My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Lion IRC]

A rock doesnt decide to fall.
Thats the difference.
..
Furthermore, the force lifting the rock (me) acts unpredictably both in magnitude, direction and timing - unlike the force called gravity which by definition is constant.

So could a computer controlled robot "decide" to drop the rock?
Humans are nothing more than a very sophisticated electro chemical robot. We can be very predictable, we just have so many contributing factors that it is difficult to predict. Break us down to the cellular level and we are exceedingly easy to predict.

The computer controlled robot would be analogous to the lever in the rock/lever/fulcrum graphic shown earlier.

In my opinion artificial intelligence will always be just that - artificial.

[The Grand Nudger]

... A rock could fall on your lever and lift a rock...

A rock doesnt decide to fall.
Thats the difference.

Then your example had nothing to do with a rock or a lever. Try to rework it where you're proof of this mysetrious force is your equally mysterious "decision".

On the other hand, the decision to believe in a mysterious force because you are capable of deciding is hardly noteworthy......

The rock is predictably going to obey the force called gravity.

You and the rock are entirely identical with regards to natural laws like gravity. Tell me Lion, whens the last time you didn't "predictably obey" a natural law? I'd really be interested in a demonstration of that.

Now, if I decide to walk over and pick UP the rock lifting it in exactly the OPPOSITE direction then there must be a (different) force acting on that rock which is opposite to gravity.

You mean a kinetic kind of force? High-school physics, go get some.

Furthermore, the force lifting the rock (me) acts unpredictably both in magnitude, direction and timing - unlike the force called gravity which by definition is constant.

No it doesn't. I can predict that you are unable to lift a rock any further than the length of the lever, and are incapable of throwing a rock of any size further than a short distance. I can also predict the direction the rock will go by reference to the lever, even if the only lever involved is your arm. I can predict when you will do this y reference to whether or not you are present at any given time. Similarly, I can predict whether or not -you are even capable of doing either- by reference to another fun little "mysterious force". Your ability to do any of these things is similarly constant, so long as you remain a human being, and so long as levers remain levers.

Now that I'm done humoring you hammering on about rocks. Monkeys "decide". In fact, a whole hell of alot of things seem to be making decisions. Do they also have souls? Or is this "deciding" bullshit yet another fork in the road you hope will lead to your favorite conclusion, like rocks and levers?

---

The computer controlled robot would be analogous to the lever in the rock/lever/fulcrum graphic shown earlier.

Why?

In my opinion artificial intelligence will always be just that - artificial.

Your opinions are irrelevant, your evidence is the effect. Anything capable of achieving the effect, by this line of reasoning, would possess a soul. Chimps, Rocks, Fungus,Robots, ..what have you. Why should I have to mention any of this.. clearly the reasons you offered aren't the reasons for your conclusion. I'd rather hear those.

[Darkstar]

In my opinion artificial intelligence will always be just that - artificial.

At what level of complexity could artificial intelligence not be seperated from real intelligence? If there was an artificial intelligence that was as complex as a real intelligence, what would keep it from being real (other than not being organic)?

[The Grand Nudger]

His opinion, thought he made that clear? Yet another mysterious and powerful force.

[Cyberman]

Gravity is constant now? The inverse square law's been repealed? Why am I always the last to hear of these things?

[Autumnlicious]

Enough drugs have taught me that I am merely a chemical machine of the most complex assembly, depending on nanoscale interaction (brownian motion for the motions of proteins, for example) that integrates onto a grand macroscopic scale to ensure a state that would be defined as "functional".

When you look at photosynthesis in most plants, chromophores benefit from quantum mechanical effects in being excited. But then again, when you're at that scale, things are different. It is interesting to see that the largest organisms on Earth depend so tightly on the nanoscale to allow for the state of "alive".

REF: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...092932.htm

[Brunitski]

There is force which I call “soul” that can be proven to exist by scientific method.

Fair dinkum, lion; why do you do it?

While intellectually I know you will ignore this plea and spend the next 10 pages backpedaling because you cannot admit that this throw-away comment actually represents a bunch of deep seated beliefs you have, forcing you to defend the indefensible; I nonetheless ask you to concede that Rhythm had the right of it....

Now, we could just roll with it, when presented with this example..and say "Okay..yeah, it appears that monkeys also possess this mysterious force..this soul. But we can't do that can we..because we aren't trying to reach a conclusion..we already have one.

Thank you, sir.

[Brakeman]

So could a computer controlled robot "decide" to drop the rock?
Humans are nothing more than a very sophisticated electro chemical robot. We can be very predictable, we just have so many contributing factors that it is difficult to predict. Break us down to the cellular level and we are exceedingly easy to predict.

The computer controlled robot would be analogous to the lever in the rock/lever/fulcrum graphic shown earlier.

If I program a computer guided robot to sort through rocks tumbling down a small stream and to pick up and drop the rocks that weight between 600 and 650 grams, it would be deciding. I would not be deciding as I would have never seen or evaluated the rocks coming down the stream. The robot would be doing the deciding. Thus the robot would have a soul in it's kidney too. (Wonder why I said Kidney?)

[Lion IRC]

The computer controlled robot would be analogous to the lever in the rock/lever/fulcrum graphic shown earlier.

If I program a computer guided robot to sort through rocks tumbling down a small stream and to pick up and drop the rocks that weight between 600 and 650 grams, it would be deciding. I would not be deciding as I would have never seen or evaluated the rocks coming down the stream. The robot would be doing the deciding. Thus the robot would have a soul in it's kidney too. (Wonder why I said Kidney?)

Is the man ''programmed'' to lift the rock in the same predictable way as your (binary - yes/no) kidney stone -robot? A robot which has either a yes or no forced response.
Either the stone weighs between 600-650 or it doesnt. The robot can't even decide whether a 599.99 gram stone is practically OK to use. It has to obey the program to the exact decimal place.

If a computer program acts unpredictably customers complain and IT folk get blamed.

[Darkstar]

Is the man ''programmed'' to lift the rock in the same predictable way as your (binary - yes/no) kidney stone -robot? A robot which has either a yes or no forced response. Either the stone weighs between 600-650 or it doesnt. The robot can't even decide whether a 599.99 gram stone is practically OK to use. It has to obey the program to the exact decimal place.

If a computer program acts unpredictably customers complain and IT folk get blamed.

A robot is programmed for a task, not for life. If you tried to program a robot to live a complete life and somehow succeeded, would not this robot be so complicated that we could not predict what it would do next with accuracy? Also, about not being able to predict human action...there is this.