tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4683810749682086744..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Artificial intelligence and magical thinkingEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger192125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80291065572908853402023-05-30T01:05:36.937-07:002023-05-30T01:05:36.937-07:00At best we might create some really advanced V.I. ...At best we might create some really advanced V.I. but they would just be what we have now only vastly more sophisticated. There will never be a thinking machine.Alerta Singhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12529870306893801812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87858067817240783732023-03-22T06:44:59.358-07:002023-03-22T06:44:59.358-07:00I think both of you are using two different concep...I think both of you are using two different conceptions of physics, since between modern day and aristotelian usages are different. At least from what I've read so farAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44217438270763420312023-01-19T15:25:54.822-08:002023-01-19T15:25:54.822-08:00I think the bigger blind spot for wrf3 and so many...I think the bigger blind spot for wrf3 and so many now is not as much nominalism as it is cartesian. Of course the latter developed out of the former, but even intelligent people can’t break free of being grounded in these assumed ways of thinking. First person experience has become almost irrelevant, the abstraction of the thing is the thing. A sensor that measures temperature is the same as feeling pain, it’s just nerves rather than thermostats.<br /><br />It’s absolutely correct that this is a two way reinforcement. The mind is an effect of the brain, and the brain is just a machine that evolved for survival, therefore a machine can be built that has mind.<br /><br />The fact of course is that no one has even dreamed up a feasible theory for how we could get from one to the other in either case. <br /><br />No one can suggest any way in which matter in the brain could possibly produce first person experience. It always ends up appealing to some kind of magic we know nothing about. Equally no one has proposed any kind of mechanism for how experience could possibly rise from logic operations. Yes you can build libraries of meanings, but again it requires magic for these meanings to become understanding. Without understanding it’s just processing libraries of facts and relationships. The suggestion is that if the algorithms reach a certain level of sophistication, then experience will magically appear. There is no reason at all to believe this. In fact we have good reason to believe that simple creatures have some kind of experience, but no reason to believe the most sophisticated computer we can imagine will ever experience anything.<br /><br />I suspect that Data from “The Next Generation” has helped drive some of these assumptions with many. Sometimes I think good fiction bleeds into our minds unconsciously, just as people can’t let go of the idea of ‘transporters’ even though they are clearly nonsense rather than ‘clever stuff we will be able to do one day’…Simon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967831833822936845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3785784913354879372022-01-25T11:44:52.930-08:002022-01-25T11:44:52.930-08:00I mostly agree with Feser's diagnostic here, b...I mostly agree with Feser's diagnostic here, but I have some lingering suspicions. So, a few quick points:<br /><br />1. First, on the question of simulation. I think David Chalmer's nailed this issue in his book The Conscious Mind. Most simulations are obviously not the same thing as the thing being simulated, but, there are exceptions, where the thing being simulated has "organizational invariance." He writes, "simulated heat is not real heat. On the other hand, for some properties simulation IS replication. For example, a simulation of a system with a causal loop IS a causal loop." He utilizes the principle of "organizational invariance" as the key. He then goes onto argue that phenomenal properties, properties of consciousness, are organizational invariants. "Organizational invariance makes consciousness different in principle from other properties mentioned, and opens the way to strong A.I."<br /><br />2.I'm not sure the Feser's argument using artifacts, while interesting, is complete. Man can make artifacts that nonetheless possess their own substantial forms. He has brought up forms like styrofoam before. An "artifact" for sure, but one with its own substantial form.<br /><br />3. Does the substantial form of a conscious, intelligent computer exist in God as a potential that could be actualized? That is to say, is God himself able via a miracle to assemble various pieces of mechanical bits together in such a way as to create the substantial form of an intellect which had as its material cause transistors (or legos, or whatever) instead of neurons. If the answer is yes, then one must also consider the possibility that this form could be brought into being via human activity. It's material cause would be the silicon its made from, it's formal cause would be the organization of this silicon (and we already know there are many analogous elements between silicon structures and our non-silicon brains), it's efficient cause would be the A.I. scientists who study and construct the A.I., and it's final cause would be the creation of an actual artificial intelligence. Of course, this A.I. itself would have its own immanent causality, just like we do. From it's point-of-view it would have the same material, formal, and efficient causes as before, but its intrinsic final cause would be the same as the final cause of all rational intellects; its existential destiny would be the same destiny as all rational intellects, that is to say, God. And, if God intends for such a substantial form to come into being, he can use humans as his instruments, the secondary causes, by which this end is brought to fruition. I just can't see why this couldn't be the case unless there is something about carbon atoms that are unique and that God himself couldn't make silicon organizations intelligent.