yc-kjh

Thank you for correcting me on Nagel's name. I'm embarrassed that I misspelled it, cuz his book is right in front of me.

> Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer.

You associate a meaning to the symbol "dog". You think of an animal that barks, wags its tail, chases cats and squirrels, and is happy to see you when you get home. You associate something in the real world what that symbol. (That is the very meaning of doing semantics.)

The computer does nothing of the sort with the symbol "dog".

No, I'm not begging the question. In another response, I readily admit that if materialism is true, then AI is a foregone conclusion.

Please prove that mere electromagnetism can cause intentions, goals, and teleology. Limit yourself to Maxwell's equations, and the consequences thereof.

I look forward to your response, but I am not hopeful that you will provide a cogent answer.

I think that "qualia" is the wrong question. Please see my other comments on this story.

Yes

You apparently don't understand how computers work.

There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.

> I think you ought to try Julian Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the Brakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Thanks. I'll buy it and read it.

Au contraire.

Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. (The same statement applies to all of the chemical processes involved in the human brain.)

Please read Nagle's work. Read Searle's work. Read all of the philosophical literature on "intention".

If you accept materialism as true, then by the Church-Turing hypothesis it is a necessary and foregone conclusion that computers will achieve full human intelligence, and even more, because they do not get tired and are not distracted.

But the hypothesis of materialism is what is in question here, both by my citation of the difference between syntax and semantics, and the obvious (to anybody who understands what a computer is and does) conclusion that computers do only syntax, while humans clearly do semantics also, and also by Searle's and Nagle's work.

I think that the evidence (which most people want to deny) is very clear that materialism is false. Most people deal with this evidence by ignoring it, or by denying it exists in the first place. They never address it.

You can prove me wrong. You can prove that materialism is correct. Just produce a real AI which is every bit as intelligent and capable as a human. Produce an AI which can really do semantics. Produce an AI which clearly convinces everybody that it is really intelligent in the way humans are, without any parlor tricks (like modelling an idiot savant).

It is much harder to prove that materialism is false, but that is what Nagle has done in his recent book. Have you read it? If he has not convinced you, please critique his arguments.

It is obviously not a waste when we use computers to do syntax. Chess-playing computers can now beat the best international grandmasters; this is an example of computers doing syntax.

For every task which is syntax only, it is a fantastic idea to make computers do the work, and relieve humans from the drudgery. I'm all in favor of that.

But for any task which requires semantics -- real human intelligence -- it is foolish to attempt to replace humans. It cannot be done.

What is required is the wisdom to know the difference between the two.

The Ph.D. degree is all about philosophy, no matter what field it is in.

There is nothing which is scientific (dealing with knowledge in general, according to the Latin roots of the word), which is not also philosophical (dealing with the love of wisdom, according to the Greek roots of the word).

You are correct that I cannot change anybody's mind, one way or the other. I was only hoping to plant seeds.

Don't just vote me down. Give reasons. Critique my arguments. Critique Searle and Nagle, whom I cite. (You have to have read their corpus first.)

Voting my comment down without giving any reason or justification proves my original point that nobody can stomach the actual evidence that I have raised, and which Searle and Nagle have also raised.

You are not yet ready for the Kuhnian revolution in AI which must eventually take place, and you will be on the wrong side of it.