You mean a sound wave? Interesting! Could be, could be. But what could cause someone to forget such a sound wave, or would you argue that they can still remember it?
Those that are in tune with this sound , Native Peoples , would .
You mean a sound wave? Interesting! Could be, could be. But what could cause someone to forget such a sound wave, or would you argue that they can still remember it?
Yes they are, look at the second board which matches the colors up by a bar.But in Nature colours are what they are , cones in our eyes are not based on an illusion .
No, look at the second board which matches the colors up by a bar.
We see the wrong color because our brain tries to compensate for the shadow and that's why we see B lighter than it is.
The same as AWhat is this " B " colour .
The same as A
W4U said,
The same as A
a specific shade of gray.river said,
Which is ?
The artist who drew it used the very same shade of gray for both A and B. It is the shadow which fools the brain into seeing a lighter shade of gray in B than in A.TheFrogger, said,
What do you mean by, "The wrong colour?" Are you implying that there is a, "correct" colour?
a specific shade of gray.
The artist who drew it used the very same shade of gray for both A and B. It is the shadow which fools the brain into seeing a lighter shade of gray in B than in A.
That is the illusion.... Note: B is not a lighter shade of gray than A! It just appears that way....
True, but it is the brain which is misinterpreting what the eye cones are transmitting, which is the same shade for A and B. This is a limitation of the brain. It is a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, programmed deep into our memory and associative cognition.But in Nature colours are what they are , cones in our eyes are not based on an illusion .
True, but it is the brain which is misinterpreting what the eye cones are transmitting, which is the same shade for A and B. This is a limitation of the brain. It is a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, programmed deep into our memory and associative cognition.
Theism makes the claim that intelligence can exist without physical objects.Anyway
Without any physical objects , ai could never exist .
Theism makes the claim that intelligence can exist without physical objects.
It just depends on what distinction you make between "divine", "natural", "human", and "artificial"
NoDo you think it will be possible for humans to build machines (computers) that will be able to perform tasks no human can understand?
Difficulty, but not that no human can understand. AI will always be mastered by humans, even if they are built to perform better than us. Their performance hinges on humans maintaining them, however. Unless we create a self-sustaining/maintaining AI system. And then, we will find ourselves in a different place. (metaphorically speaking)Will we build AI systems to for instance, learn how to compose quantum algorithms that we have difficulty understanding, at least?
I submit that the solar system itself is a quasi-intelligent self-assembled construct. It doesn't fly apart does it?Intelligence can't evolve without a physical platform on which to take hold , a planet for example .
Anil Seth says; "You don't have to be smart to feel pain, but you probably have to be alive".
I even doubr that. Todays computers are quite able to tell you the status of their efficiency and if something is "wrong".
Why should an AI not be able to learn wisdom? Is there something special about being able to anticipate future results from a current action? It is a matter of knowledge, no?Agreed , to your first statement .
Efficiency is not the fundamental problem here .
Wisdom is .
Why should an AI not be able to learn wisdom? Is there something special about being able to anticipate future results from a current action? It is a matter of knowledge, no?
Mathematics is particularly suited to calculate future implications.