Are Human's ideas a program that is very complicated?

Human knowledge (and nonsense) is already programs plus data files. Not organized for easy access or quality evaluation, but then neither are most people's brains. I think www.wikipedia.org has made a good start on organization. Neil

0 Replies

Alan Turing's worst nightmare: rather than computers capable of thinking like humans, a whole generation of humans have learned to think like computers. At this rate, we'll devolve, losing our self-awareness before machines achieve theirs. Razz

0 Replies

Just a quick note: Brandon9000 in Post: 717519 - writes:

Quote:

JamesMorrison wrote:
What distinguishes human beings from the lower animals is that human beings have consciousness, while the animals don't.

This quote attribution is erroneous. The quote is from oristarA's Post: 717510 .

Brandon9000 statement:

Quote:

I dispute this. To me it seems more like animals have increasing levels of consciousness as intelligence increases, but I think it's a matter of degree.

This is more in line with, not only my thinking, but actual observations in a myriad of scientific studies.

It is interesting to note that consciousness results from ever increasing numbers of neurons working in close proximity to one another. Pick any two neurons at random from a human brain and a physical / chemical examination would reveal little difference (some do exhibit a propensity to emit differing neurotransmitters, but this may be disregarded for the purpose of my argument here). Examine groups of such similar neurons and things change somewhat; specialties evolve with optic or auditory processing abilities. Drawing further back on our examination we see coordination among various groups of specialty areas in the brain. Additionally pulling back, we observe consciousness developing almost as a side effect emanating from the association of nearly identical neurons.

This seems the way of evolution: increasing complexity producing systems that manifest sums greater then their parts, so why not consciousness developing in ever increasing digital systems? I suspect human skepticism towards acceptance of this possibility has more to do with the raw materials from which the "consciousness" springs. Carbon based is OK. Silicon based intelligence may just be the future in bigotry--thinking, conscious, moral robots or just "Skin Jobs"? (Any body remember what movie that derogatory term came from?)

JM

0 Replies

Actually, human skepticism could have something to do with the fact that fifty years of research have yielded only empty promises. Have you ever read the transcripts of the Loebner Prize competition? Are you aware of the AI strategies of the creator of "A.L.I.C.E.", the recent winner? Have you ever trained a neural network or machine learning system? The only intelligence these things exhibit is the intelligence of their trainers/programmers.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Actually, human skepticism could have something to do with the fact that fifty years of research have yielded only empty promises. Have you ever read the transcripts of the Loebner Prize competition? Are you aware of the AI strategies of the creator of "A.L.I.C.E.", the recent winner? Have you ever trained a neural network or machine learning system? The only intelligence these things exhibit is the intelligence of their trainers/programmers.

What does the fact that our current computers don't think have to do with the assertion that the functions of the brain could in principle be duplicated by machines? Nothing that I can see, just as the fact that man couldn't fly in the year 1300 had no bearing on whether mechanical flight was possible.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

What does the fact that our current computers don't think have to do with the assertion that the functions of the brain could in principle be duplicated by machines? Nothing that I can see, just as the fact that man couldn't fly in the year 1300 had no bearing on whether mechanical flight was possible.

The only difference between mechanical flight and thought-duplication is that there is a necessary recursion in the systematizing of systematization. This may not be an impediment, but it might be! Perhaps you'd like to read Penrose or Bringsjord, if you'd prefer a more theoretical address to your question.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Brandon wrote:
What does the fact that our current computers don't think have to do with the assertion that the functions of the brain could in principle be duplicated by machines? Nothing that I can see, just as the fact that man couldn't fly in the year 1300 had no bearing on whether mechanical flight was possible.
The only difference between mechanical flight and thought-duplication is that there is a necessary recursion in the systematizing of systematization. This may not be an impediment, but it might be! Perhaps you'd like to read Penrose or Bringsjord, if you'd prefer a more theoretical address to your question.

Interesting attempt to obscure a flawed argument. I'm not interested in your citations. Debate the matter on your own, and make whatever points your references make that you think are relevant. My argument remains that the fact that our current computers don't think is unrelated to whether machines could in principle. Either the brain works by magic, or else it is possible in principle to build a machine to do the same thing. There is no third alternative.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Either the brain works by magic, or else it is possible in principle to build a machine to do the same thing. There is no third alternative.

Partly right. The third alternative is that it requires an intelligence greater than what humans possess in order to build a machine to do the same thing. If that is included in your in principle, fine. I suspect you overlooked it, though Cool

BTW, the argument was not flawed, and if you were interested in the topic, you should be interested in the citations Laughing

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Either the brain works by magic, or else it is possible in principle to build a machine to do the same thing. There is no third alternative.
Partly right. The third alternative is that it requires an intelligence greater than what humans possess in order to build a machine to do the same thing. If that is included in your in principle, fine. I suspect you overlooked it, though BTW, the argument was not flawed, and if you were interested in the topic, you should be interested in the citations

1. I did not overlook the fact that it might be possible but beyond our capacity, which is why I said, "in principle."
2. The argument that simply because current machines don't think, machines cannot in principle be built that can think is nonsense, i.e. flawed.
3. My personal interests or personal qualities of any sort are not relevant to the argument. What you're doing in lieu of making a logical argument is saying, "I'm right and if you don't believe me, go read these books." Make your own points.

0 Replies

2. and when did i propose or even support this flawed argument? i.e., my arguments were not flawed.
3. btw, i'm right, and whether you believe me or not, go read those books Very Happy

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

2. and when did i propose or even support this flawed argument?

Here:

jnhofzinser wrote:

...fifty years of research have yielded only empty promises. Have you ever read the transcripts of the Loebner Prize competition? Are you aware of the AI strategies of the creator of "A.L.I.C.E.", the recent winner? Have you ever trained a neural network or machine learning system? The only intelligence these things exhibit is the intelligence of their trainers/programmers.

You seem to be saying that the fact that current machines don't think is an argument concerning whether machines could think.

You also seem to be very fond of referring people to citations instead of constructing your own arguments. I guess the next time I'm losing an argument, I'll just cite a list books and articles.

0 Replies

I was responding to James:

JamesMorrison wrote:

I suspect human skepticism towards acceptance of this possibility has more to do with...

when I said: "Actually, human skepticism could have something to do with the fact that..."

jnhofzinser wrote:

...fifty years of research have yielded only empty promises.

But you say:

Brandon9000 wrote:

You seem to be saying that the fact that current machines don't think is an argument concerning whether machines could think.

What I am saying is "human skepticism might have something to do with the fact that current machines don't think" -- after all, that is what I said. Please refrain from reading nonsense into others' posts.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess the next time I'm losing an argument, I'll just cite a list books and articles.

I wasn't losing the argument, and I was very politely trying to be helpful when I said:

jnhofzinser wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to read Penrose or Bringsjord, if you'd prefer a more theoretical address to your question.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Considering the abject failure of AI, I would think that the burden of proof now resides squarely in the camp of those who think "pro" your resolution.

jnhofzinser wrote:

Actually, human skepticism could have something to do with the fact that fifty years of research have yielded only empty promises....Have you ever trained a neural network or machine learning system? The only intelligence these things exhibit is the intelligence of their trainers/programmers.

When you referred several times to the fact that current machines exhibit no intelligence, an assertion I agree with, what was your intended point? Did it bear on the possibility of self-aware machines?

You seem to agree with the idea that since the brain is a machine, it must be possible in principle to build machines that duplicate abilities of the brain, regardless of whether Man will ever be able to do so. Do you, in fact, agree with this?

0 Replies

Given that the brain is a machine (not necessarily a correct premise, btw, depending on what we mean by "machine") of course it is possible in principle to build a duplicate machine.

As "correct" as your argument is, however, it may have little or no bearing on the forum subject, which asks about a practical and not an "in principle" matter.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Given that the brain is a machine (not necessarily a correct premise, btw, depending on what we mean by "machine")....As "correct" as your argument is, however, it may have little or no bearing on the forum subject, which asks about a practical and not an "in principle" matter.

Given that the brain works only by physical laws, e.g. electronics, chemisty, etc., it must be possible in principle to build a machine from basic parts, which are not alive, that duplicates any or all of the functionality. Furthermore, it must be possible to modify a human brain to function differently, not just in the sense of modern brain surgery, but differently in basic ways (not that this would often be desirable).

Most arguments on this topic ultimately divide into the people who believe that there is something "divine" in our thoughts and self-awareness that cannot, even in principle, be duplicated with off-the-shelf parts, and the people who believe that it's all just physics and chemistry. Hence the direction and emphasis of my argument.

0 Replies

The words in books can be awe inspiring, but wrong. I prefer to read your own opinions, and why on these forums, but I will make the best of what I get. Neil

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Given that the brain works only by physical laws, e.g. electronics, chemisty, etc., it must be possible in principle to build a machine from basic parts, which are not alive, that duplicates any or all of the functionality.

