Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To "understand" is to "REALISE" what [on earth, or
in the [real] world] is being talked about.
Matt: Nice dodge. How do you distinguish between when a computer realizes
something and when it just reacts as if it realizes it?
Yeah, I know. Turing dodged the question too.
Matt,
I don't understand this objection - maybe I wasn't clear. I said to
"realise" is to be able to go and point to the real objects/actions referred
to, and to make the real actions happen. You understand what a key is if you
can go and pick one up. You understand what "picking up" a key is, if you
can do it. You understand what "sex" is, if you can point to it, or, better,
do it, & the scientific observers, or Turing testers, can observe it.
As I said, there are many qualifications and complications - for example to
understand what "mind" is, is also to be able to point to one in action, but
it is a complex business on both sides [both mind and the pointing] -
nevertheless if both fruitful scientific and philosophical discussion and
discovery about the "mind" are to take place - that real engagement with
real objects, is exactly what must happen there too. That is the basis of
science (and technology).
The only obvious places where understanding/ realisation, as defined here,
*don't* happen - or *appear* not to happen - are - can you guess? - yes,
logic and mathematics. And what are the subjects closest to the hearts of
virtual AGI-ers?
So you are generally intelligent if you can not just have a Turing test
conversation with me about going and shopping in the supermarket, but
actually go there and do it, per verbal instructions.
Explain any dodge here.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
