11–20 of 46 posts
Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
Because there are still too many Analytical Philosophers out there (Kuhn is the exception)
So you prefér circular argumentation?
Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
also, if you actually read the link you'll see that it's placed in context, with the "systems reply" explained in detail.
Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
In my opinion, this argument have existential consequences: either it's not possible to emulate mind on turing machine or we don't have qualia and consciousness (it's just the illusion, that we have). And i don't like the latter.
I've never been able to figure out how this (and most other philosophical arguments against AI) don't apply just as well to individual neurons. Though I suppose if one wants to frame it as an argument that neither computers nor human brains are capable of intelligence, I might be persuaded. In fact, for sake of argument, I claim that I am, in fact, just an elaborate system of symbolic manipulation with no actual comp…
Imagine that also in the room is a triangle with four sides. Now the Chinese Room Argument disproves AI and geometry! What subject do you want to demolish next?
Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.
Because there are still too many Analytical Philosophers out there (Kuhn is the exception)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there are still too many Analytical Philosophers out there (Kuhn is the exception)
Trust me, analytical philosophers are the only thing protecting us from the likes of Hegel and Derrida. The purpose of philosophy is to protect us from bad philosophy.
Nicely put. I like Wittgenstein's way of putting it as well, "What is your aim in philosophy?--To shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle." (Philosophical Investigations 309)
Seriously, why won't this 2+ decade old argument die? It's sophomoric and picked apart in second year cognitive systems classes by 19 year old children. It glaringly misunderstands and misrepresents. If people are genuinely interested in AI they should take a basic course in it at university or pick up a real book on the subject.