Some hypotheses are simply badly posed and will not lead to fruitful scientific investigation.
For example, it may be my hypothesis that modern computers work through the agency of evil demons. You could spend a lot of time trying discussing with me how this hypothesis could be put to the test empirically. But it may be that this is not a disagreement that scientific inquiry is likely to resolve.
So too, I think, with "intelligence" or "consciousness".
What people are actually concerned about is economic impact, and we can have a fruitful debate over economic impact without discussing "intelligence" or "consciousness".
ben_w•1h ago
Indeed.
I happen to think it is also useful to discuss "intelligence" and "consciousness", but nevertheless think these things are unconnected to the economic impact.
bwestergard•25m ago
Agreed.
jqpabc123•1h ago
Yes, God is real. Prove me wrong.
blinkbat•55m ago
ok, what definition are we going by? let's start with the fundamentals, that there is no heavenly canopy and no daddy guarding it. what else?
JohnFen•30m ago
No. That's not how it works. If you're the one making the positive claim, you're the one who has the burden of proof.
bwestergard•1h ago
For example, it may be my hypothesis that modern computers work through the agency of evil demons. You could spend a lot of time trying discussing with me how this hypothesis could be put to the test empirically. But it may be that this is not a disagreement that scientific inquiry is likely to resolve.
So too, I think, with "intelligence" or "consciousness".
What people are actually concerned about is economic impact, and we can have a fruitful debate over economic impact without discussing "intelligence" or "consciousness".
ben_w•1h ago
I happen to think it is also useful to discuss "intelligence" and "consciousness", but nevertheless think these things are unconnected to the economic impact.
bwestergard•25m ago