dfranke comments on We are not living in a simulation - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: dfranke 12 April 2011 01:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (211)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: alexflint 12 April 2011 05:42:49PM 6 points [-]

The reason we think intelligence is substrate-independent is that the properties we're interested in (the ones we define to constitute "intelligence") do not make reference to any substrate. Can a simulation of a brain design a aeroplane? Yes. Can a simulation of a brain prove Pythagoras' theorem? Yes. Can a simulation of a brain plan strategically in the presence of uncertainty? Yes. These are the properties we mean when we say "intelligence". Under a different definition for "intelligence" that stipulates "composed of neurons" or "looks grey and mushy", intelligence is not substrate-independent. It's just a word game.

Comment author: dfranke 12 April 2011 06:01:10PM 0 points [-]

I can't figure out whether you're trying to agree with me or disagree with me. You comment sounds argumentative, yet you seem to be directly paraphrasing my critique of Searle.