If it was true and math itself was enough to perform image recognition why would implementation of this or any other algorithm be necessary? Why would engineers and programmers even exist in such a world?
It feels like this a semantic issue. For instance, if you asked me if Euclid’s algorithm produces the gcd, I wouldn’t think the answer is “no, until it runs”. Mathematically, we often view functions as the set of all pairs (input,output), even when the input size is infinite. Can you clarify?
Exactly! Well done! Indeed this is a semantic issue.
So, to resolve this confusion we simply need to explicitly distinguish between potential to do something and actually doing something. Algorithm for image recognition has the potential to recognize images, but only when executed in matter, image recognition actually happens.
Likewise, we can say that some class of mathematical algorithms has the potential to be conscious. Which means that when executed these algorithms will actually be conscious.
If it was true and math itself was enough to perform image recognition why would implementation of this or any other algorithm be necessary? Why would engineers and programmers even exist in such a world?
It feels like this a semantic issue. For instance, if you asked me if Euclid’s algorithm produces the gcd, I wouldn’t think the answer is “no, until it runs”. Mathematically, we often view functions as the set of all pairs (input,output), even when the input size is infinite. Can you clarify?
Exactly! Well done! Indeed this is a semantic issue.
So, to resolve this confusion we simply need to explicitly distinguish between potential to do something and actually doing something. Algorithm for image recognition has the potential to recognize images, but only when executed in matter, image recognition actually happens.
Likewise, we can say that some class of mathematical algorithms has the potential to be conscious. Which means that when executed these algorithms will actually be conscious.