This is the first part of a series of posts that are meant to help me think through the relationship between ID and Turing tests. Please be patient I will get to the controversial stuff soon enough but I want to lay some ground work first
Below is a quick refresher video explaining the three forms of inference for those interested.
It’s a given that abductive inference is the most subjective of the three and that is usually seen as a bad thing. I would like to argue that this subjectivity makes shared abductive inference a great proxy Turing test.
In the standard Turing test the examiner asks questions to see if he can distinguish the answers given by an Artificial Intelligence from those offered by a human. If he can’t do that he assumes that the AI is conscious (i.e has a mind).
What the examiner is really trying to get at is if the AI thinks like a human rather than like a computer.
What does it mean to think like me other than to share the same abductive inferences that I do?
Deduction is certainly not a uniquely human activity. Since the conclusion flows inevitably from the premises a simple algorithm could be written to come to a conclusion deductively no conscious thought is necessary. By the same token induction is also moving from premise to conclusion albeit in the other direction and with less certainty. Any computer could do that.
On the other hand abduction is the form of inference that is most human in that there is no logically compelling reason to chose one particular conclusion over another. Wildly different conclusions can be equally valid from a logical standpoint. We must subjectivity decide which conclusion is the best one.
Strangely enough more often than not we humans do come up with the same conclusion when presented with the same information at least for simple arguments.
For instance we see that it’s raining and conclude that it’s cloudy even though it sometimes rains when the sun is shining.
Or we might hear a rustling in the bushes and conclude that there is an animal there even though it could be the wind.
I think that if we encountered a nonhuman entity like an AI that almost never came to the same conclusions that we do in situations like this we would naturally conclude that it was not conscious.
By the same token if we came across an entity that often came to the similar conclusions when using abduction we would conclude there was a mind there behind it all.
Of course since that conclusion itself is based on abductive reasoning we could never be certain that our inference was correct.
What do you think about all this?
In my next post I will share a tangible example to show you how this might work in practice
Peace
PS As always I do apologize for the poor spelling and grammar
That is not the claim at all.
Perhaps if you took the time to actually understand what your opponents position was these sorts of discussions might be more rewarding for you.
peace
By proto-Bayesian, I meant intro stats students who have been taught only frequentist methods, but make intuitive prior assumptions about the possibility of a trick coin in my pocket. The typical Homo Legumeas is Bayesian whether they know it or not. Some make prior assumption so strong that they overwhelm all evidence. 🙂
Do enlighten me, then. What is inaccurate about my statement of your claims and what are you actually saying, exactly, about the “immaterial”?
I would agree. That is a stark contrast to the typical AI
peace
It’s all right there in my comments to walto and newton. that ship has sailed. I really don’t have the time to spoon feed you .
Next time why don’t you try and understand what others are saying instead of looking for ways to avoid engaging in discussion with them by pulling out the tired “burden of proof” cliche?
Just a thought
peace
Is it ok if I say your explanation was a bit glib and unhelpful or has that ship set sail as well?
The force is strong with this one.
Yet another logic fail from Patrick
Try constructing an actual argument from that collection of assertions, something where the conclusion actually follows from the premises. If you can.
Sure, I will accept that.
If you were really interested you could ask follow up questions.
Though I might not engage in a full blown defense of the idea that decisions are not physical things. That seems pretty obvious from where I sit.
peace
gpuccio suggests that mechanism might be what he calls “quantum interfacing”. Go tell him about his logic fails. You are, BTW, in no position to call anyone’s logic mistakes after so many embarrassing logic blunders of yours
The excellent thing about the “obvious” is that it doesn’t require critical thinking.
I’m all up for some critical thinking.
How much does a decision weigh do you suppose? What is it’s electrical charge? How would you go about providing answers for these sorts of questions?
I’m ready to think critically about “physical decisions” but I need something tangible to work with. Can you help me out?
peace
I suppose I should consider it, then, since you have so few of them.
On the other hand, I think I’ll give your positions as much attention as you are willing to.
If that were only true.
peace
You ask how much decisions weigh. The same could be asked about a baseball game, growth of a carnation, or banking transaction, couldn’t it? If we find it impossible to answer, shall we conclude those aren’t physical?
Logic Fail!
The irony.
iirc there are some fundamental particles that have no mass.
But unless whatever it is you’re thinking of is composed of only massless particles, I would think so.
The growth of a carnation is not a physical process?
What does an intelligent design weigh?*
Glen Davidson
*And no, it is not the weight of the designed object.
