Philosophy Now Forum

Intelligence describes capabilities, not sources or substances. I'm still waiting for you to explain why intelligence should be delimited by anything other than what it does.

You've complained about the subject changing already, why is it you that keeps changing it?

Condoleezza Rice.

Lego invertebrate tuning fork

NO!!!!!!!!!

One (non-religious) meaning of soul is "the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life".

Give me a break, AI has no soul.

The very notion of a "(non-religious) meaning of soul" is completely absurd, what you fished out there is merely non-denominational. Souls are imaginary.

You don't have a case. You don't even have a Prima facie case. If you do, make it! If you don't, be quiet.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:37 pm You don't have a case. You don't even have a Prima facie case. If you do, make it! If you don't, be quiet.

The requirements for that are fairly minimal.
1. Soul is a religious concept, so any "non religious" writing of it is merely non religious in the sense that it doesn't specify a Christian interpretation over a Jewish or Hindu one. That's not non religious, it is non denominational.
2. I don't believe souls exist, nor do lots of other people, if you want to invoke them for this purpose you must show that they do exist. You are smuggling and assumption and thuswise begging the question. It wasn't a smart move, you should have realised this and given it up immediately.
3. "Animating principles" common to all life have nothing to do with intelligence as many living things are not intelligent.
4. Intellect is contingent on abilities, not the squidgy stuff that provides them. If you tie souls to intellect in this incautious manner, then I will simply force you to assign your "animating principle" of life to anything with such capacities and artificial intelligence can the pointlessly be renamed artificial life.

What's it all about, Panty?

Every AI logic is the same. If one AI has the intelligence of an Einstein, then they all do and if one AI interprets an unknown one way, they all will.

Consciousness interprets the representations the brain creates. Consciousness is subjective. It can agree with other consciousnesses but it doesn’t have to.

This is a strength because a million interpretations will get resolved through interactions while a million AI's will be the same and interaction of computers is incongruous.

Out of 7 billion people one JJ might emerge, but in a billion AI's no JJ will emerge nor will a Newton, a Shakespeare, a Putin, a Martin, a Lincoln nor any person because AI is one entity not a billion.

AI's won’t have motivations. No inspiration, incentives, rationale or reasons for doing what they do. They do what they are told (programmed) to do. They don’t have desires, wishes, needs, impulses, compulsions, longings, yearnings, cravings, appetites, hungers, thirsts or lusts. They don’t know fear, compassion, understanding, achievement, advancement, autonomy, personal growth, recognition nor responsibility.

You can’t manipulate AI but you can confound its logic. AI is a sophisticated tool (or weapon) but its value is in taking orders from some powerful people.

AI isn’t conscious but if it can fool you, it is Turing’s delight.