Can a computer have a mind or think???

Can a computer Laugh?

Will computers be limited to our familiar range of emotions, or will they have entirely new emotions which we can't even experience?

What do you get when you take the equivalent of biological evolution and apply it to a computational environment. What evolves from that?

How do we get the computer to do something, without telling it how to do something...

http://www.genetic-programming.com/gpanimatedtutorial.html

ros...; they will evolve fast!
and 1ce they are equals u will have 2 ask politely!

so, you think a computer have a mind?
To those who think that computer can have a mind!!!

what would you guys reply to the one USA' computer gig(programmist; an executive of some computer company) ...
(sorry, I cannot dig back the name of the guy(for my computer broke down, so I cannot get this adress at this time); I can only say that the guy is very influensial person in computer' developing in USA; the interview was in 'the bussiness week' magazine(i read the article on online))

before I type the question that he put in reply to the journalist I will give couple privious frases from this interview:

so, at the and of his interview he was asked whether it is possible that computer ever will have a mind;
in reply he said that we do not know the nature of the mind or its properties; the thing that we know about the mind is that it is not a physical or biological matter(we are talking about mind not a brain!!!);

moreover, we even cannot explain how a mind is 'connected' with our body; how/ or in what way it influence our body; how the immaterial matter can influence our bodies...
as a result we do not know a nature of the mind; or where it comes from;

to be able to implement or reconstruct anything, however, requires knowledge of the nature and properties of this thing;

but since we do not know them, HOW COULD WE EVER REPRODUCE MIND AND INSTALL IT INTO COMPUTERS?????????????

What do you guys think about this question????

OR YOU GUYS THINK THAT MIND WILL APPEAR BY ITSELF AT CERTAIN MOMENT, WHEN WE WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW???
I believe this case could be possible, BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! only and only if the ONE(God or nature, depends what you believe) who 'istalls' the mind to human being will install it to computers; but if it be a case then a mind does not depend on the level of intellegence; And so, computers can have a mind already!!! but if you believe that the 'pile' of mettal can have a mind then, everything has a mind;
Then what is it that we posses that defines us from machines??? what is this immaterial, unkown matter that guides our body with a brain, feeling, senses, wills etc.?????????????????????

Thomas wrote:

Ok. Heres my 2 cents.
In theory this is possible. At the moment in science we understanding more and more about how the world works and in turn how our brains work. If our brains are chemicals that react we could in theory replicate that in a program with a massive amount of variables. Also the thing about learning, there is a new type of programming that I read about called Evolutionary programing where they write a program that will try to solve a complex equation with limited functions. It will then look at the situation and produce another version of itself and give it more functions of what it "thinks" may suit the problem. For this to work it needs to have a sence of the goal and what is right. There have been programs written that can do this sort of thing on a basic level. This could be part of the very basics to learning.

Also on that note about some scientists making little bugs and only told them how to use one leg and let the work out how to move the others, I saw that program a few years ago, or a program on the same topic. It amazed me and made me wonder if they had become awear of its self and structure. I cant remember them goin on about a 216 digit number the LMAO

Olkos point about us jumping to a "Random" conclusion is a very good point but how do we know that it doesnt just appear random. It goes down to free will in the end. If we have free will we would be able to do that and come up with something free and "random" but if we dont we cant.

The thing I mentioned about evolutionary programing has a down fall though. If you run the same program twice it will have exactly the same out come. If you ran 2 univers's/dimensions identical in every single way down to every atom and the surroundings and EVERYTHING side by side would they run exactly the same. Its chaos theory.

I how ever do not believe a computer could fully copy a human. It could give the illusion that it is but I dont see how A computer can do these things.

Love, Hate, Hope and have a sence of humour. there are other things that I cant see being replicated.

Will probably post more after my tea

It would appear to my simple mind that genetic programing is getting ahead of itself. Why not think of a computer as a child. First you give it a sensory organ--the simplist is hearing. You create a program which will allow it to memorize everything it hears and a means for it to recall anything. Then you teach it the alphabet because it must have it's own language, then you teach it how to form words and then sentences( with another program) then you teach it how to speak. Then you teach it how to answer questions. Remember it will never forget anything. How am I doing? All this capability should be "on the shelf" now. Tell what I'm missing here? Then you teach it how to program itself to respond to a need. After that teach it how to reason and presto it will have a mind.

I definitely do not agree with the statement that a mind is not biological----how do they know that?

Now go on tear me up---what have I missed here?

What ever it is to become it must be able to program itself.

Hi Perception,

As I see it, the problem is that we don't yet know how to give computers desire, and without it, they can't self motivate.

Even insects have a "program" for desire (elements of survival), which we can't yet quantify. And the rules for machines are different than biology. They have no need for food other than energy, no need to reproduce, unless we give it to them, and no way (or even reason) to grow unless we create one. What would be the motivations of a machine?

If we have to learn the secret of self awareness before we can give our machines the ability, then machine intelligence may be a long way away. However, if we can identify the key factors in Evolution, and analogize them in computational systems, and then let them loose in a GigaHertz timeframe rather than a lunar timeframe, then the system itself may do again what it did for biology, only much faster.

The link I provided above leads to various samples of the actual coding techniques being worked on today.

