2 ms·
First of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning. But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If
by slopinthebag 2mo ago
First of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So it's not a sufficient criterion.
Claiming we've figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning is hopelessly naive.
- nsingh2 2mo agoYou are making two different claims, and then treating them as one. 1. Mimicking a process may not prove that the system is truly preforming the same process. In this case, a "reasoning" process. 2. A system that simulates a process cannot, by definition, be doing the process. The first claim can be defended, but the second doesn't follow from the first. Calling it a "simulation" is assuming the conclusion. What makes it a simulation rather than some implementation of reasoning on a different substrate? I.e. transistors rather than neurons.
- slopinthebag 2mo agoWhat makes GTA a simulation and not just a different implementation of the laws of nature and downtown LA?
- anon48293 2mo agoIf the output was identical it wouldn’t just be simulating. You invoke some magic qualia which is intangible.