C'jais Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel I could argue that we can't even realistically prove that WE exist as we know it. I could argue that as well, but that was something I got over years ago. Apart from playing tricks with religious people's views, it would not affect us one bit to be told we might not exist in the real sense of the word. As our sensations and thoughts would be real enough, and since they make up everything of who we are, it's useless to argue the former. We cannot prove what is reality, and on the same token we can't say a soul or something similar does/does not exist. We don't need to prove what reality is. We can say that since a soul does register in our universe (that of our senses), we should not care about it, as it is purely a concept invented in our minds. Like a god, it is a useless factor in the equation of the universe - you can remove it and still explain everything so far. I can say with authority that souls do not exist - until you successfully prove in the scientific meaning of the term (which is impossible) that they do exist, then for all intents and purposes they don't, and I don't have to care about souls one itty bit. And precisely because it is impossible to prove, it is futile to even suggest that they exist, and demand of others that they take the ridiculous notion of souls into consideration. Souls and God do not give any answers, only more needless questions. That supports my point you realize? As we are all the blind man in your analogy, how can you expect us to care about the effect of colours on our world, when the effect is accurately comparable to zero? It does not support your idea that I don't have any "right" to say souls don't exist, but it does support your idea that everything could be a Matrix'esque illusion, which I agree with. Yes, but it would still be subjective. Sure, you could interpret it the way you want, I don't have the right to say otherwise. But the people who use clear, objective standards tend to be heard the most. I will if I feel like it. So you do feel like it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathain Valtiel Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais I could argue that as well, but that was something I got over years ago. Apart from playing tricks with religious people's views, it would not affect us one bit to be told we might not exist in the real sense of the word. As our sensations and thoughts would be real enough, and since they make up everything of who we are, it's useless to argue the former. We don't need to prove what reality is. We can say that since a soul does register in our universe (that of our senses), we should not care about it, as it is purely a concept invented in our minds. Like a god, it is a useless factor in the equation of the universe - you can remove it and still explain everything so far. I can say with authority that souls do not exist - until you successfully prove in the scientific meaning of the term (which is impossible) that they do exist, then for all intents and purposes they don't, and I don't have to care about souls one itty bit. And precisely because it is impossible to prove, it is futile to even suggest that they exist, and demand of others that they take the ridiculous notion of souls into consideration. Points noted and all are in my opinion correct. It's just a bit iffy for me to say to the face of others that so and so does not exist and you cannot effectively prove it. i don't suggest you should take such things into consideration, only just say if they're brought up: "You can't prove that souls exist, so there is no point in mentioning it." As we are all the blind man in your analogy, how can you expect us to care about the effect of colours on our world, when the effect is accurately comparable to zero? It does not support your idea that I don't have any "right" to say souls don't exist, but it does support your idea that everything could be a Matrix'esque illusion, which I agree with. I'm just bringing up the possibility that it could be that souls in theory could exist, we are just blind to them. As stated above, I don't think it's correct to use an absolute in such cases where you can't prove/disprove something either way. Sure, you could interpret it the way you want, I don't have the right to say otherwise. But the people who use clear, objective standards tend to be heard the most. Just because you are heard the most does not make them right... Case in point, Rush Limbaugh. (I DO think I'm moderate Republican for the record, but that's not my point. the point is that being heard the most does not make you right.) So you do feel like it now? Not yet. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpecialForces Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 yes machines can think but a human has to tell it to. who knows maybe in a fiew years better AI will be developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Humans have intelligence. Machines can be programmed to have Artificial Intelligence. You can replace some parts of the body with other substitute materials. If the scientists manage to get an exact "blueprint" (sorry don't know the word) of our brain, would the robot not be exactly like a human being? Therefore, would it not be able to think? In my opinion, no matter HOW a thing is made, either constructed on an assembly line, or simply born, if it thinks, it's alive. Humans are, to put it crudely, a large bag of cells. Therefore the saying: " I think, therefore I am." