upvote

points

by godelski15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby beachy15 hours ago|
next
[-]
> [0] before someone responds "there's no definition of intelligence", don't be stupid.

Way to subdue discussion - complaining about replies before you get any.

But you're wrong, or rather it's irrelevant whether something has intelligence or not, if it is effectively diagnosing your illness from scans or hunting you with drones as you scuttle in and out of caves. It's good enough for purpose, whether it conforms to your academic definition of "having intelligence" or not.

reply
upvoteby godelski6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]

  > Way to subdue discussion
If you want to be dismissive and with quick quips that's not a discussion. There's plenty to respond to without relying on "there's no definition of intelligence" and definitely not "so I'll just make one up".

  >  or rather it's irrelevant whether something has intelligence or not
But it seems like you want to be dismissing, not engage in discussion.

  > whether it conforms to your academic definition of "having intelligence" or not.
Why pretend like I don't care that it works? In fact, that's the primary motivation of making these distinctions.
reply
upvoteby Brendinooo15 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Yeah, I mean, I don't know where all of this is going, but I do think that the ancients cared WAY more about "embodied knowledge" than we do, and I suspect we're about to find out a lot more about what that is and why it matters.
reply
upvoteby godelski6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There's a lot of definitions of bodies. Though I'm unconvinced one is needed. A brain in a box is capable of interacting with its environment far more than such a thing could even a decade ago. Is it the body or the interaction?

As we advance we always need to answer more nuanced questions. You're right that the nature of progress is... well... progress

reply