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.
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @Grady_Booch @IntuitMachine
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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
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.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @Grady_Booch
But even a simple thing like human general intelligence appears presently not understandable. Even the word 'understand' is outside present understandability.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IntuitMachine
You are generalizing from yourself to a generic 'we' (not just here!). There is no 'we' in think. If you don't understand a thing, it does not follow that others don't. You are more verbal than analytic, and large parts of the epistemological crystal seem to be invisible to you.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.