bias from being one, but I'm gonna stick with it because -- in the practical world in which we live -- our position and role are unique and our intelligence can lead to truly new and unique outcomes which machines and other animals can't do on their own.

krapp 5y ago
To me "truly new," as you keep using it, does imply something from nothing - some aspect of innovation or creative spark that doesn't simply involve the transformation of existing data or basis in existing knowledge. Otherwise, what is the difference between "truly new" and simply "new?" >The idea that electrical transmission over wire is just a better smoke signal seems to deny the most basic differences between the two, or that there was any ingenuity or human contribution in the path from one to another. No, I think we simply disagree on the nature of ingenuity. I argue that there is no aspect of human ingenuity or creativity that cannot be simulated by a machine of sufficient complexity because the human brain itself is simply a complex machine. It's just data processing - we do it every night when we dream. There's nothing ineffable separating the two that makes it possible for a human to innovate but impossible - even in theory - for a computer.

krapp 5y ago

To me "truly new," as you keep using it, does imply something from nothing - some aspect of innovation or creative spark that doesn't simply involve the transformation of existing data or basis in existing knowledge. Otherwise, what is the difference between "truly new" and simply "new?" >The idea that electrical transmission over wire is just a better smoke signal seems to deny the most basic differences between the two, or that there was any ingenuity or human contribution in the path from one to another. No, I think we simply disagree on the nature of ingenuity. I argue that there is no aspect of human ingenuity or creativity that cannot be simulated by a machine of sufficient complexity because the human brain itself is simply a complex machine. It's just data processing - we do it every night when we dream. There's nothing ineffable separating the two that makes it possible for a human to innovate but impossible - even in theory - for a computer.