Because something exists (intelligence, consciousness), it is possible to simulate them, thus making AI.
Computers may simulate atomic explosions, but no actual explosions are taking place. Why would the (albeit accurate) simulation of intelligence equate to actual intelligence? Is there any reason to believe that simply by going through the motions of intelligent action actual mental states are generated?
First assertion: Nothing can think by simply instantiating a program. Why? Because when we think, we think 'about' things (it is the irreducible mark of the mental) and nowhere in the program is anything intrinsically about anything else. Without our interpretation being added to the running of an AI it is merely syntactic shuffling. (For an in-depth discussion, see the Chinese Room thought experiment by Searl e)
Second assertion: In order to think, an entity must necessarily display the principle of 'aboutness'. Human minds do! How? we don't know...
Artificial Neural Networks do not merely perform empty syntactic shuffling, but it is by no means certain what they actually do perform.
My question: Do you ever expect a neural network to have a thought about anything? Is this a reasonable expectation? Is it even what your (phenomenally complicated) research is about? If not, would you not be better dropping 'artificial intelligence' as a misnomer?
When I tried to resize the font on the main page it rendered each word on a new line, each slightly overlapping the previous one. Perhaps it's just Netscape (though the general impression seems to suggest otherwise). Again, I've been unable to read a single word without reading the source?
And have you seen the HTML source? I give up! I don't need a games console anyway, I have XEmacs;0)
IE 5 supports 70% of CSS 2 (last I heard) but as you say, it's not really solidified yet, so Microsoft reckon they won't bother trying to get support up to 100%, maybe 95% at best. (I'm reliably working on hearsay here BTW) I suppose you could check out W3 for more info on CSS 1, 2 and (sigh) 3. (I really would rather if people got serious about standardising "standards" these days).
Mozilla M14 supports CSS rather well as far as I can see, which is already a big improvement on Netscape 4.x
Slashdot Mirror
Because something exists (intelligence, consciousness), it is possible to simulate them, thus making AI.
Computers may simulate atomic explosions, but no actual explosions are taking place. Why would the (albeit accurate) simulation of intelligence equate to actual intelligence? Is there any reason to believe that simply by going through the motions of intelligent action actual mental states are generated?
Just wondering...
First assertion: Nothing can think by simply instantiating a program.
Why? Because when we think, we think 'about' things (it is the irreducible mark of the mental) and nowhere in the program is anything intrinsically about anything else. Without our interpretation being added to the running of an AI it is merely syntactic shuffling.
(For an in-depth discussion, see the Chinese Room thought experiment by Searl e)
Second assertion: In order to think, an entity must necessarily display the principle of 'aboutness'.
Human minds do! How? we don't know...
Artificial Neural Networks do not merely perform empty syntactic shuffling, but it is by no means certain what they actually do perform.
My question:
Do you ever expect a neural network to have a thought about anything?
Is this a reasonable expectation?
Is it even what your (phenomenally complicated) research is about? If not, would you not be better dropping 'artificial intelligence' as a misnomer?
And have you seen the HTML source? ;0)
I give up! I don't need a games console anyway, I have XEmacs
I suppose you could check out W3 for more info on CSS 1, 2 and (sigh) 3. (I really would rather if people got serious about standardising "standards" these days).
Mozilla M14 supports CSS rather well as far as I can see, which is already a big improvement on Netscape 4.x