Yes. I think so.
Why not?
peace
The part you can measure is. The part you can’t is not.
peace
Are carnations made of massless particles?
Growth is change. Any process of change is physical?
FWIW, in my (perhaps quite pedestrian) world, the growth of a carnation is an entirely physical process, even though it’s not the sort of thing that can be weighed. I’d have thought that pretty much everyone in the world would have agreed with me about that, BWTHDIK?
You can weigh the flower on Monday and again on the following Monday and the difference is the weight of the physical part of the growth process over that time period. Correct?
peace
So now you’re saying the growth process IS physical, because you CAN weigh it?
You should make up your mind!
Or, are you saying the growth process is only partly physical?
The point is that processes can’t generally be weighed. So why should decisions be weighable items?
you asked
quote:
” If we find it impossible to answer, shall we conclude those aren’t physical?”
end quote:
I would answer that in the affirmative
On the other hand it sounds like it might be possible to answer in the case of the growth of a carnation.
peace
Well, then, how much does this process weigh? On average, if you like.
Then do a banking transaction.
If they can’t be measured in some fashion then they aren’t physical as far as I can tell. This seems to be pretty cut and dried from my perspective
peace
The physical part is measured in dollars and cents.
peace
Now you know what an entailment looks like.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/PlantBio_measuring_growth.shtml
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Growth-Rate
peace
I always did.
Failure to pass a Turing test is a measurable event. Is it not?
peace
The dollars and cents are supposed to be weighed? Do we use silver dollars for that?
What if it’s a EFT? Do I weigh the ATMs or the transmission or what? Do messed up transactions weigh more or less, generally?
Not all measurements involve weighing, FMM. Decisions may take time. I can measure how long one takes, can’t I?
When I decide to go to bed, does that decision take place in New Mexico or in Massachusetts? Does it take a moment or a couple of days? I may note that certain brain processes take place at the same time and place as the decision.
Neither can be weighed though. Sorry. (And neither can the growth of a carnation or a banking transaction be weighed. Both are physical processes, however.)
I don’t think there is anyway of knowing precisely when or where a decision takes place. That is because decisions are not physical things.
Which is the point after all
peace
I think the real point of that post was to beg the question. You say they aren’t any place because, uh, they aren’t physical, so they couldn’t be! Bravo!
Again with the unsupported assertions.
I would say that physical equals measurable by definition.
Quote:
having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey
end quote:
from here
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical%5B1%5D
peace
(A) That’s a terrible definition. It defines “material” in terms of “physical.”
(B) It doesn’t mention anything about measuring.
(C) You said everything that is physical can be weighed, but it’s patently obvious most physical processes can’t be weighed.
(D) Your claim that decisions aren’t measurable seems likely to be false.
Conclusion: You’re not doing too well on this issue.
Also, I don’t really think of de Quincey as an authority on anything but opium eating.
ETA: But I see Vincent is now making Scott Adams an authority on politics and government. I take it he’s a Trump supporter, but as he’s a cartoonist, I guess we should figure he knows what he’s talking about. Just as Thomas de Quincey should be relied on for determining what makes a physical object.
In other words, WTHDIK?
De quency was quoted in Merriam Webster as part of the definition. If you object to the dictionary definition do the work and get your own dictionary.
Words have meanings
Peace
Not those, though.
This, from dictionary.com is better:
No de Quincey though. 🙁
I’m just curious. When did weighing become the only form of measurement? Neither the growth of a carnation nor a baseball game canbe weighed. They can be timed though. And placed in a particular region of space. Many would say that that is true of decisions, thoughts, perceptions, etc. as well.
I’ve heard the reply “No, they can’t, because they’re not physical processes,” but, of course, that’s simply question-begging.
I’m not taking a position, myself. I just think that it’s probably the case that nobody here has a good reason to take one or another.
ETA: That was probably too strong. I’ll just put it that I haven’t heard any here.
Some of this is just weird.
You cannot weigh space and time. Yet they are considered to be physical.
I thought that was supposed to be part of the distinction between “materialism” and “physicalism” (not that I know what either of those really is). Physicalism is supposed to include more than materialism, with space and time part of what is included in physicalism even though not material.
In any case, I take mathematics to be something that is neither material nor physical. Yet mathematics students seem to think that their teacher is measuring their mathematics when assigning a grade at the end of the semester.
Neil Rickert,
Haha. Excellent.
How much do their heads weigh?