Who are you?

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:

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.

But if our minds are made up of atoms, molecules, chemical and cells, and these are governed by the laws of physics, then we should some day be able to simulate it. That's at least theoretically possible you admit?

It would probably require a processor for each neuron or something extravagant like that.

First, what this book is not: It is not "creation science"...it doesn't address evolution...or the existence of God...or existence of the human soul. In other words, it is NOT special pleading against modern science by someone with a religious agenda. What it IS rather, is a solid study of cognition, theories of artificial intelligence, and the enduring problem of the nature of human consciousness by one of the world's top physicists (a professed materialist by the way, not a religious believer), who together with Stephen Hawking developed the astrophysics of "black holes" in the '60's. What Penrose suggests here (a theory he expands on in his subsequent "Shadows of the Mind"), is that science, and specifically physics, is inadequate now, and more importantly will always be inadequate, to describe the nature of human intelligence, cognition, and consciousness--a thesis similar to the showing of Godel's 1931 Theorem that certain fundamental axioms of mathematics were incapable of proof within any mathematical system. In other words, Penrose suggests that there are elemental restrictions within science itself limiting our understanding of our own mental processes, which concomitantly limit the possibilities for development of artificial intelligence. And that obviously doesn't sit well with those for whom naturalistic science is itself a kind of "religion," as some of the dismissive reviews on this page show. My advice: just ignore them and read this book, and well as its successor, "Shadows of the Mind." It's a challenging read and not for intellectual lightweights, but it will richly reward those with the patience to make it through.

If a human being was born on earth with no other human beings, unable to learn a commonly known language, he would still learn things by trying to survive. He would learn about himself, how to hunt, fish, (etc...).

I do not exist. if you exist , you are a slave to HOST BELIEF.

That is a guess, and also an empirically testable claim, and I think you would find it extremely difficult to find any evidence for it.

Artificial intelligence was created by actual intelligence. Whether God put us on this earth, or we evolved some other way: we, as homosapiens, have increased our intelligence simply through interaction and experience.

If a human being was born on earth with no other human beings, unable to learn a commonly known language, he would still learn things by trying to survive. He would learn about himself, how to hunt, fish, (etc...).

Now, put artificial intelligence on the earth with no other humans around. If you want, even put more artificial intelligence on the earth. They'll still only do what they were commanded to do, by humans.

I think; computers compute.

I do not exist. if you exist , you are a slave to HOST BELIEF.

I do not exist. I am not human.

You exist.



You are human. :thats-enough:

You exist.



You are human. :thats-enough:

We are on one level the vigor we can put into what we prefer to do, on another level, we are how we distribute our vigor into every aspect of our lives. Once we balance our lives to keep enough vigor in the right places, we become what we seek to be through a process of doing, and or planning. Those who can't achieve that become what they can't help but be.
A 'Person' is some one to learn about, and learn from
'Human Beings' are the aspects we all have in common and represents more of a unity between us, than 'person' that has a sense of individuality.
An 'Individual' is an embodiment of the habits resulting from his weaknesses first, and once those weaknesses are corrected, or dealt with in a constructive way an 'Individual' is then the embodiment of their desired intention.

I don't think that's as precise as it could be. Any suggestions?

If I'm inhuman, then what am I?

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?

Could you even imagine thinking without language? Many of our thought can only exist because of the words which we use to describe them, and language is only possible through social interaction with other people.

There have been studies done on the phenomena of children raised in isolation. Even animals raised without social interaction do not develop skills needed to survive under normal circumstances.

History Module: The Devastating Effects of Isolation on Social Behaviour

If you wish to call computers intelligence artificial, than I would argue it really isn't intelligence at all, but if it is intelligence, I don't see how it is artificial simply because it is learned. Our intelligence is just as learned and programmed through social interactions with others.

(Sorry, I overlooked this post.)

1) It was a "what if" question: but if you'd like, I'll change the year to 2010.

2) What the heck does the 1800's have to do with 2010? To put it simply, the world as you know it would be changed completely if the 1800's were not the way they were. But again, thanks for not adressing the actual point of the post.

---------- Post added 03-18-2010 at 06:12 PM ----------



Here's a difference. We can choose to listen and learn. Computers do not choose. We choose what they learn, for them.

Can we though?

Did you choose to learn language, or did it envelop your mind when you were young without your control? Even today, do you feel you have control over what knowledge is presented to you to learn? I truly don't, none of my knowledge was created solely by my brain. People learn through an active engagement with the world, and really no other way. Even a priori knowledge can only become known through language.

Sure we can decide what seems right or wrong, but is it only our choice, or is the choice made due to reasons given to us by other people?

Of course computers today do not have the ability to learn empirically, but should robots ever be able to sense the world and perceive it in a way we do, then I could see them displaying personhood to some degree. Which would of course be devastating to most at first, but is conceivable.