Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Pick some "human thing" - define that "human thing" in uncertain terms, and we can talk about potential non-human implementations, otherwise...all we have is the above - and that isn't the most reliable foundation for a conclusion...huh?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
April 22, 2015 at 4:20 pm (This post was last modified: April 22, 2015 at 4:49 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(April 22, 2015 at 3:13 pm)Alex K Wrote: @Chuck
huh? I don't understand what you mean
I think a deep intuitive perception that human mental process involves free will and spontaneous inspiration underlies the assertion that human thinking is qualitatively different from computer operation. This is the reason many people reflexively accept the contention that a gulf, too wide to bridge by merely imagination, exist between computer processes and brain processes.
But there actually seems to be not a whole lot of direct evidence of exactly how humans form thoughts. So it is difficult to assert with confidence that human thinking does indeed involve processes which are in principle qualitatively different from broader definition of computer processes. There is in fact a significant amount of avidence that subjective perception of the occurance of inspiration or free will occurs much later than brain activities which correlate to decision making. This implies such subjective perception as free will and inspiration are superficial illusions.
So the reliability of the intuitive perception of how human and computer thinking process differ in principle is weakened by this evidence.
The true difference is between us vs computers. Were not programmed we can do what ever the hell we want while we have to program a computer to do what we want.
All in all if we really had no idea of our consciousness and only lived with our instincts to hunt, migrate, reproduce, etc we would be closer to being a computer. Well evolution programmed us with these basic instincts and emotions we really cannot unprogram ourselves from it but well with emotions you just numb it. Also there is computers now that can almost pass the human brain in calculations and even more quantum computers are really getting more powerful where computers literally can out think us.
I think a deep intuitive perception that human mental process involves free will and spontaneous inspiration underlies the assertion that human thinking is qualitatively different from computer operation. This is the reason many people reflexively accept the contention that a gulf, too wide to bridge by merely imagination, exist between computer processes and brain processes.
But there actually seems to be not a whole lot of direct evidence of exactly how humans form thoughts. So it is difficult to assert with confidence that human thinking does indeed involve processes which are in principle qualitatively different broader definition of computer processes. There is in fact a significant amount of avidence that subjective perception of occurance of inspiration or free will occurs much later than brain activities which correlate to decision making. Which implies such subjective perception as free will and inspiration are superficial illusions.
So the principle intuitive perception of how human and computer thinking process differing in principle is weakened by this evidence.
Oh. Now I'm with you 100%
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
I can see the analogy, and a large portion of both processes may be very similar, but when I say that a computer will never become our brand of complexity, it isn't meant in an egotistic way. If or when we do make those advancements, I can see them happening all at once, without a trial and error phase. In other words, computers won't make the same mistakes, or have the logical flaws that we do, or suffer from the same evolutionary artifacts. The two processes have had very different beginnings and progressions, so why expect a similar outcome?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
From our DNA to our environmental exposure, social interactions and schooling, I do not see that we are "not programmed".
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
April 22, 2015 at 4:48 pm (This post was last modified: April 22, 2015 at 4:49 pm by Alex K.)
Guys, read about artificial neural networks. We are not talking about writing an algorithm that acts in some limited fixed ways here, as the colloquial use of the word "programming" would suggest.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
April 22, 2015 at 5:14 pm (This post was last modified: April 22, 2015 at 5:18 pm by bennyboy.)
(April 22, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Alex K Wrote: Guys, read about artificial neural networks. We are not talking about writing an algorithm that acts in some limited fixed ways here, as the colloquial use of the word "programming" would suggest.
This is true enough. In fact, in a complex ANN, we STILL won't know how complex ideas form. Much as with the brain (maybe more so), we will only be able to wave toward our ANN and say, "Something happened in there. . ."
@OP
My question is this. Is it safe therefore to ASSUME that something which behaves like an emotional human therefore has an actual mind and actual feelings? How do you tell the difference between an actually sentient being and one that might seem to be sentient, but really isn't? Should robots that can pass the Turing test be given human rights? Should disabling one count as murder?
