4 ms·
>One might say who cares if they don't define it? Well, if you don't define it, there's no point in discussing whether it exists, how it came to be, or what it
by netcan 3y ago
>One might say who cares if they don't define it? Well, if you don't define it, there's no point in discussing whether it exists, how it came to be, or what it comprises.
> You might as well be asking the question: how close are we to quidlesmoopy?
Adequately, and generally defining intelligence, consiousness, AGI & such... big ask. Impossible in practice.
So... dies that mean the conversation ends here because any further discussion = quidlesmoopy? We don't know what intelligence is precisely and therefore can't reason about it at all.
I don't think this level of minimalism or skepticism is viable.
We need to make do with placeholder definitions, descriptions and theories of consciousness and intelligence. We can work with that.
So yes... language as a foundation for conciousness, intelligence is "just a theory." Its probably not entirely correct. And still... positing and testing the theory by building and artificial talking machines is possible.
- djoldman 3y agoI think placeholder definitions are the way to go: one defines a concept that is acknowledged not to be the target and works with it. So for the purposes of discussion, one may define consciousness(prime) as something less than true consciousness and attempt to work with that lesser definition. However, at all times, one must admit to working with a lesser definition that may never lead to knowledge that applies to the target definition. We must also admit that consciousness as many understand it may not exist.