Not only where is it located, but how does it exist and how does the brain apply it.
When we see a child, all the brain receives from our optic nerve is a stream of energy. The stream of energy is the same for a child as it is for a bulldozer. Our brain takes that energy stream and converts it to an image, child, bulldozer, flower etc. The brain does that by accessing memory. This all happens in milliseconds at a subconscious level. We remember what children look like so the brain converts the energy stream to what we usually assume to be reality. We can close our eyes, yet we can still see that child in our minds and imagine it running in a meadow. That isn’t reality. How do we know the difference is a thorny question.
This is all interesting stuff and in my opinion, AI can never duplicate it. Brains not only require nourishment and oxygen furnished by our blood supply, brains also must have the stimulation provided by our senses. And then brains must be put to use. We are starting to fail with stimulation and use through poor education and through social support systems that relieve our brains of important tasks. People no longer need to be productive individuals to have basic food and shelter. If AI wins, it will be by forfeit.
@hhlurker You’re simply “bloviating” about things you know nothing about. For example, what you describe is not a reductio ad absurdum. Nor is your last statement representative of naturalism.
Again, the irony here lies in you blasting philosophers and a whole realm of thinking without knowing anything about them and doing so trying to use their terms, and in a manner that you accuse them of. All without any proof or citation.
Put another way
I asked some philosophical/scientific questions.
Evidently those questions upset you because you read my questions as bloviations and then instead of providing answers (which you evidently could since you’re able to evaluate and deride my questions) you responded emotionally, despite previously admonishing CoH for entering emotions into a philosophical discussion.
Two thumbs up!!👍 👍
I asked some philosophical/scientific questions.
Evidently those questions upset you because you read my questions as bloviations and then instead of providing answers (which you evidently could since you’re able to evaluate and deride my questions) you responded emotionally, despite previously admonishing CoH for entering emotions into a philosophical discussion.
Two thumbs up!!👍 👍
You didn't ask any philosophical or scientific questions. You just shit random words onto your keyboard in the hopes it would make you look smart.
You just shit random words onto your keyboard in the hopes it would make you look smart.
Wait, isn't that the whole point of this place?
Here Geoffrey Hinton covers pretty much everything this thread has covered in a very simple and understandable way. You should be worried, he contends. I assert you should also be depressed, assuming you believe his model of human thinking.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdziSLYzHw&pp=ygUeSmVmZnJleSBIaW50b24gc3BlYWtpbmcgYXQgQUk0
It’s really interesting that he says widening income/wealth gap will lead to fascism. Actually that difference leads to Marxism or communism. But we know why he said fascism, don’t we.
Latest Post: 2027 HS Recruiting News Our newest member: Redd Collects Recent Posts Unread Posts