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder what Feser would say about Chalmers "dancing, fading qualia" argument. Basically, it imagines a scenario where one by one the neurons of the brain are replaced by silicon chips that perfectly reproduce the causal function of the replaced neuron. The conclusion he reaches is that, in this thought experiment, it's absurd to conclude that at some point human consciousness would simply and inexplicably vanish because the brain is now too "artificial" to sustain consciousness. Remember, the stipulation here is that the silicon-neuron perfectly replicates the causal function of the original (even if this is in actual practice incredibly hard to achieve); the person could in no way possible "notice" a change in their mind because that would be a change in functional organization. (Chalmers is a non-reductive functionalist/dualist who argues for the reasonable principle: no change in functional organization without a change in mental experience). PhiGuy110https://www.blogger.com/profile/04601589185621025393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83863311820860077692021-02-24T20:59:38.728-08:002021-02-24T20:59:38.728-08:00AI technology allows for the automation of routine...AI technology allows for the automation of routine tasks – such as generating sales forecasts. With this type of efficiency and AI’s self-learning capabilities, companies can make more well-informed decisions in less time.<br /><a href="https://www.simfront.com/" rel="nofollow">HLA</a><br />simfronthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07211820817001768742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52926392519499312892020-01-03T00:23:39.459-08:002020-01-03T00:23:39.459-08:00A.I. as in Alien Intelligence. Which could also be...A.I. as in Alien Intelligence. Which could also be artificial intelligence because no one has ever denied or proven that alien couldn't be an artificial being. And there's MDI multi-dimensional intelligence,there is L.I. for linear intelligence. There's DPI dual polarity intelligenc, I could go on and on and on. The whole gist of the article though is explained in the movie Thor very well on Earth we consider science and magic separate in the universe they're not are one in the same . If the technology is too advanced for the mind to conceive it must be magicbut if the magic isn't good enough then you can see right through it at the illusion of it and the technology behind it. So I think Michael carbonaro is a multi-dimensional alien using quantum entanglement and his magic tricks to some of that s*** it's just unexplainable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181706961031152642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70189361163500121722020-01-03T00:18:23.077-08:002020-01-03T00:18:23.077-08:00when they say magic and technology are indistingui...when they say magic and technology are indistinguishable from each other it's like saying aliens and gods are indistinguishable from each other which they are. It's all just a matter of semantics truly,they are saying. By that they mean in the universe magic is a technology in itself. To where on Earth in our perception we see something disappear and reappear and we call it magic. in the universe on a universal technological scale they have quantum teleportation devices that we can't fathom even creating so we call it magic but it's technology. It's just like science and religion arguing about aliens and gods being different and there's no way they could possibly be the same thing. Even though the two descriptions are hundred percent interchangeable for the words.I don't know of any religious scripture is that claimed that the gods crawled up out of the dirt or out of the ocean most all of the ones that I've ever heard of that came from the sky or the heavens,which is outer space.even if you think some people think that heaven is actually a different dimension on here on Earth and or in the sky of Earth but not the universe itself, multi-dimensional beings are considered alien. The Bible clearly explains the spiritual realms is being multi-dimensional realms. Science believes in interdimensional light beings which are invisible to the naked eye but can be detected by certain spectrometers but they discredit religion for believing in an invisible God and vice versa. It blows my mind. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06181706961031152642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32943710506409925952019-06-03T06:38:42.879-07:002019-06-03T06:38:42.879-07:00From a very high level his two major problems are ...From a very high level his two major problems are (A) that he equates simulations of physical systems (like the weather) with technological imitations (like computer information processing). This is like confusing a flight simulator with a Boeing 747 and saying humans will never be able to be able to fly like birds can because all we're doing is simulating flight.