4 ms·

>He, like many engineers, think intelligence is a kind of engineering; so you just need to build something that works. Intelligence is what intelligence is. Yo

>He, like many engineers, think intelligence is a kind of engineering; so you just need to build something that works. Intelligence is what intelligence is. You don't know what it is even if you dearly believe you do. Nobody really does. We construct ways to probe it, at least to probe the aspects of it we find useful. >That latter impulse resigns the whole field to cheap mimicry. "Mimicry" is an assertion that is essentially meaningless. You mean to tell me the plane is fake flying ? Lol Okay. The bee might just as well accuse a bird of mimicry. This is a very rubbish line of argument an astonishing number of people seem to have trapped themselves in. The idea that internal processes matter anything more than a means to an end.

mjburgess 3y ago
> You don't know what it is even if you dearly believe you do Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know. I've written the first draft of a book on animal intelligence. I doubt neither you nor Carmack have even thought that a study of actually intelligent systems (animals) should even enter the conversation. No no, of course, it's just going to be a modulo trick.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know. I simply know that sincerely believing something to be so has no actual bearing on truth. I know that results are what matter because that is what we employ with each other. And because that's the only thing Evolution "cared" about. >I've written the first draft of a book on animal intelligence. That's good for you. >I doubt neither you nor Carmack have even thought that a study of actually intelligent systems (animals) should even enter the conversation. I do know that this study is not the be all end all. Why would I be concerned with following one example of biology to a T when even Nature itself does not (Flight and the bee and the bird amongst others). >No no, of course, it's just going to be a modulo trick. There is no trick. There is only what flies and what does not. Trick flying is not a distinction that exists. Reality does not play tricks.

mjburgess 3y ago

> You don't know what it is even if you dearly believe you do Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know. I've written the first draft of a book on animal intelligence. I doubt neither you nor Carmack have even thought that a study of actually intelligent systems (animals) should even enter the conversation. No no, of course, it's just going to be a modulo trick.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know. I simply know that sincerely believing something to be so has no actual bearing on truth. I know that results are what matter because that is what we employ with each other. And because that's the only thing Evolution "cared" about. >I've written the first draft of a book on animal intelligence. That's good for you. >I doubt neither you nor Carmack have even thought that a study of actually intelligent systems (animals) should even enter the conversation. I do know that this study is not the be all end all. Why would I be concerned with following one example of biology to a T when even Nature itself does not (Flight and the bee and the bird amongst others). >No no, of course, it's just going to be a modulo trick. There is no trick. There is only what flies and what does not. Trick flying is not a distinction that exists. Reality does not play tricks.