There is no reason to expect that the algorithms that we employ to solve problems in the computer are the same algorithms that evolution has invented for brains. There is no evidence that there is only one way to arrive at general intelligence.
-
Show this thread
-
It is plausible that general intelligence is achieved through cognitive mechanisms entirely different from human ones. But there is no evidence that it is possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
There is indeed evidence that general intelligence is achievable through biological evidence. But, there is no evidence that it is achievable through non-biological approaches.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @IntuitMachine
You imply that 'biological' is different from what a technical process can do. But evolutionary search is just a specific search algorithm, biological regulation is cybernetics. Your notion of 'evidence' is skewed, because you load 'biological' with unreflected functionality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
There indeed is a commonality with biological evolution and technological emergence. That said, evolution does not have a mind and thus doesn't have a design specification. Evidence here is based on the existence proof of humans being general intelligences.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IntuitMachine
It is not clear to me that evolution does not have a mind. At certain timescales, it seems to be generally intelligent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
A mind in the sense that it is working off an understandable design specification.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IntuitMachine
The observable universe is also a controllable universe, hence it can be understood.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @IntuitMachine
This is indeed the unprovable assumption that science makes: that the cosmos is understandable.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
No, I don't think it is an assumption. It is at worst a conjecture and at best a surprising discovery. Controllability may explain that discovery.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @IntuitMachine
Josha, you are splitting hairs. That the cosmos is understandable is a premise that is made without proof. We hope it to be true; and we proceed expecting that it is true.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Grady_Booch @IntuitMachine
No, that is not true for me. I was extremely surprised when I noticed that the universe is so understandable as we find it to be.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 2 more 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.