3 ms·

On an abstract level, it's obvious that intelligent design, symbolic representations etc. aren't needed to build a mind, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a

On an abstract level, it's obvious that intelligent design, symbolic representations etc. aren't needed to build a mind, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer. But concretely, all the machine learning approaches had many obvious limitations (the volume of data, lack of generalization) until they suddenly didn't, and past a certain scale features of intelligence began to emerge.

foldr 4y ago
>On an abstract level, it's obvious that intelligent design, symbolic representations etc. aren't needed to build a mind, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer. This is playing pretty fast and loose. First of all, I wouldn't lump intelligent design together with the claim that symbolic representations are necessary to account for certain features of human intelligence (such as the classic Fodorian triad of compositionality, systematicity and productivity). Second, I just don't think the logic of your sentence works. Why does it make any more sense than the following? "It's obvious that fingers aren't needed to build a hand, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer." Maybe you can build a functional equivalent of a hand without giving it any fingers. But the mere fact that we evolved doesn't tell us anything about whether or not that is possible.
- zetalyrae 4y ago
  The point is that at no point in evolutionary history did a cognitive scientist sit down and write a bunch of S-expression GOFAI rules for human cognition.
  - foldr 4y ago
    Of course not, but who is claiming that this happened? I'm not sure I can think of even single person who is both (i) an intelligent design advocate and (ii) explicitly committed to a symbolic model of human cognitive capacities. This seems like a straw man. You might as well say that at no point in evolutionary history did an embryologist ever write down a plan for the eight developmental stages of a human fetus.
    - _dain_ 4y ago
      the "intelligent design advocates" doesn't refer to creationists in this context, it refers to GOFAI people.
- ElFitz 4y ago
  I might be wrong but I think it’s more of a "It’s obvious you don’t need to have fingers to build a hand that has fingers" than building a fingerless functional equivalent to a hand.

foldr 4y ago

>On an abstract level, it's obvious that intelligent design, symbolic representations etc. aren't needed to build a mind, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer. This is playing pretty fast and loose. First of all, I wouldn't lump intelligent design together with the claim that symbolic representations are necessary to account for certain features of human intelligence (such as the classic Fodorian triad of compositionality, systematicity and productivity). Second, I just don't think the logic of your sentence works. Why does it make any more sense than the following? "It's obvious that fingers aren't needed to build a hand, because we _evolved_ and evolution is a blind optimizer." Maybe you can build a functional equivalent of a hand without giving it any fingers. But the mere fact that we evolved doesn't tell us anything about whether or not that is possible.

zetalyrae 4y ago
The point is that at no point in evolutionary history did a cognitive scientist sit down and write a bunch of S-expression GOFAI rules for human cognition.
- foldr 4y ago
  Of course not, but who is claiming that this happened? I'm not sure I can think of even single person who is both (i) an intelligent design advocate and (ii) explicitly committed to a symbolic model of human cognitive capacities. This seems like a straw man. You might as well say that at no point in evolutionary history did an embryologist ever write down a plan for the eight developmental stages of a human fetus.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    the "intelligent design advocates" doesn't refer to creationists in this context, it refers to GOFAI people.
ElFitz 4y ago
I might be wrong but I think it’s more of a "It’s obvious you don’t need to have fingers to build a hand that has fingers" than building a fingerless functional equivalent to a hand.