= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Future of Moral Machines - New York Times [link] - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (10)
I distrust "what else would it be"-style arguments; they are ultimately appeals to inadequate imagination.
Certainly of the things we understand reasonably well, computation is the only candidate that could explain intelligence; if intelligence weren't fundamentally a computational process it would have to fundamentally be something we don't yet understand.
Just to be clear, I'm not challenging the conclusion; given the sorts of things that intelligence does, and the sorts of things that computations do, that intelligence is a form of computation seems pretty likely to me. What I'm pushing back on is the impulse to play burden-of-proof tennis with questions like this, rather than accepting the burden of proof and trying to meet it.
I can imagine a great many other things it could be, but in the real world people have to go by the evidential support. Your post is just a variation of the "argument from ignorance" , as in "We don't know in detail what intelligence is, so it could be something else", even though you admit "Certainly of the things we understand reasonably well, computation is the only candidate that could explain intelligence".