Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Maybe, or maybe not. Maybe much of what philosophy has to say to say about what it thinks about intelligence is bull-hooky and actually holding us back. The 'understanding' we have feeds into our presumptions, so I agree in that regard.

Arguably, the tangible limits experienced in our actual models of the world based on those presumptions are reflective of the validity of those assumptions.

Clearly, in the case of modeling 'intelligence' and 'mind', they aren't that great, indicating we really don't understand the phenomena.

I've made this argument repeatedly and before on this platform, but I think the biggest mistake we've made in this field is regarding the preeminence of what we experience as 'human' intelligence and our mental models for how that 'must' work.

I'm going to catch all kinds of flack for this, but its my biased perspective that plants are just as intelligent as animal life, but because we use humans as a litmus for what intelligence must 'look' like; we have a very difficult time enumerating what intelligence a non-human organism must have. I think intelligence is reliant on two functions: complexity and connectivity. Plants (vascular) are far more highly connected than animals, and at a cellular level they are as, if not more complex then animal life in cell structure and tissue type.

We just don't acknowledge intelligence when its considerations are so distant from our own concerns. I think a revised model where modes of intelligence are attributed starting at an individually cellular model, and build into more complex modes of computational complexity would really clear a lot of this up, and get different modes of intelligence into a singular framework.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: