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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @0x49fa98 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @OperaWeirdo @CovfefeAnon and
Heavenly bodies. Certainly we can do better. It is not a matter of biological pressures as i don't think enough time has passed for humans to have evolved biologically in any significant way since Ptolemy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Predicting where the Moon doesn't conflict with any evolved systems. Run equations, act on the results. In contrast, plugging into an evolved system like our social modules then expecting those modules to be able to test for something novel based on a gut feeling is absurd 1/3
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98 and
There are a whole bunch of systems for social testing and calibration all of which have extreme evolutionary importance; this is stuff you can't choose to turn off and do a good job at administering an artificially created test. 2/3
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98 and
Consider the hypothesis behind the Turing test as disproven as the Ptolemaic model of the heavens. The hypothesis there is unspoken but boils down to "humans can detect a fake human by interacting purely in text with it" 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.