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Machines can't think. They do not have brains. They're merely made and programmed to perform a certain function. Quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode 2: Attack of the Clones Well, if droids could think, we wouldn't be here, would we? Same logic. If machines could think, we wouldn't be here, would we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Allanon Machines can't think. They do not have brains. They're merely made and programmed to perform a certain function. Quote from Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode 2: Attack of the Clones Same logic. If machines could think, we wouldn't be here, would we? Why do you say that? Just because It was spouted from a movie? People used to say the same thing about black people? Think before you say something that you may eat your foot on. While machines may not be able to think right now, It is certainly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Computers are no nearer to 'thinking for themselves' than when they were first invented. Sure, compared to the first computers, todays PC's can process rediculous amounts of data incredibly quickly, but when you look at what the processor is doing during each clock cycle, it's doing EXACTLY the same thing that the first valve computers did - they follow a program... to the letter... Your big, fancy 3 GHz PIV is just as deviod of 'real' thought than a pocket calculator. You can argue the PC is 'smarter' if you like - I guess. It depends on what you define as being 'smart'. THe PC can perform far more calculations per second. etc. etc. ...that doesn't mean it's anywhere nearer to 'thinking' for itself than the calculator is. Because computers can now speak, move robotic limbs, dance, walk etc. etc., some of us are being fooled into thinking we've somehow made progress as to giving computers the ability to think for themselves. But in truth, we haven't advanced in this at all. Now, whether computers will ever think for themselves, well - to be honest I'm really not sure. I can imagine it, but only because I am confident that a technology 'could' eventaully be developed that I can't even concieve of at this point . I'm certain that the first step to creating a computer that can think, and therefore know that it is, (assuming it's possible) is to somehow progress from the basic building block of the bit - which can only be ON or OFF. There is talk of 'fuzzy' logic, which introduces 'randomness' into the basic bit (although it's not as simple as it might sound, because JUST randomness isn't thought - it's just gibberish!). ..the other avenue I see is combining processors & robotics with organics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 This statement comes from a fairly obvious train of thought but even if a machine could be made that was complex enough to simulate the existence of a sentient being, would it be capable of love, or the understanding of the emotional value of art. Would it weep if it lost something dear to it. Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by taoistimmortal This statement comes from a fairly obvious train of thought but even if a machine could be made that was complex enough to simulate the existence of a sentient being, would it be capable of love, or the understanding of the emotional value of art. Would it weep if it lost something dear to it. Probably not. That has nothing to do with thought, there are living people who can't understand the value of art, love, and there are people that basically never cry. Yet they are still considered thinking and alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Yes but it indicates the greater nuance of thought. And also those people are capable of those things even if they do not understand how to feel the deeper limits of life. In addition one could make the argument that the empathic nature of more sentimental minded people gives them a greater ability to think because it removes them from the cold calucalation of facts (which is all that computers are capable of). It widens perspective and lends concepts to ones mind that computers are incapable of. So the question is can computers think. Is it possible to create a program that would be complicated enough to simulate a human thought process(human thought process based on expirience and understanding). And if this was possible would the computer be considered to be thinking or simply running off of it's programs specifications. My question now is what is thought? If a computer could run independently of a human controller and challenge humanity for dominance, then I would consider that to be an A.I. capable of thought. If it possessed an understanding of it's own existence through the volitional connections of individuality then I would consider it to be capable of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 I don't think the answer lies in programmers trying to write programs which 'simulate' human thought. Sure, you can end up with something that 'looks like' thought, or 'appears' to be thought... In fact quite a few years ago, I saw a TV show about some guy who had tried to make a computer 'act' like a human. It would say hello, try and talk to you, and suddenly, it might - apparently out of the blue - ask you if you'd like to hear a poem? And if you say yes, it would proceed to (apparently) compose a brand new poem for you!!! ...the poem itself? Just a word game, based on algorithms programmed into it. ..the reason it was 'inspired' to write a poem? A certain random number triggered off that event -according to the specifications written into the program ...the bottom line is, a computer running a set program will never just stop and ponder something it sees - or it's own existence, or suddenly decide to write a poem, or invent something... To get to this stage, a computer would have to be re-writing the very program it's following itself! - or it can't be following a set program in the first place... ...and I dont' think either of these are possible with current processor technology - i.e. technology which relies on the hard, logical ON or OFF bit. ..another point to remember is that humans have human bodies - and this means - amongst other things - all kinds of hormones are flowing around. And we know that things like hormones affect the brain and therefore, our thought processes and emotions. So I agree with the idea that it would be possible for a computer to be 'sentient', and think for itself and yet not nessesarily have emotions, because to a greater or lesser degree - emotions are 'tied' to our bodies, and the particular drives and needs it has... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Just because It was spouted from a movie? People used to say the same thing about black people? If I'm not mistaken, you are implying that people USED to think 'just because they're black, they're incapable of anything'? Honestly, no. Skin colour isn't related to your intelligence. Therefore, this example is not relevant. Droids are machines in the SW world, just as computers are machines in OUR world. Therefore, if machines can think, we wouldn't be here. Do I make sense? :/ So the question is can computers think. Computers can't think, period. However, I might change my mind if people start putting brain cells into the computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Our brains are basically just extremely complex machines, far more complex than a computer. Even so, it can be considered a computer. I said it once, and I say it again, if a computer has a human brain structure, no matter if parts are made of metal or silicon or whatever, it should theoretically be able to think. And Renegade, as for that TV show thing, it is just a cleverly made dud, to.. Umm... Trick others that it does have real AI. Just make the machine ask you whether you want to hear a poem at time X, and if you say yes, it rattles off a poem based on algorithms. What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 And Renegade, as for that TV show thing, it is just a cleverly made dud, to.. Umm... Trick others that it does have real AI. ..I know I said so in my post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 if a computer has a human brain structure, no matter if parts are made of metal or silicon or whatever, it should theoretically be able to think. A computer doesn't have living cells in the 'brain'. Therefore, it can't think at all, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 the fact the a brain is made of "living cells" is not important because, we simply would have to find a way to build something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 It's an interesting concept, really. One of Asimov's novels (and blast, I of course can't remember what it was called) actually dealt with the concept of simply using a human brain at first, from people recently dead, or something like that. Then, as tech developed over the next 2 millennium, they were able to do more and better things without actual brains. But that's the thing, we don't know enough about how the brain works to be able to create AI. And then the trick is - as in Matrix - how do we learn to coexist with a new species that we created but should not be our servants or slaves? The biggest problem is that when we think of life, we think of organic. But that doesn't necessarily work. What about the technologies for replacement of body parts with mechanical substitutes that are not organic. Are those people not as fully alive because they've got metal in their heart instead of the original tissue, just so it keeps functioning? Currently, we cannot get beyond basically "if, then" programming. And, as has been noted, until we get to a point where we can create something that truly learns, adapts, and grows in intelligence, it's not AI. I'd say more, but I have to go now... I'll be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow_Nest Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 of coruse a machine can think, well.... maybe some of them cant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taoistimmortal Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk ...the bottom line is, a computer running a set program will never just stop and ponder something it sees - or it's own existence, or suddenly decide to write a poem, or invent something... To get to this stage, a computer would have to be re-writing the very program it's following itself! - or it can't be following a set program in the first place... The idea of a computer rewriting it's own program as time moves forward is exactly the thought that occured to me yesterday. As for emotions I think there your right as well. It is definately not necessary for a computer to possess emotions in order for it to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 As taoistimmortal said, I believe brains keep rewriting their own programs as they add knowledge to their database, and modify the existing information. I am sure that if we manage to create robots that rewrite their own programs as time passes, we would have created AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Bremen As taoistimmortal said, I believe brains keep rewriting their own programs as they add knowledge to their database, and modify the existing information. I am sure that if we manage to create robots that rewrite their own programs as time passes, we would have created AI. Interesting... let's just hope that we don't create robots TOO 'clever', or which have killer instincts, or we'll be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 To tell the truth, I do hope that we create such robots lol. Then it will give humans an idea of how painful it is to be hunted, like endangered animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Good. Then don't cry when they hunt you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 I'm sure I'll be long dead when they start hunting, so, no need to cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Allanon Interesting... let's just hope that we don't create robots TOO 'clever', or which have killer instincts, or we'll be dead. Are we so selfish as to deny more intellegent beings life, only because we want to live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.