6

Who are you?

HexHammer

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:44 am
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;138825 wrote:
I think, therefore I am.
A robot can be programmed to say the excat same thing, robots can work 24/7 where people needs rest after a couple of days on max. Robots can do the job more accurately, where humans will always have relative big diversion in their repeated effort, just look at a signature.
We have spelling errors, calculating errors ..etc.

So what do you want with your "I think, therefore I am"? ..yes it sounds good to navel gazers, but not for much more use than that.
Quinn phil

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 09:22 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;139928 wrote:
A robot can be programmed to say the excat same thing, robots can work 24/7 where people needs rest after a couple of days on max. Robots can do the job more accurately, where humans will always have relative big diversion in their repeated effort, just look at a signature.
We have spelling errors, calculating errors ..etc.

So what do you want with your "I think, therefore I am"? ..yes it sounds good to navel gazers, but not for much more use than that.

When faced with something new, will the robot adapt? Say we had a robot created in the 1800's (What if). This robot was supposed to do everything at the time. Add and subtract, multiply and divide!

Now, leave that robot alone with no humans for the next few years. How far will it go? No further then it's original commands. Commands given by humans. Who think.
HexHammer

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:27 am
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;139935 wrote:
When faced with something new, will the robot adapt? Say we had a robot created in the 1800's (What if). This robot was supposed to do everything at the time. Add and subtract, multiply and divide!

Now, leave that robot alone with no humans for the next few years. How far will it go? No further then it's original commands. Commands given by humans. Who think.

1) don't really recall any robots in the 1800's, only recall machines.

2) what the heck has the 1800's any relevance to 2010? ...nada?
pshingle

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:39 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;139952 wrote:
1) don't really recall any robots in the 1800's, only recall machines.

2) what the heck has the 1800's any relevance to 2010? ...nada?

The term "robot" is being compared to machine. The threatening thing of modern "robots" is artificial intelligence, the ability to make decisions and judgements without human command.
0 Replies

MMP2506

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 02:48 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;139935 wrote:
When faced with something new, will the robot adapt? Say we had a robot created in the 1800's (What if). This robot was supposed to do everything at the time. Add and subtract, multiply and divide!

Now, leave that robot alone with no humans for the next few years. How far will it go? No further then it's original commands. Commands given by humans. Who think.

What is the difference between artificial intelligence and just intelligence?

To me, Human Beings can be programmed much the way computers can. No Human Being can survive childhood without the molding of another Human Being, and I would argue that even Humans have to learn how to make decisions and judgments from interacting with other people.

Humans only acquire the ability to think by learning language through other people, so in a since they can only go as far as their language can take them.

I know that it is unlikely any computer is currently as advanced as the human brain, but the similarities are very striking.
jeeprs

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 04:08 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;139999 wrote:
What is the difference between artificial intelligence and just intelligence?.

One actually exists, the other is only a figment of the imagination.

Have a look at Hubert Dreyfus' critique of AI e.g. 'Why your brain is not a computer'. Puts rest to such secular fundamentalism forever.
north

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 04:24 pm
@jeeprs,
simply , me , myself and I
0 Replies

MMP2506

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:12 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;140021 wrote:
One actually exists, the other is only a figment of the imagination.

Have a look at Hubert Dreyfus' critique of AI e.g. 'Why your brain is not a computer'. Puts rest to such secular fundamentalism forever.

I agree that there's not currently a computer in the world that can accomplish what the brain can, however, it is not completely out of the question to imagine the possibility of such a computer being developed in the future. One that can feel, sense, and perceive as well as a human being.

My question is, hypothetically if such a computer existed, why would its intelligence be artificial anymore than any Human?

The imagination is a powerful thing, and has created technology which has seemed just as impossible before.
0 Replies

jeeprs

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:29 pm
@MMP2506,
I am afraid my attitudes to AI were irremediably scared by seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey at age 15.

I also think that the idea of artificial intelligence in itself is profoundly deluded. It's a religious thing I suppose. But there is probably no use me tryiing to defend that position. When Dreyfuss came out with his critique of AI in the late 1960's all the experts were outraged by it. How could a philosopher possibly understand what these clever scientists were capable of? The temerity of it. As it happens, 40 years have since passed, the mirage of AI has stayed as remote as it was in 1969 and many people are now forced to ackowledge that Dreyfus was right all along. But the hubris of materialism knows no limit, save that inconveniently imposed upon it by death.
pondfish

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:33 pm
@MMP2506,
I am what you see. I do not exist.
0 Replies

Jebediah

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:42 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;140067 wrote:
I am afraid my attitudes to AI were irremediably scared by seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey at age 15.

I also think that the idea of artificial intelligence in itself is profoundly deluded. It's a religious thing I suppose. But there is probably no use me tryiing to defend that position. When Dreyfuss came out with his critique of AI in the late 1960's all the experts were outraged by it. How could a philosopher possibly understand what these clever scientists were capable of? The temerity of it. As it happens, 40 years have since passed, the mirage of AI has stayed as remote as it was in 1969 and many people are now forced to ackowledge that Dreyfus was right all along. But the hubris of materialism knows no limit, save that inconveniently imposed upon it by death.

"AI will never exist" is an argument that you can't win though. Because our understanding of what is possible changes over time.

