Stop fetishizing the latest technology

By -

The brain was not a mechanical device in 1750, just because such devices were the cutting edge of technology then. And brains are not computers today, just because computers are the latest whiz-bang technology.


Comments

  1. rob11:04 AM

    On the other hand - it is not inconceivable that some future whiz-bang technology might provide us with a good model of how the brain works, is it ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silas Barta5:06 PM

    Computers couldn't beat humans in 1960, because they can't truly think about strategy.

    Computers can't appreciate a poem in 2016, because they can't truly think about art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:09 PM

      They still can't think about strategy, Silas. They don't think at all.

      Delete
    2. gcallah11:13 PM

      By the way, this is like the 20th time you have posted this same dumb argument. The fact that computer technology is improving has *absolutely no bearing* on whether AI is a real thing!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more