User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 105

  1. #41
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I disagreed.
    Yes you did.

  2. #42
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I disagreed.
    if that's true, then something i stated was unclear. i agree with your posts on this thread.

  3. #43
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    We already have people who fail the Turing test, while programs pass it.
    yeah, that's why the turing test is pointless, IMO.

    the claim goes like this:
    let P = objectpassesturingtest
    let Q = objectcanthink
    P=>Q

    if P is false, the statement says nothing about Q.
    if Q is true, the statement says nothing about P.
    only if P is true does the statement say anything at all...

    edit: just reread what you said. computers pass the turing test? which ones? how many questions were they asked? what kind of questions were they asked?

    i'd guess that if a program passed the test, the questions were extremely narrow. my understanding of the test is that if an object can fool a human into believing it thinks, then it DOES think.

    seems ridiculously unlikely that i could have a half hour conversation with a computer and not notice something strange. basically impossible.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Grayscale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    istp
    Posts
    1,962

    Default

    the concept of computers was created by the human brain, so no. it would be more accurate to say that the computer is a simpler, static, electric version of the brain

  5. #45
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    True, but take one more step and all the atomic constituents are the same.



    Even if that was the case, they would still operate differently. Would you agree?
    What's different about them? I'm just curious what research you've done.

    Natural selection operates on everything, but in different ways. In humans, the most adaptable human survives. The most adaptable human can market himself to mates, survive competition, and replicate. In robots, you would see the same thing: best funding, best marketing, best design would lead to the most popular model. But in humans, the creative force is mutation and imperfect replication.
    Until we perfect genetic engineering... it's really only a matter of time -- unless the sun explodes much soon than we think.
    In robots, the creative force is human ingenuity.
    Is it so hard to believe that if there were self replicating devices that there wouldn't be mutation, and the device most fit to continue replication would do so? It's my opinion that you're faith in context is too great, and too little on the nature of the systems.
    So, the question is, does the way humans design and model thinking for AI really imitate the way people think? Or does it only model the way we think we think?
    As poignant as that sounds, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. The way we think is the way we think. We've implanted the same calculative systems as are found in conscious thought. Think about it for a second -- could we program them if we didn't think the same way they do? Could we even build them, and then construct the proper binary sequences to make the aggregations of blips on the screen convey what they do without first being intimately familiar with, not only how they do work, but also how we wanted them to work?
    we fukin won boys

  6. #46
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayscale View Post
    the concept of computers was created by the human brain, so no. it would be more accurate to say that the computer is a simpler, static, electric version of the brain
    There's nothing static about them. Well... I guess you could argue that a capacitor is static, but I really prefer not to.

    There's much greater reliance on semiconductors anyway, but it would be nothing short of fallacy to say that capacitors aren't necessary, at least for the current incarnations.

    Do you advocate the notion that because it's more simple, it works differently?
    we fukin won boys

  7. #47
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Think about it for a second -- could we program them if we didn't think the same way they do? Could we even build them, and then construct the proper binary sequences to make the aggregations of blips on the screen convey what they do without first being intimately familiar with, not only how they do work, but also how we wanted them to work?
    We can emulate the way they think and they can emulate the way we think, but the two ways are different. Even if we can both emulate the other way of thinking, humans do binary less efficiently than computers and computers do "organic thinking" less efficiently than humans. I guess at some point computers could be made to emulate "organic thinking" so well it would be impossible to tell the difference, but it'd still be an emulation unless it was done using neurobiological circuits etc (at which point they'd cease to be digital computers).

    Whether or not it matters that it's only an emulation when we can't tell the difference any more is another matter. (Seems that's the question they tried addressing in the movie AI.)
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  8. #48
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    As poignant as that sounds, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. The way we think is the way we think. We've implanted the same calculative systems as are found in conscious thought. Think about it for a second -- could we program them if we didn't think the same way they do? Could we even build them, and then construct the proper binary sequences to make the aggregations of blips on the screen convey what they do without first being intimately familiar with, not only how they do work, but also how we wanted them to work?
    Are both lines of thinking not equally bullshitting?

    True, the way we think is the way we think, however we can only program something based on our understanding of how we think. How we wanted them to work is reflective of our thinking... but it's not exactly the same as our thinking. What I'm trying to say is that we really don't know how we think, we just think. And in thinking, we believe we have some inferences of how we do that. That's all.

  9. #49
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    We can emulate the way they think and they can emulate the way we think, but the two ways are different. Even if we can both emulate the other way of thinking, humans do binary less efficiently than computers and computers do "organic thinking" less efficiently than humans.
    Er... the brain does operate on a binary electrical system... We don't consciously know of every neuron firing, or not firing, (that would require us to have a series of neurons to be aware of each neuron Ha!) but neither does a computer keep track of every bit. It all culminates into what we speak, or a computer prints text, etc.
    we fukin won boys

  10. #50
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    What's different about them? I'm just curious what research you've done.
    The following paragraph in my previous post was an attempt to explain some of those differences. In terms of research -- probably less than you have.

    As poignant as that sounds, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. The way we think is the way we think. We've implanted the same calculative systems as are found in conscious thought.
    This assumes that 1) We adequately understand how conscious thought works enough to simulate it. I disagree.
    2) That once we figure out how it works, we are in fact able to simulate it accurately. My point in my previous post speaks to this problem. Is thinking about thinking the same as thinking? You say yes, I say no. If what's being modeled is the thought process itself (in this case, deduction) then yes. But in AI, what's being copied isn't the deductive process (which is always thinking) but the results of those deductions.

    Lets say people think like x. Someone who doesn't know much about psychology might propose that people think like y. He figures that out by using x, because, well, he's thinking. But what does he use to build the AI? If he uses y, then he's off. That's thinking about thinking, and there's no guarantee that he's right. If he uses x -- which in this case would be his deductive reasoning -- then he's right. At some point, with research and testing, x and y would converge and he might actually be able to simulate human intelligence, but there's no guarantee. Thinking about thinking is not necessarily the same as thinking.

Similar Threads

  1. Is the brain the source of faith?
    By JAVO in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 05:08 AM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. How the Brain Learns
    By labyrinthine in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-28-2007, 07:08 AM
  4. What is the nicest thing a stranger has ever done for you?
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 11:42 PM
  5. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO