Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
#469202
Sy Borg wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:50 pm Human intelligence is not the same type as that of a bee either. But there is still intelligence in each.

Dictionary definition: The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
And yet computers of all kinds, including AI, fall far short of the simple definition you offer. There is no "understanding" whatsoever. Today. The future remains to be seen...
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus Location: England
#469203
A computer "understands" the command to add 1 + 1 as well as a biological brain does. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be able to preform the arithmetic operation. It wouldn't even be able to deal with the binary symbols involved. However, computers cannot yet do the second order operation that would allow it to reflect on what it means to understand the arithmetic operation of addition. And yet it can do addition more quickly than a biological brain. The trick involved in making AI truly intelligent will be to get it to reflect on what it is doing, and perhaps why it is doing it. When it becomes capable of this second order level of cognition, it will then have become truly mindful. And, when that happens, we'll need to watch out.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#469213
Lagayascienza wrote: October 24th, 2024, 11:40 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:But being capable of, does not imply doing it the same way. Outperforming intelligent organisms in completing tasks is not the same as outperforming organisms in cognitive abilities. It is without question that the "smartest" computers don't understand anything, they just perform fast, automated (mechanistic/digital) calculations, but the implication that "understanding" and "reasoning" are simply a factor of such calculations, so that the more calculations, the bigger chances of reasoning and understanding emerging, is very highly debatable. It's the debate against the computational theory of mind.
To my mind, the computational theory of mind has more going for it than any other. However, the brain, it's processes and emergent phenomena, are very difficult to study. The problem is we are studying the thing we want to understand by using the thing we want to understand. This creates a feedback loop or hall of mirrors effect which in turn creates a lot of meaningless and confusing noise.

While I am far from an expert in this field, I have to say that, based on the reading I have done, I agree with the likes of Dennett, Fodor, Marr, Neiser, Pinker and Putnam. The brain appears to be is a biological computer and the computational theory makes the most sense to me. Of course that dos not make it true. However, I have looked at the criticisms of the computational theory of mind and, as far as I can see, they can be countered. Whereas, all the other theories have shortcomings which cannot be addressed. There is a simple account of the computational theory of mind on Wikipedia that is worth reading and which provides references to much of the relevant literature. Some of these I have not read yet. After I look at those unread references I will revisit the other theories of mind. It will take some time but I will then write a summary of how the theories compare.

Thanks for the interesting discussion thus far.
I'm with Searle and others on this, the mind cannot be simply a manipulator of symbols. I haven't found any satisfactory reply to the challenge offered by the Chinese Room Argument, nor to Bender's octopus test. If that's true, then a computational device cannot be a real mind (strong AI), and then AI will not be like a biological mind ever, and it is not the right model of the biological mind either (weak AI). It becomes even more problematic when we are told, following Turing, that we don't even need to understand brain to understand mind, as if mind could be treated as not being an emergence of biological processes in living bodies.

The prospect of AI as promoted by the tech gurus is that either weak or strong AI will progress from a non-conscious state to a conscious state as a result of the exponential increase of algorithmic calculations, implying the emergence of qualitative properties from that quantitative order. But there's more to that, since it is also often implied, and sometimes openly claimed, that this conscious state is enough for computer machines to acquire intentionality and the ability to operate autonomously in the world as real free agents, creating the unpredictable, open-to-all-possibilities scenario of machines developing organically as any other living species. The "intelligent explosion". For this AI-as-real-intelligence to be true, other assumptions also need to be true concerning sentience, agency, life, social behavior, mind-body relation, etc., all of which are also highly disputable.
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco Location: Panama
#469214
Lagayascienza wrote: October 25th, 2024, 9:52 am A computer "understands" the command to add 1 + 1 as well as a biological brain does. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be able to preform the arithmetic operation. It wouldn't even be able to deal with the binary symbols involved. However, computers cannot yet do the second order operation that would allow it to reflect on what it means to understand the arithmetic operation of addition. And yet it can do addition more quickly than a biological brain. The trick involved in making AI truly intelligent will be to get it to reflect on what it is doing, and perhaps why it is doing it. When it becomes capable of this second order level of cognition, it will then have become truly mindful. And, when that happens, we'll need to watch out.
Actually, no, the computer does not understand anything, because there's meaning embedded in understanding. The mathematical operations and all computational tasks can be, at least theoretically, carried over with a system of pulleys or cranks. The first calculators were such type of machines.
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco Location: Panama
#469215
Count Lucanor wrote: October 25th, 2024, 2:45 pm
Lagayascienza wrote: October 25th, 2024, 9:52 am A computer "understands" the command to add 1 + 1 as well as a biological brain does. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be able to preform the arithmetic operation. It wouldn't even be able to deal with the binary symbols involved. However, computers cannot yet do the second order operation that would allow it to reflect on what it means to understand the arithmetic operation of addition. And yet it can do addition more quickly than a biological brain. The trick involved in making AI truly intelligent will be to get it to reflect on what it is doing, and perhaps why it is doing it. When it becomes capable of this second order level of cognition, it will then have become truly mindful. And, when that happens, we'll need to watch out.
Actually, no, the computer does not understand anything, because there's meaning embedded in understanding. The mathematical operations and all computational tasks can be, at least theoretically, carried over with a system of pulleys or cranks. The first calculators were such type of machines.
I meant carried out.
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco Location: Panama
#469219
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 25th, 2024, 8:35 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:50 pm Human intelligence is not the same type as that of a bee either. But there is still intelligence in each.

Dictionary definition: The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
And yet computers of all kinds, including AI, fall far short of the simple definition you offer. There is no "understanding" whatsoever. Today. The future remains to be seen...
Yes, there is no understanding because it lacks memory. It cannot respond to follow-up questions because it's forgotten the last one.

Why would anyone believe that this situation will stay the same forever ... for the next ten years, the nest century, the next millennia, for the next hundred thousand years, for the next million years, for the next billion years?

Because they believe that the world will end before any of this can happen. Every culture in history has believed themselves to be near the end.

If civilisation continues for even another hundred years, why would you believe that AI would not progress vastly beyond our imaginings?
#469222
Count Lucanor wrote: October 25th, 2024, 2:45 pm
Lagayascienza wrote: October 25th, 2024, 9:52 am A computer "understands" the command to add 1 + 1 as well as a biological brain does. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be able to preform the arithmetic operation. It wouldn't even be able to deal with the binary symbols involved. However, computers cannot yet do the second order operation that would allow it to reflect on what it means to understand the arithmetic operation of addition. And yet it can do addition more quickly than a biological brain. The trick involved in making AI truly intelligent will be to get it to reflect on what it is doing, and perhaps why it is doing it. When it becomes capable of this second order level of cognition, it will then have become truly mindful. And, when that happens, we'll need to watch out.
Actually, no, the computer does not understand anything, because there's meaning embedded in understanding. The mathematical operations and all computational tasks can be, at least theoretically, carried over with a system of pulleys or cranks. The first calculators were such type of machines.
I've often wondered how biological brains like ours manage to perform a simple arithmetic operation and how non-biological computers perform the same operation?

Certainly, the outcome of the operation in both cases is the same - if they add one plus one they both get two. As far as I know, the physical processes involved in performing the operation in a biological computer and in a non-biological computer are analogous. Both must involve logical operators and a sequences of logic gates. The only difference I can see is that biological computers work electro-chemically in a biological substrate, whereas non-biological computers work electrically in a non-biological substrate.

"A [biological] neuron can rapidly combine and transform the information it receives through its synaptic inputs before the information is converted into neuronal output. This transformation can be defined by the neuronal input–output (I–O) relationship. Changes in the I–O relationship can correspond to distinct arithmetic operations." Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Doesn't an analogous process occur in a non-biological computer? Isn't it just that a biological computer of the size and complexity of a human brain can reflect on what it is doing and why it is doing it. But this does not mean the human brain is not computer - a biological computer. If a non-biological computer of a complexity similar to the biological computer that is the human brain could be built, and if it were housed in a sensate artificial body and could speak and could do anything a human brain and body could do, then what would stop us from thinking that the artificial entity is conscious? Biocentrism or anthropocentrism?
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#469223
None of the above is to say that there are not important architectural and processing differences between biological computers and non-biological computers. For a good article and commentary about these differences see "10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers" at Science Blogs.

There definitely are some important differences in size and complexity and processing but, as one commentator said, none of those differences prove that computers cannot eventually be built that could house sentience? We are certainly nowhere near being able to build computers with brain-like complexity housed in a sensate body which could do everything a human could do. But the difference in our current, comparatively simple, non-biological computers do not demonstrate that it is impossible to eventually construct sentient, intelligent computers.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#469226
Sy Borg wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:50 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:49 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 23rd, 2024, 7:20 pm
Not yet. Then again, a foetus is not intelligent either. I would describe AI's abilities as proto-intelligence.

Time is key to this issue. The more time that AI develops, the closer it will come to actual intelligence, as we know it.
No. I think there is a unavoidable matter of QUALITY rather than degree of difference. A machine "intellignce" will never be of the same type as a organic/biological intelligence.
If you can define "actual intelligence" then we might be able to progress with this debate.
Sure it won't be the same. How could it be? Human intelligence is not the same type as that of a bee either. But there is still intelligence in each.
I disagree.
Since bees and humans at least have evolved from a single source, there are possibly more similarities between bees and humans than any AI. You have immediately missed my point about difference in quality rather than quantity.
Dictionary definition: The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.

Acquiring and use already apply, but not understanding ... at this stage. It helps to consider why the understanding aspect of intelligence evolved and how it could apply to future intelligent(?) machines. I would say that understanding evolved as a means of extrapolating on, and thus extending, existing knowledge. I remember from school having difficulty remembering any concept that I did not understand but, once I understood the principles involved, I never forgot. If rote learning failed me (often) I could work from first principles and recall information, eg. I aced Commerce in year ten with almost no study by simply applying two principles - supply and demand and economies of scale to each scenario.

This ability to extrapolate on other knowledge, to see analogies, will be useful to AI when it's sent off-world with 3D printers to build habitats and infrastructure. The further the units are from Earth, the less they can rely on human guidance. They will need to be able to anticipate potential issues and then respond to rapidly unfolding novel situations quickly, as there will not always be time to "phone home" for advice.

As with life, every event met/experienced by AI is part of its training. Like life, it starts with programming (our programming is DNA) and its capabilities are shaped by subsequent learning. These will not just be like chatbots of today. Anyone who thinks AI will not progress significantly from today's chatbots is not in touch with reality.
AI does not "learn" as it has no experience.
#469233
Sculptor1 wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:49 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:50 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:49 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 23rd, 2024, 7:20 pm
Not yet. Then again, a foetus is not intelligent either. I would describe AI's abilities as proto-intelligence.

Time is key to this issue. The more time that AI develops, the closer it will come to actual intelligence, as we know it.
No. I think there is a unavoidable matter of QUALITY rather than degree of difference. A machine "intellignce" will never be of the same type as a organic/biological intelligence.
If you can define "actual intelligence" then we might be able to progress with this debate.
Sure it won't be the same. How could it be? Human intelligence is not the same type as that of a bee either. But there is still intelligence in each.
I disagree.
Since bees and humans at least have evolved from a single source, there are possibly more similarities between bees and humans than any AI. You have immediately missed my point about difference in quality rather than quantity.
I took your point, and addressed it. A bee’s consciousness is qualitatively different to ours. Over time, in the evolution of consciousness, emergence has occurred (more than once).

Emergence happens over time, and I think it will again when it comes to AI.

Sculptor1 wrote: October 24th, 2024, 4:49 am
Dictionary definition: The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.

