Re: The problem of intelligence.

Curt Welch wrote: 
lesterDELzick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lester Zick) wrote:

Well the problem here with this observation is that it assumes there
is any other way to proceed. Are we interested in intelligent effects
or are we interested in intelligence? If the latter we really have no
alternative to the arm chair introspection method because we have
nothing to study except the process itself and that is only evident in
ourselves. If we proceed empirically by studying the process in others
we have to proceed via tangibles to study an intangible. So if we know
what we're interested in is intangible we have no choice but to study
the intangible process itself and not tangible effects. Our study may
not succeed but the success of studying tangible effects will not shed
light on the mechanics of an intangible process.


That's only a valid position if intangibles were not tangible.  I know
for a fact that they are, which invalidates the foundation of that
argument.  Only our lack of understanding about the nature of the universe
(and the mind) led to the common false belief that intangibles and
tangibles are different.

First of all, what you happen to take as fact doesn't mean anything to us unless you present reasonable proof.

Second, intangible = tangible ... what are you talking about?! That nothing can be intangible (I could agree with this one)? Reply with your *reasoning*!

-- Risujin
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The problem of intelligence.
    ... > we have to proceed via tangibles to study an intangible. ... > the intangible process itself and not tangible effects. ... That's only a valid position if intangibles were not tangible. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The problem of intelligence.
    ... >> we have to proceed via tangibles to study an intangible. ... >> the intangible process itself and not tangible effects. ... >That's only a valid position if intangibles were not tangible. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The problem of intelligence.
    ... And I consider the intangible mechanics of transition between what's ... >>>Explaining the transition within the biological brain would require far ... >> to considering mechanics in terms of objective tangibles. ... How do you approach the problem of intangibles ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The problem of intelligence.
    ... If we proceed empirically by studying the process in others we have to proceed via tangibles to study an intangible. ... Our study may not succeed but the success of studying tangible effects will not shed light on the mechanics of an intangible process. ... I agree that simply prospecting for intelligence within the brain is hopeless without some mechanical recognition of what it is we're looking for and I've argued against the neurological approach in ai for many years for exactly this reason. ... I see it as a measurable tangible which doesn't shed light on the mechanics of intangibles. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The problem of intelligence.
    ... what most people refer to as intangibles because we can't find the ... images in the brain. ... tangibles must be intangible. ... It's a problem in mechanics not philosophy. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)