3 ms·
>of course not. But exceeding what humans can do in terms of reasoning is not an unreasonable bar for reasoning. It isn't, because you presuppose it reasons
by freejazz 3y ago
>of course not. But exceeding what humans can do in terms of reasoning is not an unreasonable bar for reasoning.
It isn't, because you presuppose it reasons
- throwawaymaths 3y agoYou're projecting. That "it doesn't reason" in your meaning seems to depends on unknowable suppositions that are a quasi-metaphysical characterisation of the process of reasoning. I'm defining reasoning from a set of observable outputs. The Chinese room isn't a thing.
- freejazz 3y agoYou presuppose that it reasons AND humans reason.
- DangitBobby 3y agoThere being "no such thing as reasoning" is an amusing cop-out.
- freejazz 3y agoThat's not my point at all