Posted: Nov 19, 2021 1:43 pm
zoon wrote:I see no reason why scientific, probabilistic predictions based on neural activity should not eventually overtake Theory of Mind predictions in accuracy.
Well, that should be considerably easier to implement once we're all wearing miracle tinfoil hats that link all our neurological activity together. You, zoon, really need to learn something about computability and the challenges of computing a solution when the running time increases exponentially in the size of the problem, such as number of units of neural activity (you have not specified what you think the computational unit is). Once you flesh out your model of how these probabilistic predictions are to be accomplished, other than by jackass hand-waving, we'll be able to say more carefully what is possible and what is not. This should be some competition for a "Theory of Mind" that is poorly specified to an even greater degree other than that "it seems to work well enough". Well enough is what you'll end up with and it's what we have now. Nobody this side of Jeff Bezos is likely to be funding tinfoil hats and Jeff seems to be savvy enough to avoid shit like this.
zoon wrote:
If I say that I know my intentions are causal because I can feel them causing my actions, then I am using Frozenworld’s “argument”. Brains can create ongoing illusions.
Nothing creates the illusion of success quite like failure does. If you want to identify success or failure, you have to specify the target before you launch the projectile.