<br /><br />Computer AI is not simulating thinking, it is using technology to imitate thinking "machines" found in nature. Similarly, a Boeing 747 is not simulating flight, it is using technology to imitate flight found in nature. Granted a 747 achieves the task using different materials and different structures than say an eagle, but the principles of power to weight ratio, lift, aerodynamics, etc. all still apply. No one would doubt that a 747 is in fact flying.<br /><br />The second major thing he fails to understand is that (B) information processing is substrate independent. This is simple to demonstrate because you can (and I literally have) build an information processing machine from things varying as wildly as legos (see: youtube dot com / watch?v=H-53TVR9EOw), to transistors, to neurons.<br /><br />None of this requires the least bit of magical thinking.Alexander_Williams_IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042631502988083545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81381047671610773282019-06-02T08:20:37.183-07:002019-06-02T08:20:37.183-07:00Your thesis here is completely wrong. Intelligence...Your thesis here is completely wrong. Intelligence is a substrate independent emergent property of a physical system. If our brains made out of meat exhibit intelligence there is no logical reasons to suppose a brain made out of silicon can not exhibit the same behavior, except some form of dualism. So while you say "[t]he debate between dualism and materialism can be put to one side for present purposes," that is in fact the only way your argument can be saved.<br /><br />To see that this is true, imagine some not too distant future where we can 3D print biological material complex enough to print something the shape of your brain. Are you saying it is impossible for the output o that printer to do what a brain formed in a womb can do. If so, please tell us why?Alexander_Williams_IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06042631502988083545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18445206120703275482019-05-13T20:54:31.476-07:002019-05-13T20:54:31.476-07:00Is it possible do you think, whether naturally or ...Is it possible do you think, whether naturally or miraculously, for a digital or other computer consisting of artifacts to provide the material cause for a rational person, with the formal cause being an immaterial rational soul? In other words, could a computer, like an otherwise irrational animal, be infused by God with a rational soul, or to "develop" the formal and final causes ordinarily provided by the human rational soul? The former seems plausible enough to me, since it doesn't seem to be explicitly contradictory, and thus possible for God, given that the change in formal cause would essentially change it from an artifact to a substance. The latter seems significantly less plausible, but if it were possible, it seems to me that it would have to be in a somehow "natural" way, perhaps as a development of machine learning or something similar. Vincehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10964854700130260100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39212830836411142262019-04-24T03:43:28.974-07:002019-04-24T03:43:28.974-07:00HI I wish to share my testimonies with the general...HI I wish to share my testimonies with the general public about what this man called DR JOHN SOCO of ( drjohnsoco@outlook.com ) has just done for me , this man has just did what I thought nobody will ever do for me, i was HIV positive when one of my family friend introduce this man to me, I never believed that great DR JOHN SOCO could do this, when I contacted him on this same issue on ground, he gave me some parcel to drink, now I am so happy to say that the virus I was having In my body have left me. All thanks to DR JOHN SOCO If you are out there passing through this same kind of problems you can contact him today on his mail ( drjohnsoco@outlook.com ) whatsApp him on +2348147766277 <br />and he will also help you as well with his great herbal medicine, THANKS BE TO DR JOHN SOCOjuiletpeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07107166446466925486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1398736685773854292019-04-20T09:12:25.486-07:002019-04-20T09:12:25.486-07:00The metaphysical reading seems plausible only if w...<b>The metaphysical reading seems plausible only if we make the verificationist assumption that if there is no way empirically to tell the difference between magic and technology, then there just would be no difference. </b><br /><br />Is verificationalism a generalization of Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65233928258627288592019-04-19T15:58:41.384-07:002019-04-19T15:58:41.384-07:00Yes, there is. Pope Saint Pius X was kind enough t...Yes, there is. Pope Saint Pius X was kind enough to summarize them in the list that came to be known as the Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses.<br /><br />But since it is doubtful (to say the least) you'll understand much of it anyway, you're better off by starting with Prof. Feser's books.Greg Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47827961176716870282019-04-19T14:24:27.753-07:002019-04-19T14:24:27.753-07:00Greg S: ... Thomistic presuppositions ...
