First of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So it's not a sufficient criterion.
Claiming we've figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning is hopelessly naive.
There isn't, which is exactly the point: we do not yet understand the fundamentals behind reasoning.
Don’t we? We can build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
I’d say we’ve figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning.
First of all this isn't true. We cannot yet build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
But secondary to that, symbols != semantics. If I had a magical machine which could appear from the outside to be reasoning, but upon closer introspection was simply simulating reasoning, by definition it would not be reasoning. And yet that is the criterion you seem to think indicates reasoning ability. So it's not a sufficient criterion.
Claiming we've figured out the fundamentals behind reasoning is hopelessly naive.
2 replies →
> We can build something which has all the output associated with reasoning.
Sure. A photocopier fed with a maths paper.
3 replies →
This is just pure unbridled reductionism. "Show me a single atom in the human body that is 'alive'. You can't? Therefore we're all zombies...."
Reasoning is an emergent property of complex systems. Prediction is not. Thus you cannot claim reasoning drives prediction.
Why can't an emergent capability arise in service of a predictive objective?
How would it?