Comment by jablongo

Given the epic title I was pretty unimpressed by this line of thinking. The argument seems to rely on (among other things) certain presumed implications of “Computers not inhabiting the world” - a comical line of reasoning that cites a lack of a childhood among other absurd reasons for why computers can’t be intelligent. The author assumes that intelligence can only be derived from experiencing the world in full... which seems to imply that paraplegics are inhibited from intelligent thought. Taking that further - are we not capable of intelligent thought during dreams? Fjelland goes on to argue that with no way to fully interact with the world computers are barred from intelligence. Firstly there’s no reason for us to believe that computers will stop broadening the methods by which they connect to, measure, and actuate the world around them. Secondly it seems plausible that a person locked in a room with a radio to communicate with the outside world would eventually acquire intelligence without ever fully experiencing the world.