hard physicalism is a strong stance as I, too, am a kind of hard physicalist. Excellent response, the atheist to my agnostic as it were.
However, what of inherent cognitive limitations?
yes, networked computers and whatever comes beyond that affords humans FASTER access for mimicked human reasoning processes, including what we posit and program in as alternative reasoning.
But even if it is second or third order (ai generated ai) it is still human generating ai as the cognitive limitations we have are ones we can’t see and won’t show up from the things we create as the tools carry the inhibitions of their creators.
AI Emotions are yet to go beyond whatever are paired up implicitly with reasoning.
Will a computer be jealous ?
What criteria do you use?
is it behaviorism?
do we have sufficient awareness of ourselves to cause matter to behave like us?
can we create machines that have greater generalization capabilities in a way – that we are capable of recognizing – that NO HUMAN COULD ever possibly achieve?
i’m talking about hard physical limitations ranging across our species capacity for comprehension that must carry through into our creations that we CAN’T see.
I will say that your response is an excellent hard physicalist response that can address much.
but there is an article of faith implicit here that physics can lead to chemistry,
can lead to biology, can lead to cognitive processes, can lead to human like thinking, can lead to any human’s way of thinking, can go behind any human way of thinking.
can our understanding of physics ever traverse the hierarchy like this?
if it cannot and if we can only go top down in our understanding of how certain things work, rather than from physics up, and if we program in those top down limitations into our artificial cognitive systems, then they do not have a hard physicalist basis ontologically, as we have cheated.
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]