Comments on: Ray Kurzweil http://www.internettime.com/2006/02/ray-kurzweil/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:55:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Caddickisms http://www.internettime.com/2006/02/ray-kurzweil/comment-page-1/#comment-482 Caddickisms Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:30:26 +0000 http://internettime.com/wordpress/?p=50#comment-482 <strong>Stop everything</strong> There is a lot going on in the world these days. The pace of life is increasing at an amazing rate. The progress we are making is incredible, and there is great stuff happening every day. But progress at this rate is a double-edged sword. Yes, we ha... Stop everything

There is a lot going on in the world these days. The pace of life is increasing at an amazing rate. The progress we are making is incredible, and there is great stuff happening every day.
But progress at this rate is a double-edged sword. Yes, we ha…

]]> By: Mentifex http://www.internettime.com/2006/02/ray-kurzweil/comment-page-1/#comment-481 Mentifex Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:01:25 +0000 http://internettime.com/wordpress/?p=50#comment-481 With <a href="http://mind.sourceforge.net/mind4th.html" rel="nofollow">Mind.Forth</a>, the human brain-mind has been <a href="http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html" rel="nofollow">reverse-engineered</a>. With Mind.Forth, the human brain-mind has been reverse-engineered.

]]> By: Donald Clark http://www.internettime.com/2006/02/ray-kurzweil/comment-page-1/#comment-480 Donald Clark Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:23:43 +0000 http://internettime.com/wordpress/?p=50#comment-480 Just finished the Kurzweil book - wonderful stuff and I was swept along until page 458 when he comes up against one of the foremost philosophers of mind, John Searle (University of California). Kurzweil is on the right track here but his computational theory of mind is the book's major flaw. Unfortunately, it's also one of the the book's premises. The 'backward engineering fo the mind' will prove to be a lot more difficult than Kurzweil imagines, and even if it were possible (which it may not be) he points to rather vague methods and possible solutions - really a mere extrapolation - but from what - after 2000 years of deep thought on the philosophy and psychology of the mind, many problems remain. Curiously, the biological nature of the evolved mind may make it impossible to reach given states of knowledge. We may have evolved with intrinsic limitations to what we can know, as the necessary methods by which we could know may be beyond our ability to both create and understand. In other words, beyond certain cognitive abilities, we may noy be able to 'know' anything. The limitations of language as explored by Wittgenstein moved us more certainly towards a position of uncertainty on these matters. Just finished the Kurzweil book – wonderful stuff and I was swept along until page 458 when he comes up against one of the foremost philosophers of mind, John Searle (University of California). Kurzweil is on the right track here but his computational theory of mind is the book’s major flaw. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the the book’s premises. The ‘backward engineering fo the mind’ will prove to be a lot more difficult than Kurzweil imagines, and even if it were possible (which it may not be) he points to rather vague methods and possible solutions – really a mere extrapolation – but from what – after 2000 years of deep thought on the philosophy and psychology of the mind, many problems remain.

Curiously, the biological nature of the evolved mind may make it impossible to reach given states of knowledge. We may have evolved with intrinsic limitations to what we can know, as the necessary methods by which we could know may be beyond our ability to both create and understand. In other words, beyond certain cognitive abilities, we may noy be able to ‘know’ anything. The limitations of language as explored by Wittgenstein moved us more certainly towards a position of uncertainty on these matters.

]]>