Best Regards,

Perception,

to clain anything about reasoning we need, first of all, to define what a reasoning is:
Reasoning, according to philosophical definition(see philosophypages.com) is a guide to belief and knowledge!!!

A computer does not have a biliefs!!! If it had a biliefs then it would make a mistakes like we do! Also, a bilief presupposes an existence of experiential 'baggage' on which one partially comes to beliefs!
how could you implement beliefs into a computer???


Knowledge, which defines reasoning that we are talking about, is innate and aquired data; If computers had an aquired knowledge then they could 'renew'/reprogram themselves on their own, so they could exist on their own. However this is not a factor, right?
They also cannot have an innate knowledge for the similar reasons;

you said that when a computer gets reasoning then it will get a mind; MInd, however, is not defines only by an element/ability of reasoning;

Moreover, so you think that we can reproduce somehow a mind into computers not knowing the nature of the mind(see couple discussions above)??? How could we do that?

regards

Ros

Why do you believe that it must translate into desire---why not just tell the computer (as part of its program) that it must do certain things to please its master(US) Therefore anything that we ordered it do would generate a NEED then the computer would in turn generate a program to fullful that need. Remember at first these will all be simple tasks but would require the computer to recall from it's memory to fullful an artificially generated need after it is taught how to create it's own program. It would seem to me it is exactly like teaching a child but much faster because the computer would only need to hear something once to learn it. The human must hear it over and over and over and------------------------

I think, as with all brilliant people you guys are overcomplicating this task-----but I am often wrong and usually simplistic in my thinking.
You see I am an incurable reductionist.

Granted this will get much more complicated as you go along but then humans are very complicated right?

Remember----when you lose your memory as with the desease Alzhiemers----what happens to the mind? It doesn't exist anymore.
It's very easy to visualize the mind as something detached from the body. This is merely the smoke and mirrors created by the ego with some hokus pokus transendentalism. IMO

Thanks for listening

Hi Perception,



Because I'm focused on the question of intelligence and awareness, not complex sequences of actions. And I think there's a difference.

We can already program computers, and we could already program one to tell you a joke. But we can't program a computer to make up its own joke. Right now, computers only do what we tell them, although sometimes in complex ways. But they don't target problems and create solutions, they only execute instructions, comparisons and branches based on what we give them.

With genetic programming the goal is to allow the computer to create its own code fragments and to incorporate them into its own process. Then there needs to be some method of deleting those code accumulations which don't match their environment (survive). We don't yet understand human awareness, so we can't code for it. The best we can hope to do right now is to put in place the same (or similar) mechanisms which led to awareness in us, and to give them a computational environment to develop in.

Best Regards,

Olko

Memory is our basis for everything, it represents knowledge which will only be as correct as the information that goes in. Therefore knowledge becomes the basis for everything. A computer has almost unlimited memory---with that in mind once we teach a computer to program itself then it's just a matter of increasing the knowledge base. From there it should be a short step to teaching the computer to conceptualize. Now I believe that some human brain activities will always be beyond the capability of a computer, such as emotions and other sensory sensations.

You may not consider conceptualizing as being a mind but it is not far from it and it could be very useful.

Anything beyond that would depend on the technical ability to provide sensory devices for the computer to enlarge it's experience/knowledge base.

I'm merely trying to think "outside the box" and I'm probably way off base because I"m certainly no computer technician.

This question of "computer thought" is no different to ascribing "thought" to any other "synthetic mechanism".

All so called "problem solving abilities" require humans to define what constitutes "the problem". Reductionists who claim "mind" is merely "brain" forget that (a) we know next to nothing about the "processes involved" in the brain and (b) that it is human's who define what is meant by "physical and chemical processes" bearing in mind ( ) that such definitions have constantly changed even within the ludicrously short lifespan of "modern science".

Those who argue the other way - that mind/brain is merely a sophisticated computer might as well argue that a chid is merely a sophisticated doll !

Most would agree that what we call "thought" necessarily involves "consciousness" or "self awareness" and it is these very properties that ellude "logical analysis". (see for example David Chalmers). Unless or until we understand consciousness, "computer thought" has about as much status as "tree spirits"(with apologies to any Hopi participants :wink: ).

Fresco

I thought I said that :wink: With the exception of the remark about the "tree spirits" shame on you

ladies and gentlemen please remember it is impossible to fly!
(according to experts at the turn of the last century)
machines now fly, and they will 'think'!
perhaps someday they will even dream of flying!

BGW

Very good point----I hope it's within my lifetime.

Does a computer dream of electric sheep?

only if it can assemble the right cast, and get Ridley Scott to direct!

I like Danimals!

perception

My apologies if I have repeated anything you've said

As for Bo's analogy with "flying" - if we can define
thought like we can define flight then I would agree. But thats precisely the problem - we can't!

Consider this - can a piece of paper think ! No ? What about a piece of paper with writing on it ? ...like a computer its functions are (a) to extend our memory (b) to help us solve complicated problems (c) to disseminate "information" (d) to control our interactions by dissemination of edicts vertically and horizontally in time

......AND A PIECE OF PAPER CAN FLY !

...so long as men have eyes to see so long lives this, and this gives life to thee ...so according to Shakespeare a piece of paper can even GIVE LIFE !

Eat your hearts out computers !