Are you optimistic?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Seriously I don't think he'll ever know why.

Seriously, I know you'll never know why (btw I still know you're the village idiot after your earlier remarks).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Phil. A digression into the complexities of AI will never be helpful in understanding human cognition, although the reverse is certainly true. A better understanding of human cognition will inevitably lead to more sophisticated evolutionary algorithms for neurally networked computers, and in fact this is one of the hottest fields in contemporary science. ( As it happens my sister-in-law is regarded as one of the world's leading experts in this field). However no matter how apparently smart a computer can become it can never be any more than a "ghost in the machine" and thus not a mind. Those with a true grasp of the notion of embodied cognition are well aware of this and the new generation of information theorists are steadily becoming more aware of this as well. When push comes to shove a man-made computer can never be anything more than a fancy abacus.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Phil. A digression into the complexities of AI will never be helpful in understanding human cognition, although the reverse is certainly true. A better understanding of human cognition will inevitably lead to more sophisticated evolutionary algorithms for neurally networked computers, and in fact this is one of the hottest fields in contemporary science. ( As it happens my sister-in-law is regarded as one of the world's leading experts in this field). However no matter how apparently smart a computer can become it can never be any more than a "ghost in the machine" and thus not a mind. Those with a true grasp of the notion of embodied cognition are well aware of this and the new generation of information theorists are steadily becoming more aware of this as well. When push comes to shove a man-made computer can never be anything more than a fancy abacus.

I only disagree with your assertion that computers will never become a mind (the old saying "never say never" applies here). Simply because humans don't presently know enough about human cognition doesn't mean that a scientist can't make the breakthrough discovery that will enable computers to become minds - the fact that billions of minds exist is evidence for a potential that computers can become minds just as humans through evolution (which certainly wasn't planned that way) achieved minds. As computers keep getting better, this will help towards creating a machine mind. Can you prove otherwise Leo?

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

This article gives some idea at what stage the scientists are at towards advancing to a better computer:

https://biotechin.asia/2016/04/03/googl ... ts-future/

Are machines creative? I'll let this article answer:

http://venturebeat.com/2016/04/03/machi ... an-humans/

This article describes how the human brain is being used as a model for better computers:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/ ... b546154a15

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

As computers keep getting better, this will help towards creating a machine mind.

The point I was making is that the notion of a "machine mind" is a non-sequitur in contemporary neuroscience and as far as I'm concerned it is the biologists and neuroscientists who are the best qualified to define emergent biological phenomena and not mathematicians, who have a notorious reputation for conflating the map with the territory.

[Gary Childress]

I chose "can't decide". Some things I am optimistic about one day and pessimistic about on others. Sometimes I am optimistic about certain things but not so with other things. It's really hard for me to place a stamp on myself and say I am this or that. My moods tend to change.