4 ms·

I see all of this as implementation details of a single biological system that exhibits "thought", not a definition of "thought". > It’s just by no means “the

by nomel 3y ago

I see all of this as implementation details of a single biological system that exhibits "thought", not a definition of "thought". > It’s just by no means “the same.” The implementation is not the same. Everyone agrees with that. The concept being compared is "thought", not "implementation of thought". Maybe I'm lost.

RC_ITR 3y ago
I'm just saying that "thinking" is a well-defined class of related things that only animals do. I would argue expanding the definition to include the kind of things that semiconductors do really dilutes the meaning of "thinking" to be near meaningless. Maybe to put it succinctly - no computer has ever done anything without a human input (even if it's millions of layers abstracted), but thinking just happens spontaneously. If that's not a sufficient condition to differentiate 'thinking' from 'calculating,' then IDK what 'thinking' even means then.