Jump to content

AIkonoklazt

Senior Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

AIkonoklazt's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

0

Reputation

  1. Dictate? Would it make you feel better if I inserted the word "I suggest" to the 2nd sentence of my last reply? Good grief. Save the personal labels- They won't help. Okay let's start over. "Your claim is that artificial intelligence is impossible." See below "It would be sensible in a discussion like this to lay out what exactly you mean by intelligence." ...it would help if you've read what's in article section: "Intelligence versus consciousness" The real issue is with bad programming, including programs that are so-called "discriminatory." It's badly written programs and badly designed machines, not any program or machine that could be "conscious (they wouldn't be, because they're programs and machines)," that pose issues.
  2. No problem. Just remember that common terms such as "machine learning" and "self-driving cars" are misnomers.
  3. It's not my fault that you've lost track where I've already addressed the matter.
  4. It boils down to: What drives a machine, "itself?"
  5. I'm not pretending anything. If you feel that I'm not engaging in good faith then exit the conversation, but don't accuse me of bad faith. "And, given that human cognitive processes cause computers and artificial neural nets, it takes no great insight into the chain of causality to assert that, if there is no design to the human mind, then whatever arises from that mind and is implemented in a different substrate, also is not designed. IOW reductio ad absurdum." That doesn't follow. That argument amounts to asserting that the human mind is indistinguishable from a machine especially in terms of dealing with meaning versus none (section "Symbol Manipulator, a thought experiment"). The randomness of nature isn't a conscious process but the invention from a human mind is. It goes back to his comment where he said "now you're wrong twice," which then ultimately goes a few steps back to one of my own comments that had other people's quotes in it but none of his. I'd rather that people directly mention things. Can you explain the big difference that made in the argument between one offcut and several? Whatever we construct, there is a teleology whenever there is purpose involved. In other words, what the construct is "for" had been decided. That's different from natural constructs.
  6. I don't know what you're referring to unless you reference it. You're not the only person in this thread.
  7. Explain. The RNA/DNA molecule itself isn't a design, either. The human mind was not designed, either. Why the automatic insertion of teleology?
  8. This was already addressed in section "Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus": I ccould generalize these kinds of counterarguments under a section named "Arguments from opacity." Opacity of origin (via programming), opacity of change (via flaws), et cetera. If the argument wasn't about the offcut being an unintended machine, then please clarify. I understood it as such.
  9. Nature doesn't design anything. The process of random mutation isn't design. This had been argued earlier. My response was this: A conscious AI would be "acting on its own," correct? But it wouldn't be doing so because of its programming. Hence "programming without programming" and "design without design." Isn't that a strawman if it's indeed an argument against my thesis? The issue isn't with the substrate as I've already indicated in the article itself, but with the algorithmic nature of machines.
  10. I complete agree with you that trans men deserve their chance in men's sports every bit as much as trans women in women's sports. It's just that there are probably better ways of doing so than adding even more rules as they're likely to worsen stigma rather than alleviate. I couldn't for the life of me find the example I saw maybe late last year or early this year, but there was a transgender collegiate woman cross country athlete who didn't manage the make her team after the mandated transitioning wait period. After everything she had been through, it would just be too much to ask her to endure even more regulation and/or handicapping on top. All I could find right now is the example of a successful collegiate transgender woman cross country athlete: https://www.outsports.com/2019/8/30/20834159/juniper-eastwood-transgender-runner-division-i-cross-country-track-and-field-university-of-montana I'm fairly certain Ms Eastwood wouldn't want to put up with more regulations or handicapping either. There are many other transgender athletes in the sport that aren't successful enough to get a lot of press coverage, so you're right about the inevitable entrance of more and more transgender sports competitors.
  11. I did attempt to answer your original question in good faith. If we misunderstand each other then just clarify. Let me try again, then. The concept of artificial consciousness, upon closer examination, is an oxymoronic concept because it would involve design without design, programming without programming, and so on. That was one of the points. The second major point would be the arbitrary nature of algorithms that involves no meaning. Reference the section from my article labeled "Symbol Manipulator, a thought experiment."
  12. Because you seemed to be making the equation between nature-as-designer and man-as-designer from your original point.
  13. Which part of the process is design? "Guide" and "discard" implies active participant.
  14. 1&2. This was the example he linked to: https://cdn.images.fecom-media.com/FE00015525/documents/Simple+Machine+wedge.pdf 3. Read what he said earlier in the thread. He was using offcut. That's single piece. 4. That understanding doesn't apply to anything more complex than a one-piece tool. Can you explain the relevance to the topic at hand? Because that itself couldn't have been the counterargument. Natural selection isn't "guiding" or "designing." Random variations are just that- random. There isn't any teleology behind such a process. It isn't "making." you're employing misnomers. This isn't intelligent design. https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology
  15. Players choose their rackets in tennis. This isn't auto racing. Are you sure you're doing trans men a favor by what you're proposing? What race are they winning and which records are they challenging then? Now the name-calling begins yet again, I see. Who or what do you think I'm trying to include or exclude via my argumentation? See my response regarding women's tennis.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.