[ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the case can be made that those arguing for strong AI (the usual
> term for what you call "True AI" or "Actual AI"; just want to avoid
> multiplying terms here for what I feel are the same notion) are not merely
> arguing that their concept is not a priori nonsense, but that it's
> nomologically possible
>

Well of course it's possible! The human brain is intelligent and it's made
up of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Calcium and Phosphorous atoms in
a particular arrangement; random mutation and natural selection managed to
come up with a arrangement that works, why on Earth would it be impossible
for intelligence to do as well or better, much better.


> > the easiest way to attack it is to show either be shown to be wrong by
> either showing that intelligence doesn't supervene on physical processes
>

Is this even debatable? If we change the brain then the mind always
changes, if we change the mind then the brain always changes, so we know
for certain that intelligence comes from the complex interactions of
physical objects; or at least we know it as certainly as we know anything
in science.

> That physical process can be made to happen in something other than a
> biological brain.
>

Intelligence involves understanding, and the only thing we or any
intelligent entity understands is information (we may understand what a
rock is composed of and how and when it was made but nobody understands
rock). Electronics can send information hundreds of millions of times
faster than biology and store it more reliably too, so there is absolutely
no reason to suspect biology has a monopoly on intelligence.


> > In other words, to either refute physicalism (which, again, does have
> its serious critics)
>

The word  "physicalism" was not invented by scientists but by philosophers
of mind, so it's not surprising it's ridiculous. The definition they gave
it is "everything is physical" which gives me precisely as much information
as saying "everything is klogknee", that is to say zero. Meaning needs
contrast, "everything is physical" is equivalent to "nothing is physical".


> > I've met AI enthusiasts who posit strong AI is an empirical claim which
> they believe will be proved true in the next few decades.
>

I would say that computers became intelligent decades ago except for one
thing, some people keep changing the meaning of the word "intelligent" so
that now it means anything that computer's aren't good at, ... yet.
Fifty years ago everybody and I do mean everybody, thought that solving
equations or playing a great game of Chess required great intelligence. No
more. Fifteen years ago everybody thought it would take a great deal of
intelligence for a librarian to do what Google does. No more. Three years
ago it took intelligence just to understand the questions on Jeopardy never
mind finding the answers, but now the universe has changed and intelligence
has nothing to do with it any longer. The reason some say that AI has made
no progress is that they keep moving the finish line.

For this reason I would humbly suggest that June 23 (Alan Turing's birthday
by the way) be turned into a international holiday called "Image
Recognition Appreciation Day". On this day we would all reflect on the
intelligence required to recognize images. It is important that this be
done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right
now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers
become good at it the laws of physics in the universe will change and
intelligence will no longer be required for image recognition.

So if we ever intend to salute the brainpower required for this skill it is
imperative we do it now while we can.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/8d3ae564/attachment.html>