premise: man is a machine
(unstated premise): machines are in-principle duplicable.
conclusion: man is in-principle duplicable
No one has ignored your argument, we would simply like to explore the (questionable) first premise, which, rather than elaborate on, you simply repeat.
jnhofzinser wrote:premise: man is a machine
(unstated premise): machines are in-principle duplicable.
conclusion: man is in-principle duplicable
No one has ignored your argument, we would simply like to explore the (questionable) first premise, which, rather than elaborate on, you simply repeat.
You have stated my argument correctly. So, then, let's discuss the first premise. In this case, when I say that a man is a machine, I mean that man's functioning is dependent only on the mechanism of his body, and that that body contains no supernatural elements. Do you disagree?
I am willing to proceed under the "no supernatural elements" assumption, but I need to know what you really mean by "mechanism of his body".
jnhofzinser wrote:I am willing to proceed under the "no supernatural elements" assumption, but I need to know what you really mean by "mechanism of his body".
I mean that functions of a man, such as thought, are the result of the purely natural (non-magical) functioning of the body. Thoughts probably reside mostly in the brain. There is no other element besides the body - no extra supernatural ingredient. The music a CD player makes comes from the functioning of the mechanism. The thoughts a man has come from the functioning of his brain and possibly other parts of his body. This is what I mean.
Hmmm. "functioning of his brain" is acceptable. But here's the rub: we know very little about brain function, and have really primitive models of things like language, decision-making and consciousness. Once again, we are in the realm of "beyond our knowledge/intelligence/understanding" -- and it is not clever to pretend that we know more than we actually do.
The question is not whether we understand the machine, only whether it contains a supernatural component. We have a choice between two alternatives:
1. The human body including the brain is a machine that works without any benefit of the supernatural whatsoever.
2. The human body or brain is dependent on the supernatural.
Now, do you believe #1 or #2? Stop stalling.
I've already said that I am willing to proceed without reference to the supernatural. Why are you so fixated on this?
jnhofzinser wrote:premise: man is a machine
(unstated premise): machines are in-principle duplicable.
conclusion: man is in-principle duplicable
No one has ignored your argument, we would simply like to explore the (questionable) first premise, which, rather than elaborate on, you simply repeat.
If you now accept that man is a machine, and that everything he does arises out of the non-supernatural functioning of his body, then you must dispute the second premise or else admit that my conclusion is correct.
False. Proceeding without the supernatural is NOT equivalent to agreement that man is a machine. This is not as "either/or" as you pretend.
jnhofzinser wrote:False. Proceeding without the supernatural is NOT equivalent to agreement that man is a machine. This is not as "either/or" as you pretend.
So.......you believe that the human body functions without the benefit of anything but non-supernatural physical laws, but that it is not a machine? What do you think a human body is, then?
Let me refer you to what I said before:
jnhofzinser wrote:But here's the rub: we know very little about brain function, and have really primitive models of things like language, decision-making and consciousness. Once again, we are in the realm of "beyond our knowledge/intelligence/understanding" -- and it is not clever to pretend that we know more than we actually do.
Btw, admitting to ignorance is not a sign of weakness -- it is more often a sign of honesty.
Definition: I define an "XYZ" as any system that produces an effect purely by means of the physical laws of nature, with no supernatural element.
premise: man is an XYZ.
premise: XYZ are in-principle duplicable.
conclusion: man is in-principle duplicable.
Brandon9000:
Your conclusion, "man is in principle duplicable', has already been determined some 100,000 years ago.
Now if you'd just stop sitting on your ears when I say that to duplicate a man, you need a man and a woman, sex and birth.
Now this little thing out of the way, there is the real question:
Is a man a machine, in the sense of a Turing machine?
Relative wrote:Brandon9000:
Your conclusion, "man is in principle duplicable', has already been determined some 100,000 years ago.
Now if you'd just stop sitting on your ears when I say that to duplicate a man, you need a man and a woman, sex and birth.
Now this little thing out of the way, there is the real question:
Is a man a machine, in the sense of a Turing machine?
I am not referring to sexual reproduction. I am asserting that a device could be constructed from off-the-shelf materals, which would duplicate any or all of the functions of the human mind.
I would normally resist your effort to change the subject, however since your reference to Turing machines demonstrates such a gross lack of familiarity with the subject, I will, in this case, respond. Since a Turing machine is defined to be one that can carry on a conversation that convinces another person, who cannot see who he is talking to, that he is talking to a human, obviously a human is a Turing machine.
Brandon9000: If any one is in 'a gross lack of familiarity' with the Turing machines, it is you. What you referred to is a so-called 'Turing test' that supposedly measures intelligence, first proposed by A. Turing. The same Alan Turing the mathematician that came up with the Turing machine abstract concept, that allowed to base theory of algorithms on.
