November 27, 2014, 09:41:55 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: hover/mouseover topics on the forum/board index, now gives you the preview of the first post within a topic
 
   Home   Forum Chat links PLAY NOW! Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
 1 
 on: Yesterday at 09:01:16 PM 
Started by socksey - Last post by socksey
26 Nov 14


 2 
 on: November 25, 2014, 07:45:19 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by pck
Here's another way to look at it, substituting "musicality" for "intelligence". A great hifi system may perform just as well musically as the original musicians did, but we would not call the hifi system "muscial" (except as a metaphor) only because of its great performance. Musicality inviolves more than great playing or sound, it is tied up with many other concepts such as the ability to read music, to compose, to be able to explain music theory and so on. Ultimately, being human itself is bound up with it. A non-human animal capable of playing the flute or guitar would be regarded as a curiosity, not as a potential bandmate. Our ability to relate to it as a musician would be compromised.

Plucking "musicality" from the conceptual web it lives in comes at precisely this cost of alienation, just as in the case of machine intelligence. This does not mean we cannot have great performances by machines (or animals), it just means that the categorial differences between human and non-human performances do not go away, even if the performances looked at as isolated phenomena are very similar.

 3 
 on: November 24, 2014, 09:26:34 PM 
Started by socksey - Last post by socksey
24 Nov 14


 4 
 on: November 24, 2014, 06:11:55 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by pck
No accusations. I was trying to avoid it, and actually stay on your subject. "a feast of herring" was as much pointed at me as anyone else, if anyone else...
Understood.

 5 
 on: November 24, 2014, 06:03:12 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by zbilbo
No accusations. I was trying to avoid it, and actually stay on your subject. "a feast of herring" was as much pointed at me as anyone else, if anyone else... Believe it or not.

 6 
 on: November 24, 2014, 05:54:11 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by pck
I thought we should concentrate on what you actually wanted to discuss, and not have a feast of herrings. Thats why I didnt bother to give you any refs. It wasnt up for discussion. And you had it already finshed off as fiction so whats the need for discussing it?
Now we're in trolling territory. I have addressed all of your concerns as best I could. You chose to come back with an accusation of "a feast of herrings".

"Refs" won't do, only actual arguments will. As in proper and elaborate responses to what others write. Nothing you have written so far comes even close to that. I've explained what the article was about 3 times by now. Put up or shut up, as they say.

 7 
 on: November 24, 2014, 05:33:42 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by zbilbo
I thought we should concentrate on what you actually wanted to discuss, and not have a feast of herrings. Thats why I didnt bother to give you any refs. It wasnt up for discussion. And you had it already finshed off as fiction so whats the need for discussing it?


Anyhow...



 8 
 on: November 24, 2014, 05:14:09 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by pck
Being concerned with philosophy of intelligence, and not catch the ref to pilosophical zombies is somewhat weird. That is actually what you are trying to discuss. I believe. Correct me if Im wrong.
It's not what I discuss in the article. The question of zombies is part of the question of "inner states" and the philosophy of experience. It can certainly be connected to questions of intelligence but it doesn't have to be. I chose not to in the article, it is long enough already. Machine intelligence can be discussed separately: See footnote [3] of the article. (Actually, read the article, from your responses I gather you haven't.)

And it is absolutely necessary to make sure to have a clear understanding of whats real before trying to dichotomize between real (human) and unreal (AI). But Ill leave it at that, and let some of the greater physicists including some Nobel laureates battle you on the fiction part.
No real/unreal distiction is necessary to discuss machine intelligence. The term "real" doesn't appear in the article except in connection with simulations. It is not central to the argument. The question was: Can machines think? Or less controversially put: Should we ascribe "intelligence", "thought" and/or "mental abilities" to machines which deliver performances which we would call mental achievements if delivered by humans? There are no "real" or "unreal" thoughts. The question is whether it makes sense to speak of the same concept as far as human abilities and machine abilities are concerned.

Building on what I wrote one could conclude that there are no philosophical zombies (for the conceptual reasons I mention), but this is not the core of my argument, merely a possible corollary, which would need several extra lines of argumentation to make it solid.

To hide behind "greater physicists including some Nobel laureates" without even mentioning a single name or actual idea is of course the worst possible way to lead an argument. Speaking of arguments, you haven't brought forth a single one yet, only a lot of diffuse handwaving to ideas of others you couldn't even be bothered to explain. What should your readers think of that?

 9 
 on: November 24, 2014, 04:24:51 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by zbilbo
Being concerned with philosophy of intelligence, and not catch the ref to pilosophical zombies is somewhat weird. That is actually what you are trying to discuss. I believe. Correct me if Im wrong.

And it is absolutely necessary to make sure to have a clear understanding of whats real before trying to dichotomize between real (human) and unreal (AI). But Ill leave it at that, and let some of the greater physicists including some Nobel laureates battle you on the fiction part.

 10 
 on: November 24, 2014, 03:16:40 PM 
Started by pck - Last post by pck
Just a small immediate clarification. "I" refers to the "I" in "AI" or the "I" in the human version.

So expand it about to the following: At what level of which system the "Intelligence" is created?
The answer is largely the same: Intelligence is not created, it is ascribed. It is a term we make use of, not a thing to be discovered "out there". (It has that in common with numbers, see footnote [1] in the original article.) Your reification of intelligence gets you off of the wrong foot altogether and sets you spinning in all kinds of directions in a confused way.

The simulation hypothesis is well known in different variants. And there are at least one (or a few) experiments described to make sure if we are living in a simulation or not. So its not clear at the moment whether we "live" a simulation or not...
Again, this is beside the point I make in the article. The question of whether we should call machines that are able to achieve certain performances "intelligent" is independent of any simulation hypotheses.

The last parts (about simulation) are available around in different scientifi writings if needed, and of course also in popularized versions. Look for Nick Bostrom for latest variants. The theories are way back though and also in physics etc.
I was concerned with the philosophy of intelligence, not with science fiction scenarios. 99.9% of all sci-fi writing makes the same or similar erroneous assumptions as you do.

Modern physics has confirmed the non-determinacy of our world, and, perhaps even more important, the notion that reality itself is observer-dependent (quantum physics). This is a major obstacle for all speculation about our world being a computer simulation, since all computer simulations are both, deterministic and non-observer dependent. Additionally, simulations that go beyond computer programs (or procedures which are equivalent to them) are (at least currently) beyond our grasp. The imagination of sci-fi writers may be great but so is their confusion about the basic nature (concept) of intelligence. The actual results of modern physics usually do not play out in their favour. It's called fiction for a reason.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10

Please Donate just a wee amount by clicking here or we will have to stick more bloody small ads here again...thx :) Fresh Air
Terms & Conditions | Privacy policy | Accessability

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 3.529 seconds with 26 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.026s, 2q)
TinyPortal © 2005-2012