<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 01/04/2023 21:08, Gordon Swobe wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.131.1680379734.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 7:36 AM
Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a
href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div> On 01/04/2023 13:43, Gordon Swobe wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Unlike these virtual LLMs, we have
access also to the referents in the world that give the
words in language meaning. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I don't understand why this argument keeps recurring, despite
having been demolished more than once.</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I has not been demolished in my opinion and
incidentally, as I’ve mentioned, my view is shared by the
faculty director of the masters program in computational
linguistics at the University of Washington. This is what she
and her fellow professors teach. Many others understand things
the same way. Brent points out that the majority of those who
participate in his canonizer share similar views, including many
experts in the field.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ah, your opinion. You know what they say, "You're entitled to your
own opinions..."<br>
<br>
And you're using 'argument from authority' again.<br>
<br>
You know (should know) that holds no water, especially here.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.131.1680379734.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">I fail to see any significant difference between
my brain and an LLM,</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">On Exi, the computational model of mind is almost
taken for granted. Consciously or consciously, almost everyone
here believes their brain is, in essence, a digital computer.
But this is only one of many models of mind, and one that I
reject.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Taken for granted? Of course it is, and I should hope you can drop
the "almost". The theory of gravity is also taken for granted on
this list, as well as many other well-established scientific views
(even evolution!!). The relevant discipline for this discussion is
neuroscience, not linguistics or philosopy (or astrology or
alternative medicine, homoeopathy, pan-psychism, etc.). The
computational model of mind is what's enabled us to understand as
much as we do about how our brains work, and it emerged from the
study of neurology in the first place. If you're trying to figure
out if something works in a similar way to how the brain works,
neurology is the only relevant discipline, really. And the
computational model of mind is the currently-accepted paradigm of
neurology (for good reason). When I say 'currently-accepted', of
course I mean among neurologists, not philosophers, linguists,
theologists or people in any other irrelevant discipline.<br>
<br>
The computational model of mind is only one of many models of mind
in the same sense that the heliocentric model is only one of many
models of the movements of the planets, or that Dalton's atomic
theory is only one of many models of what we now call condensed
matter physics. Evolution is only one model of how biological
diversity arises. And so-on.<br>
<br>
If you want to reject any of these currently-accepted models, that's
up to you. Just don't expect people who strive to use the scientific
method to make sense of the world, to take your opinions seriously.<br>
<br>
To finish off my first statement: "... but you're not entitled to
your own facts".<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>