My impression is that the AI researchers at the time were vastly overconfident. But there are many predicted advances in science that haven't come to pass. Not because they aren't possible, but because they either aren't worthwhile (flying cars) or are much more difficult than previously imagined (AI).
0 Replies

jeeprs

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 06:57 pm
@MMP2506,
Actually I found a rather amusing quote on this topic which I had posted elsewhere but is worth copying here. It was about whether computers could be said to have common sense (which you would think would be much more modest goal than Artificial Intelligence):

Quote:
A dog knows, through whatever passes for its own sort of common sense, that it cannot leap over a house in order to reach its master. It presumably knows this as the directly given meaning of houses and leaps - a meaning it experiences all the way down into its muscles and bones. As for you and me, we know, perhaps without ever having thought about it, that a person cannot be in two places at once. We know (to extract a few examples from the literature of cognitive science) that there is no football stadium on the train to Seattle, that giraffes do not wear hats and underwear, and that a book can aid us in propping up a slide projector when the image is too low, whereas a sirloin steak probably isn't appropriate.
Steve Talbott, Nature, Logic and DNA, Antimatters Journal, Nov 2009

The brain is not a computer, and the mind is greater than the brain (there are many on this forum and others who will challenge both these statements). From what we know, the brain only ever operates in the context of a living body, and a living body only ever operates in an environment. All of these are inter-dependent and mutually define and re-inforce each other. It is a fascinating study in disciplines such as cognition, systems theory and even deep environmentalism.
0 Replies

Jebediah

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:07 pm
@MMP2506,
Yeah, but my cat thinks it has to meow to be fed even if there is food in its bowl :p

If you pick it up and put it back down again then he eats, not before.

Anyway, on computers vs brains. A brain is unlike a computer in that is very very different from any computer we have now. It is like a computer in that it doesn't contain any immaterial soul that a computer could never have.

So to answer whether a computer could be a brain, it depends on what you are trying to show.
jeeprs

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:15 pm
@MMP2506,
I am warming to the view that intelligence doesn't evolve, the capacity for intelligence evolves. Intelligence is embedded or latent within the entire cosmos and calls intelligence forth from the environment. The argument for this position is pretty deep, but it stands up very well. Everyone on this forum - I bet this includes you - assumes that intelligence evolved according to the principles outlined in On The Origin of Species. Well, I don't accept that any more. I think there is another factor behind it, but it is not the Grey Bearded Sky Father of Mythical Creationism.

But anyway I am getting carried away again here. Have a look at What Computers Can't Do - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
0 Replies

HexHammer

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:46 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;140075 wrote:
Yeah, but my cat thinks it has to meow to be fed even if there is food in its bowl :p

If you pick it up and put it back down again then he eats, not before.

Anyway, on computers vs brains. A brain is unlike a computer in that is very very different from any computer we have now. It is like a computer in that it doesn't contain any immaterial soul that a computer could never have.

So to answer whether a computer could be a brain, it depends on what you are trying to show.
I'm sure computers in 100 years (maybe much more) can hve "souls"

If a computer is defined as with externally provoding input through digital streams, then no.

But if a computer is defined as being able to achive input through our senses and we can provide output through wireing, then yes.
We already have paralyzed humans with brain implants who can activate artifical limbs through their brain implants.
It's in it infant state of technology, but I'm sure we'll get there, just that it may take some time.
0 Replies

Zetherin

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 07:59 pm
@MMP2506,
HexHammer wrote:
I'm sure computers in 100 years (maybe much more) can hve "souls"

pondfish

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:06 pm
@MMP2506,
You do not change but your body grows or dies cell by cell. your beliefs changes.

Most people here talking about your belief. The host parasite belief keep altering its look as it grows.

when you talk about yourself 99% of the time you talk on behalf of the belief you hold.

Think. Ask questions , never agree or disagree.
0 Replies

HexHammer

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:22 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;140091 wrote:

When I as a 8 y said in the classroom: "some day computers will do almost everything", then my teacher said, but computers can't think, yet 1 year later it was proven in a magazing Illustrated Sienece, that Toyota had 100% robot fabrication of their cars (but later made partially manpowerd again, since robots was very hard and timeconsuming to reprogram)

Then I claimed computers theoreticly could play with "soul", and also that was proven with a japaneese robot playing with "soul".

I don't see why computers/robots should never be able to be programmed with a personallity resembling a soul.

How do you define soul?
0 Replies

jeeprs

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:34 pm
@MMP2506,
I think there is a difference between being, as in Hiuman Being, and existing, as in things that exist.

Computers are not beings. They are able to calculsate with enormous power but not everything can be reduced to a calculation or an algorithm. Being is self-knowing and cannot reasonably be denied. ON the other hand, computers, no matter how complex, are objects, not living subjects.

Careful what you wish for.:bigsmile:
HexHammer

1
Mon 15 Mar, 2010 08:42 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;140105 wrote:
I think there is a difference between being, as in Hiuman Being, and existing, as in things that exist.

Computers are not beings. They are able to calculsate with enormous power but not everything can be reduced to a calculation or an algorithm. Being is self-knowing and cannot reasonably be denied. ON the other hand, computers, no matter how complex, are objects, not living subjects.
Being selfaware has little to do with anything, though I'm sure in 100 years we can program computers/robots to be selfaware.

I doubt you have ever encounterd a chat-bot, as of now they'r primitive, but can to a certain degree correspond to your chat. It's only about to broaden their lingual database comprehension.
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

1. Forums
2. » Who are you?
3. » Page 2