Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th May 2012 03:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 519753
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Cursing Computer
by Drumhellar on Tue 29th May 2012 00:26
in reply to "RE[3]: Cursing Computer"
1. Yes. You are definitely missing the point of his comment. But, I'll bite.
2. You are suggesting that I shouldn't rule out something that is both a) unknowable and b) untestable, when it is well known that scientific knowledge (which an AI made by humans certainly falls under) progresses by the testability of known and knowable quantities. Also, his comment was to the original article, which is also taking a far more pragmatic view than making comparisons to aliens we'll never meet.
1. Yes. You are definitely missing the point of his comment.
You're missing MY point. I disagree with his point.
2. You are suggesting that I shouldn't rule out something that is both a) unknowable and b) untestable, when it is well known that scientific knowledge ... progresses by the testability of known and knowable quantities.
So you KNOW that it is unknowable? You KNOW it is untestable? I'm glad you've been able to figure that out just by thinking about it. Why, that's completely scientific. It can't possibly be known or tested because I can't think of a way. The worse thing is, the insidious aspect of your attitude is that you ACTIVELY rule something out because you think it is unknowable and untestable. Sure, if something is unknowable or untestable, you say "we can't answer that yet". But to rule it out as even a possibility?
I'm glad people like Galileo, Newton and Einstein existed. Here's a hint, not only does science progress by the testability of known and knowable quantities, it also progresses by the expansion of borders of what is considered knowable or testable, so that was considered unknowable and untestable at one point in history is considered child's play in the future.
As they say, you're not right. You're not even wrong.
Edited 2012-05-29 00:43 UTC




Member since:
2007-02-18
Either that, or you're missing the point.
No, you two are missing the wider point. You two make the error that a computer system must necessarily behave in a human recognizable manner to be considered conscious. If you make that argument, then you can similarly posit a situation where an advanced alien race can consider us not-conscious because we don't meet their criteria.