Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
we won't be able to build an artificial intelligence, at all, period, never: Humans are too complicated.

The absolute-no argument when we're considering unknowable future technology is silly. Complexity is immaterial when we're talking about trying to replicate an object known to physically exist today.

I don't know this guy from anyone obviously, but I do know a number of techies who are (sometimes unknowingly) committed to mystical narratives surrounding the human body - specifically that it is not an entirely physical process.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Aug 26th, 2011 at 07:14:27 PM EST
The mind-body problem is an old chestnut, but the counter argument is that we don't really know what 'physical' means in practice.

We like to think we do, and for simple of values of 'physical' we're not doing too badly. But there's stuff outside the simple maps that doesn't make a great deal of sense to anyone.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Aug 27th, 2011 at 11:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can drop the word "physical" and go to "known to exist" - as opposed to an object moving faster than the speed of light which has never been observed and is assumed to be impossible.

From there I believe the only way to claim a human mind equivalent is impossible to create (as opposed to unlikely) through other means is by making a metaphysical claim - ie there are levers we do not have access to which are only accessible by an external actor.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Aug 29th, 2011 at 05:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Predicted to be impossible. It's a consequence of the model, not an assumption of it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 29th, 2011 at 05:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: