4 ms·
I do not think cognition is sufficiently understood, to locate it solely in the cortex. The word is even not precisely defined.
by mharig 3y ago
I do not think cognition is sufficiently understood, to locate it solely in the cortex.
The word is even not precisely defined.
- ravi-delia 3y agoI guess what I'm trying to say is that you can pick anything to fall under the umbrella that you want and one of two things will be true; it will happen almost entirely in the brain, or it will also apply to a thermostat/ChatGPT, which means it certainly can't be used to agree with the article above. If we're making specific and unqualified claims about the possibility of "intellegence" without a "body", which is what this thread is about, then there is some working definition at play. I think that under the working definition the article implicitly uses, their argument is extremely dumb. You can pick any definition you want- I certainly can't stop you! But as long as we're arguing about what is and isn't possible without being "embodied", it really doesn't matter. If your definition of cognition is even broader than mine, you should be even less confident that the random researchers the NYT interviewed have correctly identified the exact conditions under which it is possible.