Top Five Questions on the Origin of Language — Answered!

Afroasiatic languages, Anthony Esolen, Arabic, Artificial Intelligence, Books, brains, Chinese, computer-based theory, creoles, Danny Hieber, Discover Magazine, Dutch, editors, English, Evolution, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, language family, languages, linguists, Lucy Tu, materialist theories, Miami, Neuroscience & Mind, oldest language, Phillip M. Carter, pidgins, Proto-Sino-Tibetan, quantum physics, Richard Futrell, Scientific American, second foreign language, software, South Florida, Spanish, Tamil, University of California Irvine, writers
We aren’t even sure which is the world’s oldest spoken language, though Hebrew, Arabic, and Chinese have impressively long histories. Source
Read More

Artificial General Intelligence: Machines vs. Organisms

Accelerating Change Conference, algorithm, An Idol for Destruction (series), Are We Spiritual Machines?, artificial general intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, brain, ChatGPT, Chinese, Chinese Room argument, computers, consciousness, COSM, Culture & Ethics, endogenous activity, George Gilder, Gottfried Leibniz, Jay Richards, John Searle, John Smart, jumbo jet, machines, Marvin Minsky, Mastery (book), Michael Denton, Monadology, Moore’s law, Neuroscience & Mind, organisms, Ray Kurzweil, Robert Greene, Stanford University, Telecosm, The Age of Intelligent Machines, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Thomas Ray, Turing Machine, Venice
It may seem that I’m picking too much on Ray Kurzweil. But he and I have been crossing paths for a long time. Source
Read More

Blind Ambition — Revisiting Searle’s Chinese Room

analytic philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, Chinese, Chinese characters, Chinese Room, Clearasil, computers, English, intelligence, Intelligent Design, intentionality, Irish Sweepstakes, John Searle, judo, MacArthur Fellowship, Neuroscience & Mind, observer, Pepsi, psychology, Roger Schank, script, Sophia Loren, The Cognitive Computer, Yale University
For the most part, computer scientists have tended to ignore Searle’s argument and the point of view that it represents. Source
Read More