• 21 Posts
  • 4.8K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle






  • In short, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave imagines people who have spent their entire lives chained inside a cave, able to see only shadows projected on a wall. Because the shadows are all they have ever known, they mistake them for reality itself.

    One prisoner escapes and discovers the outside world, realizing that what everyone in the cave took to be reality was only a limited representation of it.

    The core idea is that our perspective can constrain what we think is real or knowable. We may be interpreting appearances without access to the fuller reality that produces them.





  • So thas exactly why I brought up Plato. And I think the song and lyrics do an excellent job summarizing,

    Your title asks whether we can infer intelligence. Verbatim. The answer to that is, again, yes. We do it constantly.

    You cannot directly observe my intelligence or thoughts. You observe my behavior, language, problem-solving, etc., and infer intelligence from those outputs. The same applies to a machine.

    The Chinese Room raises a different question: whether apparently intelligent behavior is sufficient to establish understanding or semantic content. That is not the same as asking whether intelligence can be inferred.

    Saying “it’s just following rules” doesn’t setkle that question either. Humans are also physical systems whose cognition is implemented through mechanisms. The existence of rules or mechanisms does not itself show that intelligence is absent.

    So becaus your question is specifically “can we infer intelligence?”, yes.

    Now, If the question is “does intelligent-looking behavior prove semantic understanding or consciousness?”, that’s a different and much harder question. But most importantly, it’s not the question you asked.



  • How is this thought experiment different from Platos allegory of the cave?

    I.e. “if someone grew up in a cubicle…”

    So the answer is, perhaps surprisingly to some, yes.

    I can directly observe my own thought processes because I am inside the system generating them. You cannot; you can only infer my intelligence from my behavior. Likewise, an intelligence instantiated inside a machine may have first-person access to its own cognition, while an outside observer can only infer intelligence from its outputs and mechanisms.


  • Nobody wants to hear it: exercise.

    Walk up a steep hill for an hour or two a day. Rate your mood every day. Watch the results form clear as day.

    I used a mood tracker for over 5 years. Every May I would hike a nearby trail every morning. Looking at 5 years of mood tracking data, I was always happier than average every May. It lasted into June. Was gone by July. Every year.

    If you push your cardio to the point where all you can think about is your next breath, it forces you to meditate. It forces presence. It trains you to break the ruminative thought cycles.

    So, again, no one wants to hear it. But exercise is by far the best solution to anxiety. Plenty of research backing this up.

    I know the article says depression. It’s a meta analysis. Anxiety is also covered in some studies analysed here.

    Edit,: literally the reason I prefaced this post was for all responses received this far. We’ve found the folks that don’t wanna hear it. I would t have opened with what I opened with I’d the rough percentage of naysayers weren’t the exact humans I am talking to.

    Get a clue. Go walk up a hill. I’m not here to argue. Write something to the folks the conducted the hundreds of studies that contributed to this meta-analysis.

    Or don’t, and continue to insist you’re special.

    It’s all you.