Daniel Dennett thinks a game can show that computers could really think
|August 29, 2018||Posted by News under Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Mind|
Fr. Robert Verrill, OP, takes different view:
In his paper “Real Patterns,” Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett writes the following:
In my opinion, every philosophy student should be held responsible for an intimate acquaintance with the Game of Life. It should be considered an essential tool in every thought-experimenter’s kit, a prodigiously versatile generator of philosophically important examples and thought experiments of admirable clarity and vividness.
One of the reasons why Dennett likes the Game of Life is because he thinks it can help us understand how computers could be genuinely intelligent. Now I do think the Game of Life provides us with some interesting thought experiments, but precisely for the opposite reason to Dennett: the Game of Life simulation makes it manifestly obvious that conventional computers could never be intelligent in the strong sense of the word.
Conway’s Game of Life is not a game in the conventional sense. Rather, the Game of Life is a computer simulation that takes place on a two-dimensional square grid. Robert Verrill, OP, “Can a game prove that computers could really think?” at Mind Matters Today More.
See also: Giant Google’s vulnerable spot Social media are free because we are both the content and the market. Recently, we looked at philosopher of technology George Gilder’s Life after Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy. But what form would that decline take? A look at the advertising picture offers one clue.
Can machine learning lead to mass manipulation? Expect a perfect storm of malice, experts warn. In 2017, a group of 26 AI researchers got together at Oxford and created a report which offers a number of examples of malicious technologies of the near future.
Ethics for an information society Because machines can’t learn to solve their own ethical problems. In one case, AI (machine learning) was probably faster and cheaper but the whole point of the system was supposed to be justice which, whatever the explanation, proved too difficult to calculate…
Do big brains matter to human intelligence? We don’t know. Brain research readily dissolves into confusion at that point. We also know very little about the human brain. Take this controversy about why the large human brain evolved…