-
-
Replying to @0x49fa98 @Childermass4 and
I appreciate further background on the general problem. And I agree wholeheartedly that the progress of AI forces to confront a science of the mind in a way we hadn't before. But I'm having trouble digging out a more specific answer about why the products of the mind are...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
What I want to get at is here. When I asserted that it was absurd to think that all possible ideas individually were determined by a mechanical biological process and you answered "is it?" because, I assume, you think it isn't.pic.twitter.com/PfN05B9TV0
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
Though it's not clear here, what I meant by "mechanical biological process" was an evolutionary process. This is more clear when it's taken in the context of the post I'm responding to
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
What I want to get at is if you think there is no mind-body problem, or if the problem has been solved.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
If I think of a candle one moment and an elephant the next, I do so willfully, the same as I am free to move my arm up and down or my head side to side.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
What role does adaptation being selected for survival fitness over generations have to do with why I thought of a candle a minute ago and an elephant now? How many generations came and went in the meantime to change my mind's image from candle to elephant?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
Why is it meaningful to assume we are victims of evolutionary pressure when we seek a way to test AI? I may freely hypothesize on what makes a human mind a human mind without having to wait for evolution to reveal it to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
Men walked on the moon 3 years after ELIZA passed the Turing test in 1966. What is it about evolutionary pressure that allows us to correctly hypothesize about the true motions of the moon and the Earth but leaves us so in the dark when testing AI?pic.twitter.com/pspAr7KuYX
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The nature of the question. "Where is the moon going to be, how to put a rocket on the right spot" is purely solvable by differential equations. The comparison with the Turing test is that the test was something made up that people thought sounded good.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98 and
1) what does this have to do with evolution? 2) How do you get from projections of the motions of the heavenly bodies on the surface of the celestial sphere to ballistic trajectories determinable by differential equations? The path is not obvious or simple and required several...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @CovfefeAnon and
intervening hypotheses. If you try to shoot for the moon under the assumptions of the Ptolemaic hypothesis you are going to miss big time. The Turing test is at least as naive about the nature of human intelligence as the Ptolemaic hypothesis is naive about the motions of the...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.