Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Mind

Did complex societies predate moral gods?

Sometimes an argument from Naturalism Inc. becomes too complex to follow. Here’s just such an argument: The appearance of moralizing gods in religion occurred after—and not before—the emergence of large, complex societies, according to new research. This finding upturns conventional thinking on the matter, in which moralizing gods are typically cited as a prerequisite for social complexity. Gods who punish people for their anti-social indiscretions appeared in religions after the emergence and expansion of large, complex societies, according to new research published today in Nature. The finding suggests religions with moralizing gods, or prosocial religions, were not a necessary requirement for the evolution of social complexity. It was only until the emergence of diverse, multi-ethnic empires with populations exceeding a Read More ›

It is possible to demonstrate that AI will never think as humans do

Based on what we know of how algorithms work, it can be demonstrated mathematically that algorithms cannot deal with non-computable concepts: There is another way to prove a negative besides exhaustively enumerating the possibilities With artificial general intelligence (AGI), if we can identify something algorithms cannot do, and show that humans can do it then we’ve falsified the AGI position without running an infinite number of experiments across all possible algorithms. Eric Holloway, “The Flawed Logic behind “Thinking” Computers, Part II” at Mind Matters If Eric is correct, a great deal of the hype we hear in media is based not only on improbable concepts (the usual stuff) but impossible ones. See, for example, Top Ten AI hypes of 2018 Read More ›

“Thinking” computers? Some logical problems with the idea

If an algorithm that reproduces human behavior requires more storage space than exists in the universe, it is a practical impossibility that also demonstrates the logical impossibility of artificial intelligence, Eric Holloway argues. He engaged in a three-part debate on the subject. Here’s the first part: The most basic sort of algorithm that can mimic human action is one that reproduces a recording of human behavior. So, one example of algorithmic intelligence the following print statement: print: “So, one example of algorithmic intelligence the following print statement.” And the program prints the sentence. So there you have it, an intelligent computer program! Admittedly, this is a silly example but it makes the point that intelligence is more than just functionalism. Read More ›

AI is not the artist’s new “robot overlord”

Software engineer and musician Brendan Dixon thinks AI is the perfect tool for creating social noise: If you believe all you read, AI is once again nipping at the heels of our humanity, this time by “creating” music all on its own (lyrics included). Soon we must submit to our “robot overlords.” Or not. The achievement celebrated at Digital Music News is, as so often, less than heralded and does not portend AI overtaking humanity. It mainly shows that few engineers understand art and even fewer artists understand engineering. Both look at (or listen to) the “work” and see more than is present. And both are wrong… Creating art begins by fully absorbing what makes art good and then extrapolating Read More ›

A philosopher explains why machines are not creative

When you consider all the reasons why machines cannot be creative, one must ask, is the belief that we can build superintelligent machines rooted in naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” or in evidence? Read More ›

Michael Egnor: The Real Reason Why Only Human Beings Speak

Dr. Egnor explains, “Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly”: In his discussion of why only humans have language, science writer Tom Siegfried gets a lot right, but he misses the crucial reason. … Siegfried is right that many non-human animals have the physiological apparatus needed to form words. Yet they have no language. They can make and respond to signs—gestures, grunts and the like. A dog, for example, can respond appropriately to simple words directed at him (“Sit!” “Fetch!”). But all animal communication is symbols, that is, signals that point directly to an object. In this case, the object is a simple expected action the animal is Read More ›

Logic and First Principles, 11: The logic of Ultimate Mind as Source of Reality

After we headlined and began discussing PS on hearing and consciousness yesterday, H raised a significant issue: H, 15: >> . . . the invocation of a Creator who “beautifully designed what each sound should sound like” and “put the special program that can interpret each frequency pattern of air vibration into each sound, thus giving us the sound experience” is an empty explanation, no more useful than claiming that mind arises from matter without any idea how that could happen. >> To this, I replied: KF, 16: >> The concept that the root of reality is Mind, and that mind is at least as fundamental as matter is not an empty claim or assertion. That intelligent, minded designers exist Read More ›

Detroit: Become Human – Adam Nieri on the twin pillars of the AI religion

Nieri looks at them as the narrative of the sci-fi game Detroit: Become Human develops them:  A Closer Look at Detroit: Become Human, Part I Gaming culture provides a window into our culture’s assumptions about artificial intelligence (Adam Nieri) In the game, Detroit has transcended its current economic despair, emerging as the epicenter of the android revolution. Cyberlife, headquartered there, has become the first company to engineer and produce fully autonomous, general purpose AI androids for consumers. A Closer Look at Detroit: Become Human, Part II Adam Nieri: One pillar, if you like, of the worldview of the “Church of AI” is the belief that our embrace of artificial intelligence is a step on the road to a higher form Read More ›

Some reasons why machines won’t take over

Even if some people would like them to. In case the subject comes up over coffee. For example, ● Finally, physicist Alfredo Metere of the International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) insists that AI must deal in specifics but humans live in an indefinitely blurry world that is always changing: AI is a bunch of mathematical models that need to be realised in some physical medium, such as, for example, programs that can be stored and run in a computer. No wizards, no magic. The moment we implement AI models as computer programs, we are sacrificing something, due to the fact that we must reduce reality to a bunch of finite bits that a computer can crunch on. Alfredo Metere, “AI Read More ›

Our spinal cords are smarter than previously thought

Intelligent spine? Intelligent design? It’s getting to the point that everything in the system of life is intelligent except the system itself—which is supposed to have come about randomly. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Read More ›

Taming the silver fox, taming ourselves…? Oh, please…

The idea that we humans “tamed ourselves” over the generations, on the face of it, it fails a logical test. Who decided that that was a good idea? Who created the benchmark? Why? Why didn’t the bonobos do it? Read More ›