I don't really want to get involved in a discussion on where the fine dividing line is between intelligence and non-intelligence. We are fine determining intelligence at the extremes, but not in the large shades of grey in-between.
Most people (say, 999999 out of every 1000000) will consider a rock unintelligent and Stephen hawking to be intelligent. You can't call them wrong because "they cannot define intelligence".
> If we just started simulating neurons in a brain exactly, what would prevent us from achieving inorganic intelligence in your view?
Nothing. But the word "If" is doing all the heavy lifting in that argument. I mean, we aren't doing that at the moment, are we? It's not clear that we might ever discover exactly how the collection of neurons we call a brain "exactly works".
IOW, if the human brain was simpler, we'd be too simple to understand it: this may already be the case!
And the evidence for "we may not figure out how the brain works exactly enough to clone the mechanism it uses" is a lot larger than "we might figure out how the brain works well enough to clone the mechanism it uses."
This is why I remain unconvinced. Even though I think your position is a reasonable one to hold, the opposite position is, IMHO, just as reasonable. It's got nothing to do with religion or superstition.
Most people (say, 999999 out of every 1000000) will consider a rock unintelligent and Stephen hawking to be intelligent. You can't call them wrong because "they cannot define intelligence".
> If we just started simulating neurons in a brain exactly, what would prevent us from achieving inorganic intelligence in your view?
Nothing. But the word "If" is doing all the heavy lifting in that argument. I mean, we aren't doing that at the moment, are we? It's not clear that we might ever discover exactly how the collection of neurons we call a brain "exactly works".
IOW, if the human brain was simpler, we'd be too simple to understand it: this may already be the case!
And the evidence for "we may not figure out how the brain works exactly enough to clone the mechanism it uses" is a lot larger than "we might figure out how the brain works well enough to clone the mechanism it uses."
This is why I remain unconvinced. Even though I think your position is a reasonable one to hold, the opposite position is, IMHO, just as reasonable. It's got nothing to do with religion or superstition.
reply