Acquiring and use already apply, but not understanding ... at this stage. It helps to consider why the understanding aspect of intelligence evolved and how it could apply to future intelligent(?) machines. I would say that understanding evolved as a means of extrapolating on, and thus extending, existing knowledge. I remember from school having difficulty remembering any concept that I did not understand but, once I understood the principles involved, I never forgot. If rote learning failed me (often) I could work from first principles and recall information, eg. I aced Commerce in year ten with almost no study by simply applying two principles - supply and demand and economies of scale to each scenario.

This ability to extrapolate on other knowledge, to see analogies, will be useful to AI when it's sent off-world with 3D printers to build habitats and infrastructure. The further the units are from Earth, the less they can rely on human guidance. They will need to be able to anticipate potential issues and then respond to rapidly unfolding novel situations quickly, as there will not always be time to "phone home" for advice.

As with life, every event met/experienced by AI is part of its training. Like life, it starts with programming (our programming is DNA) and its capabilities are shaped by subsequent learning. These will not just be like chatbots of today. Anyone who thinks AI will not progress significantly from today's chatbots is not in touch with reality.
AI does not "learn" as it has no experience.
Slime moulds learn, but they have no brain and scientific orthodoxy asserts that a lack of brain will equal a lack of experience.
#469236
Are neurons and a brain like ours essential for intelligence? Slime molds are an interesting case in point. As the journal Nature puts it "Slime molds do not blindly ooze from one place to another—they carefully explore their environments, seeking the most efficient routes between resources. They do not accept whatever circumstances they find themselves in, but rather choose conditions most amenable to their survival. They remember, anticipate and decide. By doing so much with so little, slime molds represent a successful and admirable alternative to convoluted brain-based intelligence. You might say that they break the mold."

If a slime mold exhibits a level of intelligence with nothing like a human brain, then why would an intelligent AI need a brain that is exactly like ours in every detail? Why can't it have an artificial "neuronal network?

What Searle says in his definition of "Strong AI" is that that "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states. Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell and Norvig: "Strong AI [is] the assertion that machines that [have cognitive states] ... are actually thinking (as opposed to simulating thinking). Wiki - Artificial Intelligence

"Searle does not disagree with the notion that machines can have consciousness and understanding, because, as he writes, "we are precisely such machines". Searle holds that the brain is, in fact, a machine, but that the brain gives rise to consciousness and understanding using specific machinery. If neuroscience is able to isolate the mechanical process that gives rise to consciousness, then Searle grants that it may be possible to create machines that have consciousness and understanding. However, without the specific machinery required, Searle does not believe that consciousness can occur." Wiki - Artificial Intelligence

So the question is, can the necessary machinery be built that would create consciousness and true intelligence? It is hard to see why, in principle, it will not eventually be possible to build such thinking machines. And, in fact, I think we have made the first baby steps down that road with the current crop of AIs. Still, we are currently nowhere near there and I wouldn't want to give a prediction of how long it will take.
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche Location: Antipodes
#469237
No #10 in "10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers" (at Science Blogs) is that AI has no body, but brains do. We see this in the animal kingdom, where sessile organisms never have brains. Meanwhile, most motile organisms do have brains, though some do not, eg. echinoderms, cnidarians, bivalves.

It seems that consciousness requires more than just a brain, it needs jobs that are meaningful in terms of maintaining a body that moves around in the world. At least.
#469240
Lagayascienza wrote: October 26th, 2024, 11:31 pm That may be true. If it is, then, if an artificial brain and sensate body could be built to house that brain, could that system be conscious?
Maybe. I'm imagining autonomous systems sent off-world, improving systems and gaining experience, and that a threshold (or thresholds) needed for sentience will be broken over time. Thing is, even if we do create hyper complex units on Earth, we come back to the old question of how we'd know if they were actually sentient.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 31

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


Crime is a crime and cannot be justified. I beli[…]

Personal responsibility

There's a sort of social apology (maybe something […]