Quote:I am asserting that a device could be constructed from off-the-shelf materals, which would duplicate any or all of the functions of the human mind.
Off-the shelf materials like milk, apples, meat, cakes, orange juice, etc. ?
I still do agree and find the process itself highly pleasurable.
relative
I acknowledge my error regarding the difference between the Turing Test and Turing machines.
Since you apparently decline to discuss whether or not a machine can be constructed that duplicates the functions of the human mind, and since that is the point I have been arguing here, I see nothing left to discuss that I care to discuss.
Brandon9000 : The point is, I wery much like to discuss the question whether or not human mind is an algorithm or not. But before any meaningful conversation can be held, we must agree and define:
- The machine : what is meant by this term?
- Can be constructed : in principle, or can we do it in some distant future, or can we do it (now)?
If by 'machine' a Turing machine is meant (or equivalently 'an algorithm', or just 'computer'), then the answer is a topic of very heated debate.
If by 'machine' we mean any physical device under known principles of physics, the answer is not much different.
If we extend the definition to include 'all physics' then we arrive to the conclusion YES because we just included the human brain and that fits description.
So the really interesting hypotheses are:
A) Human thinking is not an algorithm
B) Human thinking is not possible to model with current known physics.
There are some strong indications, just short of a solid proof, supporting the hypothesis A. Concerning hypothesis B, there are some murky waters surrounding quantum gravity, and effects of time, as well as the interpretation of quantum physics.
I personally agree with Roger Penrose and his books, and feel his arguments are valid and make the case.
There is also a side point concerning duplication: computers can be duplicated EXACTLY as do most machines. Duplication must be taken strictly here : an exact copy, indistinguishable from the original. Humans cannot be duplicated this way (even cloning is not enough; the entire contents of one's mind must be duplicated to achieve this).
Some physical properties CANNOT be duplicated, like the exact state of a quantum entangled system. It is in principle impossible to do so; duplication must necessarily mean destruction of the original. So if we humans depend on isolated entangled quantum systems, we cannot be exactly duplicated.
Relative
First of all, I am speaking only of what can be done "in principle," and am not interested, for the purposes of this discussion, about what we can do now. I am also not concerned with whether the system functionality depends only on known science. I am only concerned with whether it depends on something other than science (the non-self-aware laws of nature).
I believe that:
1. The human mind is a system which arises purely out of the functioning of the human brain and body, and depends only on physical law.
2. For systems described in item 1 above, a machine (another such system) can be built which duplicates all or any part of the functionality.
3. Therefore one could take non-living materials and construct a system which can think, is self-aware, posseses emotion, etc. It would not have to be a perfect duplicate of the human body. I am saying that if this were the goal, it would be possible, in principle, regardless of whether or not Man will ever be able to do it.
I think that your reference to quantum states and the Uncertainy Principle is something of a red herring, because I think that it wouldn't actually require that level of perfect duplication to accomplish this.
One practical note: I come to this board mostly when I am at work. I have taken to avoiding threads which I know would involve me in a lengthy debate, for the simple reason that I don't want to spend so much time here as to seriously impair my work. Therefore, if more discussion of this follows, my somewhat reduced frequency of response should not be taken as a lack of interest.
OK, now that we have elaborated a bit we can work on discussion.
Quote:I think that your reference to quantum states and the Uncertainy Principle is something of a red herring, because I think that it wouldn't actually require that level of perfect duplication to accomplish this.
Hmm, Roger Penrose and others are pointing to the microtubules, the interesting system of ultra-thin tubes that exists in any cell, and possibly containing quantum mechanically isolated systems. The role of microtubules in not known, but is being linked by some to the other unknown, the question of how general anesthetics work, possibly pointing to the consciousness itself.
Relative wrote:OK, now that we have elaborated a bit we can work on discussion.
Quote:I think that your reference to quantum states and the Uncertainy Principle is something of a red herring, because I think that it wouldn't actually require that level of perfect duplication to accomplish this.
Hmm, Roger Penrose and others are pointing to the microtubules, the interesting system of ultra-thin tubes that exists in any cell, and possibly containing quantum mechanically isolated systems. The role of microtubules in not known, but is being linked by some to the other unknown, the question of how general anesthetics work, possibly pointing to the consciousness itself.
Well let's start somewhere logical, and then proceed a step at a time. Do you accept the idea that the human mind is nothing more than a function of the human brain and body, and that there is no other supernatural element involved? I certainly do not believe that present day computers think, but I do believe that the way their processing arises out of their mechanism is the same as the way our thoughts arise out of our mechanism.
