4 ms·
And "If we can eventually create a strong AI," is basically the same as saying, "If minds are physical" (hint: they are). In fact, we create strong intelligence
by jamesaguilar 13y ago
And "If we can eventually create a strong AI," is basically the same as saying, "If minds are physical" (hint: they are). In fact, we create strong intelligences by the tens of millions each year. We just currently only have the ability to do it biologically.
- gnaritas 13y ago> If we can eventually create a strong AI," is basically the same as saying, "If minds are physical" No it isn't; it's saying if we ever understand minds well enough to duplicate them. Yes, minds are physical, that doesn't mean we can duplicate one yet.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoEh, close enough for government work. I don't know of a plausible reason why with enough research and time, the full workings of every neuron in the human brain might not be understood. I guess it's possible that the brain is just incomprehensible, but it seems fairly unlikely.
- gnaritas 13y agoI said yet; I in no way implied we'd never understand it. I'm merely pointing out that those statements are not at all the same thing.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoBut we're talking about future feasibility . . . I think it should be fairly obvious that Samantha is not yet creatable, since such a thing hasn't been created. Also I presume we are mostly fairly technical here and understand that such a creation is far beyond our current capabilities. If that was in dispute in this thread and I somehow missed it, you have my sincerest apologies.
- gnaritas 13y agoOf course I agree, I was simply pointing out those two statements I quoted are not equivalent; I would presume most people here accept the reality that the mind is physical; mind is what brain does.
- cscurmudgeon 13y agoDefine physical. (Hint: It is not as easy as you think.) Is a mathematical object physical? Is the truth of your statement "If minds are physical." physical?
- scott_karana 13y ago> Is a mathematical object physical? Are you saying that aspects of our minds may be abstract, and not concrete? Obvious GP was referring to the existence or lackthereof of metaphysical 'souls' for example... (I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious, and I apologize if I misunderstood either way.)
- md224 13y agoThat reminds me of my favorite challenge to Physicalism as an ontology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel's_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel's_dilemma
- jamesaguilar 13y agoI mean what I said. Is mind-ness completely encapsulated in physical properties like the locations of biological components and electrical states? Are all things we would recognize as minds composable from matter? My ability to formulate a definition has little to do with the answer to the question.
- PeterWhittaker 13y agoYes. Yes. (Answers to your two questions. Being 100% biological beings built according to strict mechanistic darwinian rules, our "minds" are purely physical constructs. Insert leap of logic from that to Turing Machines and, well, you get the idea. We will build a "mind" or two, it's only a matter of time.)
- cscurmudgeon 13y agoIs a mathematical object physical? Nope. Yet we need those to talk about "physical" things. I asked you to define physical. Not to state what you mean being a mind being physical. If you try a bit, you would find out that dualism, materialism are all equally idiotic or equally truthful.