Views
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Page â
Article
Outline
Document
Down
All
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Request email digest
Past 24 hours
Past 2 days
Past 3 days
Past week
Add
Add page
Add comment
Add citation
Edit
Edit page
Delete page
Share
Link
Bookmark
Embed
Social media
Login
Member login
Register now for a free account
đ
Ned Block
Protagonist
1
#2791
Arguments advanced by Ned Block.
CONTEXT
(Help)
-
Artificial Intelligence »
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial IntelligenceâA collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?âexploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.âF1CEB7
▲
Protagonists »
Protagonists
ProtagonistsâThe contributions of over 300 protagonists can be explored via a surname search, or using the growing list developing here.âD3B8AB
■
Ned Block
Ned BlockâArguments advanced by Ned Block.âD3B8AB
►
The Connection Principle Dilemma »
The Connection Principle Dilemma
The Connection Principle DilemmaâNed Block argues that the connection principle leads to a dilemma involving access and phenomenal conscisousness (described in the detailed text) which requires the rejection of the principle.âFFFACD
►
Unconscious intentional zombies »
Unconscious intentional zombies
Unconscious intentional zombiesâUnconscious intentional zombiesâzombies with thoughts about the worldâshould be a logical possibility in a theory of consciousness. The connection principles demand that all intentionality and thinking be accessible to consciousness rules them out.âFFFACD
►
Absent qualia problem »
Absent qualia problem
Absent qualia problemâImagine a rose smelling experience can be instantiated through complex, functionally organised interactions among the entire population of China. Functionalists must argue that the rose-smelling eperience exists, but the qualia would be absent.âFFFACD
►
Digital computers canât process analogue images »
Digital computers canât process analogue images
Digital computers canât process analogue imagesâDigital computers will probably never be able to process analogue information (eg images). The brain processes imagery using analogue physiological mechanisms; to do the same, computers will probably have to be supplemented by analogue mechanisms.âFFFACD
►
The Psychologism Objection »
The Psychologism Objection
The Psychologism ObjectionâBehaviour by itself isnt enough: internal differences matter. If two systems behave in exactly the same way, one might be intelligent while the other is stupid because of differences in the way each system processes information.âFFFACD
►
All Possible Conversations Machine »
All Possible Conversations Machine
All Possible Conversations MachineâAn unintelligent machine engaging in sensible conversation by searching a database containing all possible lines of conversation in a finite Turing test, would pass the neo-Turing testâbut it would be only echoing its programmers intelligence.âFFFACD
►
Some machines can exhibit their own intelligence »
Some machines can exhibit their own intelligence
Some machines can exhibit their own intelligenceâUnlike the all-possible-conversations machine, which dumbly searches a list of conversations, a machine equipped with general mechanisms for learning, problem solving etc would exhibit its own intelligence as well as its designers.âFFFACD
►
Intelligence requires "richness" of information processing »
Intelligence requires "richness" of information processing
Intelligence requires "richness" of information processingâThe all-possible-conversations machine isnt unintelligent simiply because it processes information in a different way to us: its that the way it processes information lacks the richness of processing capacity that we associate with intelligence.âFFFACD
►
Machine is logically possible »
Machine is logically possible
Machine is logically possibleâThe machine is logically possible even if it is empirically impossible. Because the neo-Turing test makes a claim about the concept of intelligence, it is refuted by the logical possibility of the machine.âFFFACD
►
Machine is all echoes »
Machine is all echoes
Machine is all echoesâIntelligence is not being redefined, because its part of our normal conception of intelligence that input-output capacity can be misleadingâe.g. just because a person copies the moves of a chess grandmaster doesnt make that person a grandmaster.âFFFACD
►
Dated system can still be intelligent »
Dated system can still be intelligent
Dated system can still be intelligentâIntelligence doesnt require knowledge of current events. For example, the machine could be programmed to simulate Robinson Crusoe, who is intelligent even though he cant answer questions about recent events.âFFFACD
►
Machine could be updated »
Machine could be updated
Machine could be updatedâProgrammers could periodically update the machines list of responses.âFFFACD
►
No: failing the Test is not decisive »
No: failing the Test is not decisive
No: failing the Test is not decisiveâIt is possible to fail the Turing Test for intelligence and still be an intelligent being. âFFFACD
►
Judges may discriminate too well »
Judges may discriminate too well
Judges may discriminate too wellâOverly discerning or chauvinistic judges might fail intelligent machines solely because of their machine like behaviour.âFFFACD
►
No: passing the Test is not decisive »
No: passing the Test is not decisive
No: passing the Test is not decisiveâEven if a computer were to pass the Turing test, this would not justify the conclusion that it was thinking intelligently. âFFFACD
►
Human judges may be fooled too easily »
Human judges may be fooled too easily
Human judges may be fooled too easilyâHuman judges can be fooled by unintelligent machines. âFFFACD
►
Operational interpretation is too rigid »
Operational interpretation is too rigid
Operational interpretation is too rigidâIf thinkings operationally defined, systems that pass the test are necessarily intelligent: systems that fail necessarily unintelligent. But this is too rigid. Intelligent machines could fail the test and unintelligent machines could pass the test.âFFFACD
Heading
Summary
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Details
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
April 2024
>
<<
April 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
14
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
15
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
18
28
29
30
1
2
3
4
19
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#2791
Node type:
Protagonist
Entry date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:25:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
7/20/2007 6:25:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
17
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
x
Select file to upload