5 ms·

I don't know what else I can write without repeating myself. I already wrote that even under the assumption that intelligence is a purely biological phenomenon

I don't know what else I can write without repeating myself. I already wrote that even under the assumption that intelligence is a purely biological phenomenon, it does not follow that computation can produce intelligence. This isn't a matter of probabilities. We know what computation is, because we defined it as such and such. We know at least some essential features of intelligence (chiefly, intentionality). It is not rocket science to see that computation, thus defined, does not include the concepts of semantics and intentionality. By definition, it excludes them. Attempts to locate the latter in the former reminds me of Feynman's anecdote about the obtuse painter who claimed he could produce yellow from red and white paint alone (later adding a bit of yellow paint to "sharpen it up a bit").

ACCount37 1y ago
What. Are you saying that "intentionality", whatever you mean by it, can't be implemented by a computational process? Never-ever? Never-ever-ever?
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  If you don't know what intentionality is, a commonplace term in the philosophy of mind, then I suggest you take some time to better acquaint yourself with the subject matter. This is probably the major blow against any kind of AI fantasy, and you don't do yourself any favors by wading in the shallows and confidently holding to misinformed opinions. So, one last time. A computer program is a set of formal rules that takes one sequence of uninterpreted symbols and produces another sequence of uninterpreted symbols. Adding more rules and more uninterpreted symbols doesn't magically cause those symbols to be interpreted, and it cannot, by definition.
  - ACCount37 1y ago
    I don't think that "philosophy of mind" contains anything useful for AI development. Most of what I've come across in the field was worthless wordcel drivel, far divorced from reality and any practical applications.
soiltype 1y ago
You don't know how to elaborate on your claims? > I already wrote that even under the assumption that intelligence is a purely biological phenomenon, it does not follow that computation can produce intelligence. See this demands definitions because I do not understand how you can say this. If intelligence is an emergent property of a physical process then I'd feel insane to assume such processes can only happen in certain meats but never in artificially created computers. I fail to see any way they can be fundamentally separated without a non-testable, immaterial "spirit" bestowing intellect on the meat computer. They're just different substrates for computation. > We know what computation is, because we defined it as such and such. As what? This is the cornerstone of your entire argument and you've left it as an assumption. I can infer you define computation as "those processes which happen in non-biological systems and which do not lead to intelligence." But that would be worse than useless.

ACCount37 1y ago

What. Are you saying that "intentionality", whatever you mean by it, can't be implemented by a computational process? Never-ever? Never-ever-ever?

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
If you don't know what intentionality is, a commonplace term in the philosophy of mind, then I suggest you take some time to better acquaint yourself with the subject matter. This is probably the major blow against any kind of AI fantasy, and you don't do yourself any favors by wading in the shallows and confidently holding to misinformed opinions. So, one last time. A computer program is a set of formal rules that takes one sequence of uninterpreted symbols and produces another sequence of uninterpreted symbols. Adding more rules and more uninterpreted symbols doesn't magically cause those symbols to be interpreted, and it cannot, by definition.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  I don't think that "philosophy of mind" contains anything useful for AI development. Most of what I've come across in the field was worthless wordcel drivel, far divorced from reality and any practical applications.

soiltype 1y ago

You don't know how to elaborate on your claims? > I already wrote that even under the assumption that intelligence is a purely biological phenomenon, it does not follow that computation can produce intelligence. See this demands definitions because I do not understand how you can say this. If intelligence is an emergent property of a physical process then I'd feel insane to assume such processes can only happen in certain meats but never in artificially created computers. I fail to see any way they can be fundamentally separated without a non-testable, immaterial "spirit" bestowing intellect on the meat computer. They're just different substrates for computation. > We know what computation is, because we defined it as such and such. As what? This is the cornerstone of your entire argument and you've left it as an assumption. I can infer you define computation as "those processes which happen in non-biological systems and which do not lead to intelligence." But that would be worse than useless.