John, Horse, John said "For thereby, there is only one way to attain intellectual status, and that is by encompassing the totality of the inorganic, biological and most importantly, social, ways of being."
Clearly true John, to any Pirsigian. I think I've said that three times in this (joke) thread already. The bio level doesn't have to be carbon-based ... so long as it lives (self-sustains, reproduces, responds, moves, etc.) The social level of communication and authority will be ... err ... interesting - unless we set the living & socially interacting AI-Macines up in "isolation" ... somewhere. But never say never. Ian On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:10 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Horse, > > You said, > >> Penrose's arguments (especially those in "The Emperors New Mind" - the one > that specifically targets AI) were unravelled and dismissed a long time ago > - I read it when it came out and thought it was a pretty poor read. > > and it seemed that I threw in the towel myself with: > > > I can see that this argument is not going to go my way at all. :-) > > But I'm pretty interested in the gist of why you think Penrose is wrong. > > > But then I got to think while I was driving, and I changed my mind. Or > rather, in spite of the unlikelihood of the argument "going my way", I wish > to pursue it anyway. Despite your superior expertise, I think you're wrong. > > Of course, we have to define exactly what we're talking about Of course AI > is possible. It's more than possible, it's actual. Artificial > intelligence is all around us. I often wear a wrist calculator watch > because they're very handy on the job. Especially if you can get one with a > sq root function! > > The ability to calculate quickly that we term "intelligence", is not only > possible, its factual. > > Artificial intellect, however, is another story entirely. And here I need > make no reference to Penrose, it is Pryor's logical argument derived from > the Q'm" with which you must contend. > > For thereby, there is only one way to attain intellectual status, and that > is by encompassing the totality of the inorganic, biological and most > importantly, social, ways of being. > > For even as biological life comes to naught with a dearth of necessary > inorganic "patterns" upon which to feed, and Social patterns die soon when > their biological substance subsists, and all intellectual patterns die when > no social support is given them, so it is and always must be, > epistemologically speaking that you can't create intellectual patterning > from inorganic matter and pure intellectual ideas. > > For intellect is born of self / other dichotomy nurtured into existence with > maternal attention and biological support. There's no way any increase of > mere intelligence is going to re-create that process which is the heart of > autonomous self-dom, self-realization or value-cognizance. However you > wanna spell it, call it consciousness, call it "I and I" for all "I" care. > It comes only through this social creation called infant nurture, coupled > with biological analogues of felt pain and desire. The whole body is a > brain, when it comes down to our deepest understandings, and a brain hooked > up to an environmental matrix that can't be copied by algorithm, program or > artificial replication. > > And all the expertise in the world will not obviate this fundamental truth. > > So there. > > Cheers, > > John > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