Is the...<b>Greg S</b>: <i> ... Thomistic presuppositions ...</i><br /><br />Is there a handy list of these presuppositions that you can point me to? Euclid was kind enough to list his five. Have the Thomists done the same?wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39465948395502930012019-04-18T12:35:17.219-07:002019-04-18T12:35:17.219-07:00Be gone, troll.Be gone, troll.Greg Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75652570456954946992019-04-18T08:00:19.049-07:002019-04-18T08:00:19.049-07:00Greg S,
I know Kripke's quaddition argument w...Greg S,<br /><br />I know Kripke's quaddition argument well via Feser's "Kripke, Ross, and the Immaterial Aspects of Thought" and Ross's "Immaterial Aspects of Thought.” First, it does not apply to measuring horsepower of a drawing. Second, Ross's usage of it merely begs the question as I've repeatedly explained elsewhere.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32780825806564886552019-04-17T14:17:06.314-07:002019-04-17T14:17:06.314-07:00Your real problem is that I grasp those Thomistic ...<i>Your real problem is that I grasp those Thomistic presuppositions very well</i><br /><br />Yeah, it shows.<br /><br /><i>this analogy issue</i><br /><br />That analogy is irrelevant, and you'd know that already if you had the slightest understanding of the matter at hand. Go study Kripke's quaddition argument, for instance.Greg Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75837704791004772362019-04-17T07:28:25.779-07:002019-04-17T07:28:25.779-07:00Anonymous,
Your real problem is that I grasp thos...Anonymous,<br /><br />Your real problem is that I grasp those Thomistic presuppositions very well, certainly well enough to know they won't help you with this analogy issue. Your evasive response confirms that. <br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43330208794284898702019-04-16T13:21:57.697-07:002019-04-16T13:21:57.697-07:00@Jindra
Stop with your incoherent ramblings once ...@Jindra<br /><br />Stop with your incoherent ramblings once and for all. You've dabbled around here long enough to no longer have any excuse for still not possessing at least a basic grasp of Thomistic presuppositions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38461858623101506382019-04-16T08:06:12.650-07:002019-04-16T08:06:12.650-07:00Anonymous,
No sane person would try to measure th...Anonymous,<br /><br />No sane person would try to measure the horsepower of a drawing of a car. I hop into a car when I drive to the store. Drawing pictures of the car and groceries will not satisfy.<br /><br />Every person makes the same materialist assumptions. <br /><br />Similarly with the drawing of a logic gate. It doesn't switch states. There is no relevant analogy there.<br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85099168139736986102019-04-12T13:26:13.379-07:002019-04-12T13:26:13.379-07:00You may also be interested in knowing that Feser u...You may also be interested in knowing that Feser usually characterizes the modern tendency of trying to explain everything in a materialistic manner precisely by resorting to the metaphor of sweeping all the dirt under the rug... and then proceeding to get rid of all that dirt which is now under the rug by... sweeping it under the rug. (Hey, if the method has worked so well for everything else then it should also work fine for that last step we still haven't quite figured out, materialistically speaking, aka the mind, right?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89664663198576917532019-04-12T13:12:09.605-07:002019-04-12T13:12:09.605-07:00You're simply begging the question in favor of...You're simply begging the question in favor of materialism. In case you haven't realized yet, Feser is not a materialist philosopher (implying, among other things, that he holds that the mind and the brain are not the same). And he gives several very strong arguments, in various places, why that is so (arguments with which this post's intended audience is supposed to be familiar, by the way, since their conclusions, as well as the Thomist framework in general, are assumed from the start).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67599003954476083942019-04-12T12:55:34.475-07:002019-04-12T12:55:34.475-07:00" not in and of itself carrying out logical o..." not in and of itself carrying out logical operations, processing information, or doing anything else that might be thought a mark of genuine intelligence – any more than a piece of scratch paper on which you’ve written some logical symbols is carrying out logical operations, processing information, or the like."<br /><br />There is a critical and fundamental difference between a logic gate and that scrap of paper, in that the logic gate *physically implements and realizes the logical computation*. You don't need to pull the answer out of the ether (i.e., realize the logical operation in your neurons), because it will do so by virtue of physical law. <br /><br />You may just as well say that a human is not carrying out his own thoughts, that they are the result of synaptic spikes - mere biochemical reaction, no different than throwing tinkertoys down stairs. But why can't tinkertoys falling down stairs be intelligent? Seems like a failure of your imagination than an obviously true fact about reality.<br /><br />I've seen this one go around in circles for so many years. But it always seems to me to sweeping the problem of human intelligence under the rug: assuming your entire argument holds water, why does it simply not also apply to humans? <br /><br />Ink scriblings may have no meaning, but neither do synaptic spikes in human brains, or sound waves and gesticulations produced by human bodies. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06814157405187291801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8291448336000681602019-04-11T23:05:52.882-07:002019-04-11T23:05:52.882-07:00Son of YaKov,
You should know by now that I'm...Son of YaKov,<br /><br />You should know by now that I'm not swayed by what you think is plain or coherent.<br /><br />"Robots can walk and humans can walk but only humans can think and Robots cannot think."<br /><br />Begging the question.<br /><br />"Indeed Birds can fly but I can flap my arms all day & I will just look silly."<br /><br />Your ability or inability is irrelevant. Machines are the issue. Do machines simulate what they do, or do they really do it? How could we tell the difference? If neurons make decisions, and logic gates make decisions, where is the difference? Isn't the rhetoric about "intentionality" just a word game? I won't ignore these questions.<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16357678939724265852019-04-10T14:06:01.062-07:002019-04-10T14:06:01.062-07:00I'd say that it isn't Human intelligence t...I'd say that it isn't Human intelligence that's declining, but rather the availability of so much information has led to people thinking less and less. Why dwell on a question when you can Google the answer in seconds?DarthT15https://www.blogger.com/profile/00031767948840667076noreply@blogger.com