On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:45:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > Wouldn’t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than 
> Artificial 
> > Intelligence? 
> > 
> > Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model a 
> > hurricane, we would call that hurricane a simulation, not an ‘artificial 
> > hurricane’. If we modeled any physical substance, force, or field, we 
> would 
> > similarly say that we had simulated hydrogen or gravity or 
> electromagnetism, 
> > not that we had created artificial hydrogen, gravity, etc. 
> > 
> > By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete notion of 
> > natural vs man-made as categories of origin. If we used simulated 
> instead, 
> > the measure of intelligence would be framed more modestly as the degree 
> to 
> > which a system meets our expectations (or what we think or assume are 
> our 
> > expectations). Rather than assuming a universal index of intelligent 
> > qualities which is independent from our own human qualities, we could 
> > evaluate the success of a particular Turing emulation purely on its 
> merits 
> > as a convincing reflection of intelligence rather than presuming to have 
> > replicated an organic conscious experience mechanically. 
> > 
> > The cost of losing the promise of imminently mastering awareness would, 
> I 
> > think, be outweighed by the gain of a more scientifically circumspect 
> > approach. Putting the Promethean dream on hold, we could guard against 
> the 
> > shadow of its confirmation bias. My concern is that without such a 
> > precaution, the promise of machine intelligence as a stage 1 simulacrum 
> (a 
> > faithful copy of an original, in Baudrillard’s terms), will be diluted 
> to a 
> > stage 3 simulacrum (a copy that masks the absence of a profound reality, 
> > where the simulacrum pretends to be a faithful copy.) 
>
> A simulated hurricane is different from an actual hurricane, but 
> simulated intelligence is the same as actual intelligence, just as 
> simulated arithmetic is the same as actual arithmetic. 


No, that's a false equivalence. Any simulated hurricane *can be* the same 
as any other simulated hurricane, but no simulated hurricane can be the 
same as any actual hurricane.

Arithmetic cannot be simulated because it is only figurative to begin with. 
You can paint a painting of a pipe that says 'this isn't a pipe', but you 
can't paint a painting that truthfully says 'these are not words' or 'this 
is not a painting'.
 

> Whether the 
> intelligence has the same associated consciousness or not is a matter 
> for debate, but not the intelligence itself. 
>

I disagree. There is no internal intelligence there at all. Zero. There is 
a recording of some aspects of human intelligence which can extend human 
intelligence into extra-human ranges for human users. The computer itself 
has no extra-human intelligence, just as a telescope itself doesn't see 
anything, it just helps us see, passively of course. We are the users of 
technology, technology itself is not a user.

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to