tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post7029260590010409910..comments2023-12-18T13:55:50.256-08:00Comments on Thinking as a Profession: Noel Sharkey on AIDerekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-70724239990351881162013-12-13T16:16:43.834-08:002013-12-13T16:16:43.834-08:00Thanks for posting - interesting stuff.
However, ...Thanks for posting - interesting stuff.<br /><br />However, I must say, what an odd interpretation of the paragraph you presented from an interview. I do not see any rejection of a computational theory mind here. I only see some sharp sceptical,questioning of an overblown theory. <br /><br />I get what he means by saying it is an assumption. All theories have assumptions - basic philosophy of science. There has never been a empirical test of the assumption that mind is computational (and that is different from saying that it is computable).<br /><br />I also had to smile when I realised your argument is almost exactly like the interview guy referred to in the quote. You ask for the alternative as well. Isn't it a bit wonky to think that people can only criticise a theory if they have an alternative.<br /><br />Finally, you say any physical system can be simulated but the guy in the article said 'recreated'. Can you see the difference? You can simulate gravity or a rainstorm on a computer but you cannot recreate them.<br /><br />Sorry to pounce on your blog but I just stumbled into it and felt that it needed a balancing comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-776205147286643847.post-60046304478346325192009-09-02T07:40:31.325-07:002009-09-02T07:40:31.325-07:00This sort of argument assumes that the particular ...This sort of argument assumes that the particular organic composition of the human brain produces a particular quality of effects (which we term "mind") that cannot be reproduced by artificial means. Artificial means might simulate some of these effects, but cannot (so the story goes) manifest them in exactly the same way. He is, in philosophy of AI terms, an anti-functionalist or pro-physicalist. See here:<br /><br />http://www.answers.com/topic/functionalist-theories-of-mind<br /><br />BTW, his comment about functionalism being akin to religion is an obvious attempt to unsettle functionalist colleagues by saying they are relying on a form of faith that trades doctrine for proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com