[PREV - MORAVEC] [TOP]
ARTY
~1992
I have doubts about the I am not a "vitalist", however.
feasibility of artificial All living things are indeed
intelligence. physical objects, and the soul
is just a particularly complex
pattern.
I do not beleive that
human capability
always expands to the
limits of the
physically possible.
Humanity at least *may* have
fundamental limitations that
prevent it from transforming
itself into something that
can make anything that can
be made.
Perhaps we're too stupid to make
something as smart as we are.
Biological mechanisms can
not be taken as existance
proofs of technological
possibilites.
There are some possible end runs
around this block (if it exists):
Perhaps instead of
writing an intelligent
algorithm, it could be (This doesn't impress me.
simpler to write a program I'd say that intelligence
that learns to be smarter. *is* the capability to learn.)
Perhaps an intelligent
algorithm could be
generated by trial and (Sounds like it'd take
error in some a while, no?)
simulated analog of
natural evolution.
Perhaps natural intelligence
can be boosted by artificial
means, without first
understanding how *Really* "Smart" drugs?
intelligence works.
Translation of humanity
into faster running
hardware?
MORAVEC
Side issue:
What about the _ethics_ of all
this? If you can get anywhere
close to artificial intelligence,
then by definition you're going
to be experimenting on the artifical
equivalent of human beings. What do
you do with your failed experiments?
Don't they have rights?
--------
[NEXT - AUTO]