 Question #001 (self) |
Saikonutta
not helpful ^^
Registration Date: 09-11-2006
Posts: 275
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
Is it me not understanding English or are my arguments not of value?
Or is the first question/statement not plausible anymore?
Am I THAT unhelpfull? 
Or am i right? 
Or don't you dare to respond? 
|
|
|
19-06-2009 10:26 |
|
|
Halph-Price 
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Saikonutta
| quote: |
Originally posted by Halph-Price
If you ask a computer a question, this defines their intelligence. If you ask a computer to describe a picture, this defines their recognition. If you ask them to summarize a book, this defines their comprehension.
None of these steps prove a consciousness. It merely defines limitations. Does limitations define consciousness? Does intelligence, recognition, or comprehension matter, for consciousness? |
Computers don't have the ability to recognize or comprehend, it just does what we program it has to do: do logics (process) with input/variables. It will never have the 'consciousness' of recognizing or comprehending.
It's just a "series of switches", applying logics with the help of embedded logics & memory very fast, nothing more...
conciousness defines limitations, intelligence, recognition and comprehension... etc
not the other way 
imo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate |
computers can be programmed to recognize or comprehend as much as we program to be able too. and that programming is based off the way our brains work. as god created man in his image, the same goes for man creating computers in his image. each logic gate used is something we use as well. logic gates were created before computers.
it still is emulating humans thinking. if we can emulate human thinking, why not human consciousness.
i just think it's an interesting example, never before has there been something as good of an example of what is it to be homo sapien.
so if conciousness = limitations, intelligence, recognition and comprehension then the reverse should be true as well? no?
__
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Halph-Price: 19-06-2009 18:10.
|
|
|
19-06-2009 18:01 |
|
|
Saikonutta
not helpful ^^
Registration Date: 09-11-2006
Posts: 275
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
|
|
21-06-2009 22:19 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Saikonutta
| quote: |
| computers can be programmed to recognize or comprehend as much as we program to be able too. |
Is that english? 
| quote: |
| ...and that programming is based off the way our brains work. as god created man in his image, the same goes for man creating computers in his image. |
-This "god" thing, sorry that's something i don't understand...
| quote: |
...
it still is emulating humans thinking. if we can emulate human thinking, why not human consciousness. |
Because "rational Thinking" or 'logic thinking" can be programmed. give me a program that gives love and i believe you.
| quote: |
i just think it's an interesting example, never before has there been something as good of an example of what is it to be homo sapien.
so if conciousness = limitations, intelligence, recognition and comprehension then the reverse should be true as well? no? |
If a goldfish is a fish, does that mean a fish is a goldfish?
|
yes it is english, like saying how much wood can a woodchuck chuck?
god is a metaphoric. it's a saying, god created man in his image. you don't understand the meaning of that metaphor?
how can we say programing to love and human love be different? love is measured by action. if a machine gives its life for you, is that not a sign of love? how do you prove love? prove love and then i'll believe you
that's illogical thinking. some fish are goldfish, this does not mean all fish are goldfish. but if all fish have gills, then anything with gills is a fish?
__
|
|
|
21-06-2009 22:29 |
|
|
Saikonutta
not helpful ^^
Registration Date: 09-11-2006
Posts: 275
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
| god is a metaphoric. it's a saying, god created man in his image. you don't understand the meaning of that metaphor? |
It's a saying maybe for creationist yeah, but not for me idd.
| quote: |
| how can we say programing to love and human love be different? love is measured by action. if a machine gives its life for you, is that not a sign of love? how do you prove love? prove love and then i'll believe you |
So you "measure" love by action? OK, but a lot of things perform "actions". that statement is at least vague. Prove love? Uh, are you a robot? I'm HUMAN. You seem to think machines 'love', so prove that to me!
| quote: |
| that's illogical thinking. some fish are goldfish, this does not mean all fish are goldfish. but if all fish have gills, then anything with gills is a fish? |
U can math do?
|
|
|
21-06-2009 22:45 |
|
|
Halph-Price
Zombie Algorithm
Registration Date: 22-12-2004
Posts: 6,160
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Saikonutta
the machine doesn't 'give' it's life for you.
come on man, how can you think like that? In an artistic way maybe, yeah, but if you want to have a rational discussion?
And first, you should prove me consiousness in machines before stating that
|
that's the question. how do you prove consciousness in anything, other then yourself? the machine is a good example. how can you prove if it's self aware, or in love, or anger.
if you have looked up any advanced AIs they will say these AI's can learn how to interact, but they will respond sometimes in a moody way. with robotics having a face that can recognize other people and remember their names and greet them, and remember stuff about them from the last time they spoke, and just converse. ... obviously not as intelligent as us, but the oddest part is moods change with the AI.
what causes moods? memories mixed with pattern recognition. if someone called you a fucker then kicks you in the nuts, next time someone say fucker the same way, you'll be weary they will attack you. the self aware part is if you catogorize it as an attack int eh nuts or a generalized assault on your self in any other way.
that's the real difference between self-aware, and just programming. the examples philosophers of old would have used would have been between instinct and reason. reason being you understanding a threat, and instinct being you understanding repetitious patterns.
but instincts don't even work this way they discovered, even with insects, like bees. they don't just build a honey comb like a machine placing blocks but can actually recognize if there is a wrong shape and fix it. it use to be thought insects were like robots are now. that they just had a bunch of responses and worked MINDLESSLY. but they have reason, even if it's just instinct.
... 
whatever.
__
|
|
|
21-06-2009 23:51 |
|
|
|
