User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 105

  1. #51
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Are both lines of thinking not equally bullshitting?
    Not really. My point is that there's no difference. Unless we can draw a line that doesn't use what materials went into the composition as its axis, the process is to be understood as the same.

    It's either different (which has yet to be explained so far in this thread) or it's the same.

    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's different? The medium?

    What I'm trying to say is that we really don't know how we think, we just think.
    Much like the electronic device you're tapping away at right now.
    we fukin won boys

  2. #52
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    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.



    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.
    True. But that would be if he were intentionally composing a thought structure based on his supposition of the human process.

    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.
    So... you're argument is that we don't have enough time to figure out how?

    Thinking about thinking is not necessarily the same as thinking.
    we fukin won boys

  3. #53
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Er... the brain does operate on a binary electrical system...
    Hm... in a way, but not really.

    Found this easy explanation on Neuroscience for Kids - Brain vs. Computer .

    "A computer uses switches that are either on or off ("binary"). In a way, neurons in the brain are either on or off by either firing an action potential or not firing an action potential. However, neurons are more than just on or off because the "excitability" of a neuron is always changing. This is because a neuron is constantly getting information from other cells through synaptic contacts. Information traveling across a synapse does NOT always result in a action potential. Rather, this information alters the chance that an action potential will be produced by raising or lowering the threshold of the neuron."
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  4. #54
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    True. But that would be if he were intentionally composing a thought structure based on his supposition of the human process.

    So... you're argument is that we don't have enough time to figure out how?
    My argument, if you can call it that, is that robots and humans do not necessarily think alike, despite our attempts to model AI after human thinking, because in order to do so we have to really copy how thinking works, not simply how we think about thinking. Didn't someone try to build an AI robot based on MBTI? Sounds like a horrible idea and a fantastic example of thinking about thinking.

  5. #55
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    My argument, if you can call it that, is that robots and humans do not necessarily think alike, despite our attempts to model AI after human thinking, because in order to do so we have to really copy how thinking works, not simply how we think about thinking. Didn't someone try to build an AI robot based on MBTI? Sounds like a horrible idea and a fantastic example of thinking about thinking.
    Who said anything about robots?

    This is not about robots or AI. It's about computers.
    we fukin won boys

  6. #56
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Hm... in a way, but not really.

    Found this easy explanation on Neuroscience for Kids - Brain vs. Computer .

    "A computer uses switches that are either on or off ("binary"). In a way, neurons in the brain are either on or off by either firing an action potential or not firing an action potential. However, neurons are more than just on or off because the "excitability" of a neuron is always changing. This is because a neuron is constantly getting information from other cells through synaptic contacts.
    Neurotransmitters... yeah I understand how the neurons 'communicate' -- if you look carefully, it's very similar to a wire, except where an electron would be passed to the next atom, we have neurotransmitters passing to the next neuron. Sometimes, it doesn't work -- if the wires were that thin in computers, we would run into a LOT of the same thing. No action potential is the same has having too much resistance in the wire, or a short circuit.
    Information traveling across a synapse does NOT always result in a action potential. Rather, this information alters the chance that an action potential will be produced by raising or lowering the threshold of the neuron."
    Again this excerpt is the same as a short circuit. The brain doesn't shut down, because it's got dozens of other connections compensating for the one that doesn't fire. A computer would because of the amazing difference in the number of viable components.

    I'll read the rest of the article though.
    we fukin won boys

  7. #57
    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
    Not really. My point is that there's no difference. Unless we can draw a line that doesn't use what materials went into the composition as its axis, the process is to be understood as the same.
    Just to let you know, I do believe a brain fits under the category of an organic "computer"... However, how we believe we think does not truly reflect what's actually going on inside our brains. That was the distinction I was making... it in no ways contradicts that the brain is an organic matrix that can compute... and can be called a computer. I was merely pointing out at inconsistencies within what you've said. The way we built computers is a reflection on how we believe our thinking ought to work. It might not mirror how our brains actually thinks. A semi-digression... do excuse me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    "A computer uses switches that are either on or off ("binary"). In a way, neurons in the brain are either on or off by either firing an action potential or not firing an action potential. However, neurons are more than just on or off because the "excitability" of a neuron is always changing. This is because a neuron is constantly getting information from other cells through synaptic contacts. Information traveling across a synapse does NOT always result in a action potential. Rather, this information alters the chance that an action potential will be produced by raising or lowering the threshold of the neuron."
    So the medium is different... We can make a computer to operate on thresholds like neurons... That's not difficult to program. We just need to make a system that is different from the normal PC to account for neural circuits but still it's doable. So besides physical and wiring differences... are there any other differences between a brain and a computer?

  8. #58
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    So the medium is different... We can make a computer to operate on thresholds like neurons... That's not difficult to program.
    Yeah. Likely we wouldn't be able to utilize everything in a human's brain, but we could start off with just a piece of neural 'fabric' -- a filet of graymatter; perhaps from a deceased rat or something, and wire it up like an integrated circuit. You'd be surprised how tiny and precisely those things are. I think it wouldn't be too difficult, given that we can get these microscopic transistors to line up, and those enormously small wires leading to the contacts, to do something similar with the brain tissue. The trouble then would be finding out just how much voltage it could handle without destroying it, and figuring out just how to program it.

    This quote in direct correlation with what I was thinking:

    We just need to make a system that is different from the normal PC to account for neural circuits but still it's doable.
    Upon deeper inspection of this idea we share, I hold that it would be a near hopeless endeavor, not because it would be impossible to analyze the routes of the neurons, but rather that every slice would be so different that we'd have hardship trying to get each one to work on the same language.

    In order to program them we'd have to be as familiar with these gray-matter micro-controllers as we are with good friends. They're all a little bit different, and thus will respond to things differently. We won't be able to get onto someone else's terminal, and run it the same way we'd run our own.

    Until we can precisely control the shape and form of the sheets (perhaps a bioengineering project here) all of this will, unfortunately, remain a dream.

    So besides physical and wiring differences... are there any other differences between a brain and a computer?
    I've been thinking about this. I think rather than using transistors and resistors, the brain uses different timing to get the different reactions.

    Comps have several different kinds of components that give different levels or electricity, or can hold it in place until it's needed among other thigns. The brain just uses one. Wires. Of course, the wires carry different types of "electricity" which makes up for its lack of diversity in the components themselves. Unless we're thinking on a larger scale, in which case, we could say that each lobe of the brain is a different component, on an unimaginable tier of complexity compared to what the real electrons are shifted back and forth between in a computer.
    we fukin won boys

  9. #59
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    This is interesting too. Off topic, but interesting.
    This too.

    I'm not sure; how many of you people are actually into computers? Or the brain?

    I hope my posts aren't too esoteric.
    we fukin won boys

  10. #60

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

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