Artificial Intelligence

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Post by teo123 » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:53 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:The basic requirement would be a certain number of neurons.
Why? The number of neurons in the brain is not strongly correlated with intelligence. Babies have slightly more neurons in their brains than adults do, though they have around (I believe I've read somewhere, but I can't find where) 50% less synapses. Elephants have five times more neurons in their brains than humans do, yet are obviously far less intelligent. Whales also have around two times more neurons in their brains than humans do.
A mutation can cause a person not to see colors even though the cones in the eyes are functioning, and so can a mutation cause a person to be more or less intelligent regardless of the number of neurons in the brain. Brains rely on genetic algorithms as much as on neural networks.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Do you think they're not Turing complete?
OK, now, that was a poor choice of words on my part. My point is, for some problems, genetic algorithms (and other heuristic algorithms) do worse than guess-and-check, they provide no benefit, but just use more resources than straightforward guess-and-check does. It's sometimes hard to guess which algorithm is good for what. I've once tried to make a program that will derive the sound laws that operate in a language from a dictionary using a genetic algorithm, and the results were, no matter how much time I give to it, indistinguishable from randomness.
carnap wrote: Its the Dunning-Kurger effect in full force.
"Philosophers" (and I doubt those people actually know much about philosophy) who dare to talk about matters of neuroscience are usually victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The same goes for the philosophers you cite, as much as, in my opinion, for Gary Varner, who insists that fish feel pain and thereby contradicts the virtual consensus among neuroscientists.
Plus, I seriously doubt any recent philosopher suggested no animals but humans feel pain, I think you are misinterpreting what you are reading.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9467
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:45 pm

teo123 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:53 am
Why? The number of neurons in the brain is not strongly correlated with intelligence.
Not saying it makes them conscious or sentient, but that (for lack of other information) it indicates the possibility.

Like saying a device has X number of logic gates. There's a certain number that under that it is impossible for it to be Turing complete. Over that number doesn't tell us it IS Turing complete, but that depending on details of the configuration it might be.
teo123 wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:53 am
OK, now, that was a poor choice of words on my part. My point is, for some problems, genetic algorithms (and other heuristic algorithms) do worse than guess-and-check, they provide no benefit, but just use more resources than straightforward guess-and-check does.
Sure. The fact that they can solve them, though, means you don't need self modifying code or anything like that.
Also, after it's solved once it can become better at solving similar problems.

You can ignore Carnap if you want, he's just a broken record at this point. We've told him to start threads on this stuff if he seriously wants to discuss it rather than just asserting it over and over again in every thread on the forum.

Daniel Dennett's choice to use a question-begging and unscientific definition of consciousness is an interesting discussion to have really. I regret that Carnap is only interested in drive-by appeals to false authorities and won't engage in substantive defense of his claims.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:35 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:Also, after it's solved once it can become better at solving similar problems.
That's clearly not true for genetic algorithms. It's true for neural networks sometimes.
brimstoneSalad wrote:You can ignore Carnap if you want, he's just a broken record at this point.
Why do you think it's a good idea to delete his/her posts? It makes it look like there are no rational arguments we can make against his points, and that's far from being the case.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9467
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:04 am

teo123 wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:35 am
brimstoneSalad wrote:Also, after it's solved once it can become better at solving similar problems.
That's clearly not true for genetic algorithms. It's true for neural networks sometimes.
Yes, that's what I meant. I may have misread you.
teo123 wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:35 am
brimstoneSalad wrote:You can ignore Carnap if you want, he's just a broken record at this point.
Why do you think it's a good idea to delete his/her posts? It makes it look like there are no rational arguments we can make against his points, and that's far from being the case.
They just get moved. It's because he's derailing conversations. I keep telling him to start threads on these things. In other cases, it's something he's said (and that has been argued) many times before, like his claims against the consensus in dietetics.

I don't know that it looks like much of anything, and anybody who has read this deeply has probably read other threads where these things have been argued to death.
Moving the posts is mostly meant to discourage him from spamming these derailing arguments everywhere and to start threads on them if he really wants to have substantive discussions on the issues.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaz1983 and 62 guests