This argument is very weak.

It is quite likely that duplicating all of the functionality of the brain requires "life", which, though a natural phenomenon, is very much less well understood than electronics and chemistry.

Frankly, the "divine" option, expressed in Hamlet:

Shakespeare wrote:

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! ...in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god!

or Psalm 8:

David wrote:

you have made [man] a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor...

is still a lot better model (i.e., closer to observation) than the "machine" model, expressed in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence":

Turing wrote:

Presumably the child-brain is something like a note-book as one buys it from the stationers. Rather little mechanism, and lots of blank sheets.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Given that the brain works only by physical laws, e.g. electronics, chemisty, etc., it must be possible in principle to build a machine from basic parts, which are not alive, that duplicates any or all of the functionality.
This argument is very weak.

It is quite likely that duplicating all of the functionality of the brain requires "life", which, though a natural phenomenon, is very much less well understood than electronics and chemistry.

Frankly, the "divine" option, expressed in Hamlet:

Shakespeare wrote:
What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! ...in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god!
or Psalm 8:

David wrote:
you have made [man] a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor...
is still a lot better model (i.e., closer to observation) than the "machine" model, expressed in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence":

Turing wrote:
Presumably the child-brain is something like a note-book as one buys it from the stationers. Rather little mechanism, and lots of blank sheets.

How is the idea that if a machine exists, another can be made to duplicate its functioning weak? You merely state that it is weak with no explanation at all. The fact that humans are alive is irrelevant. Either the body works by magic or by physical law, and I believe the latter explanation.

Now the truth surfaces. The basis of all your objections is that they conflict with your religious beliefs. I do not see the relevance of inserting quotations that state without proof that man is a little lower than angels, he is crowned with glory, etc. What possible relevance can these quotations have to a logical debate about whether the functioning of the brain is purely physical and can be reproduced? You simply state without backing it up that the biblical model of man and his brain is better, but the problem is that this model asserts that there is a supernatural element to the functioning, and I believe, on the contrary, that the human body works only by physical and not magical principles. Therefore, the biblical model is a priori incorrect.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The fact that humans are alive is irrelevant.

You are joking, right? Just because "life" is inconveniently beyond your feeble little physical models of nature does not mean that it is irrelevant!

Brandon9000 wrote:

Either the body works by magic or by physical law, and I believe the latter explanation.

If "magic" includes natural processes currently beyond the understanding of modern science, then "magic" it is!

Brandon9000 wrote:

The basis of all your objections is that they conflict with your religious beliefs.

False. Far less than the basis of your assertions is your religious beliefs.

If you missed it the first time, I was not quoting anything as "authority". I was merely making reference to a long-standing historical preference for the "divine" (your word) explanation of human nature over the impoverished (indeed, pathetically weak) "physical" explanation of human nature.

0 Replies

jnhofzinser wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The fact that humans are alive is irrelevant.
You are joking, right? Just because "life" is inconveniently beyond your feeble little physical models of nature does not mean that it is irrelevant!

Brandon9000 wrote:
Either the body works by magic or by physical law, and I believe the latter explanation.
If "magic" includes natural processes currently beyond the understanding of modern science, then "magic" it is!

Brandon9000 wrote:
The basis of all your objections is that they conflict with your religious beliefs.
False. Far less than the basis of your assertions is your religious beliefs.

If you missed it the first time, I was not quoting anything as "authority". I was merely making reference to a long-standing historical preference for the "divine" (your word) explanation of human nature over the impoverished (indeed, pathetically weak) "physical" explanation of human nature.

1. The fact that humans are alive is irrelevant to this discussion because either the body works by purely physical laws or else there is a supernatural element. If it works by purely physical laws, then alive or not, any effect can be duplicated.

2. It is now clear that your objections to a mechanistic view of the human mind are springing from your belief that the body is God's work, and not from logic. How can my assertions be based on my religious beliefs when I don't have any religious beliefs? I do not believe any Gods exist, but rather that the universe works by scientific principles. And please don't pick my semantics apart, because I suspect you know exactly what I mean.

3. Historical preferences are irrelevant, because historical beliefs can be wrong. Argue from the fundamental elements of the problem, not from testimony of the ancients. If you are asserting that the brain works "divinely," i.e. by magic and not physical law, then the conversation is over and I can only suggest that the Religion board would be a better forum for your "scientific theories."

0 Replies

Are Human's ideas a program that is very complicated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know