[proc0]

I think your contention that it's not real intelligence is properly described by "artificial", i.e. artificial flavors like lemon are not the same as lemon juice.

Also, and maybe more importantly, it can be argued that reasoning is a form of pattern matching. All that brains do is pattern match, they just do it in a complicated way that we have no clue about yet, and therefore all the side effects and intricacies of the brain's architecture are not seen in the relatively more simple algorithms that we have now with artificial neural networks.

That said, maybe a better term could be Algorithmic Cognitive Tools, or something similar to point out it's just extending our own intelligence, however I think most agree that eventually we will have proper AI and machines will be doing some form of reasoning whether human-like or not. I just don't think that "cognitive architectures" (another misnomer abusing biological terms) are there yet.

[effed3]

"All that brains do is pattern match, they just do it in a complicated way that we have no clue about yet"

probably brain do something way more complex than pattern match. The question can be: how much we can emulate of brain (or an true intelligent system) using only pattern match? I don't know, maybe not enough.

[mindcrime]

probably brain do something way more complex than pattern match.

I could agree with this statement if it were rephrased to begin "possibly brain do..."

I'm curious... aside from human chauvinism, do we have any particular reason to believe that it's "probable" (as opposed to merely "possible") that brains require something beyond pattern matching at the lowest level?

[effed3]

surely (or quite probably..) you can reprase with "possibly", with no change in the overall sense (to me), different point of view, possibile, probable, but same unknow.