Induction and Deduction

[Didums]

Lots of stuff to respond to, cutting dumb things out.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

I have. In another thread. How about, instead, you research my proposition.

You're not a publishing firm -- I don't have to prove shit to you. I'm offering an idea, not appealing to your approval.

Well that's not far from idiotic. If I'm right, regardless of whether or not I've justified myself, I'm still right.

If you present yourself like an ignorant moron, I will treat you that way. Reread the post that I was responding to and see if thats the way you want to present yourself.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Are you? I'm goddamn right. Look it up if you don't believe me, but don't try to shove off a bunch of proofing responsibilities on to me. If you wanna know the truth, you'll hear what I have to say, and check to see if it's true. If it's not, then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

I told you were wrong and presented reasons why.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Did I?

You said Brain = Computer, which is wrong, so I corrected the analogy.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

Living material? Do you think the molecules in a brain have different qualities of those in a computer? It's all electrons and protons. So a brain biodegreades more quickly. That's only because there are bacteria who use the same atoms in their own life. If we had silicone based life forms, we'd have to worry about our semiconductors being eaten too.

Living material...

/sarcasm on

Do you think molecules in a rock have different qualities in those of a cat? It's all electrons and protons. So the cat biodegrades more quickly. That's only because there are bacteria who use the same atoms in their own life...

pff, life, totally overrated, nothing special comes from it, no discernable qualities...

/sarcasm off

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

And just where do you think we got our fuel from? It had to come from somewhere -- think: Womb. Womb is a factory, which fills up the battery charge.

I specifically mentioned to disregard this argument because it is irrelevant to computers, because they have no infant stage. They are either functioning or they aren't, it doesn't develop into a stage of functioning.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

That we know of currently. But actually, if you know anything about physics, you know that there is a way to restart a brain, we just haven't figured out precisely how to do it, probably because it's just really really hard/complicated.

I said, right in parenthesis, that the brain can be revived, however depending on how long it was shut-down, its not going to be the same, information has been lost.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

PCs imitate part of a brain.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Nocapszy

The brain is a computer.

No.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by dissonance

Neither could humans.

Humans are not a natural product of evolution? Humans cannot come into existence by themselves? Which of those was that a response to?

If it was the former, then you are wrong, if it was the latter, then I agree (we come into existence from our parents).

Originally Posted by dissonance

Interesting definition of unchanging you're using. Everything your computer does is a physical change in its internal system.

Who initiates the changes.

Originally Posted by dissonance

Additionally, we can program learning algorithms into computers -- they rewrite their own programming based on data and calculated trends.

Computers are quite good at mathematical processing, because thats how we intended them to be.

Originally Posted by dissonance

We could attach a camera to a computer and have it change things about its programming based on that input.

We could attach a microphone, blah blah.

You get my point (I hope).

Who attaches the camera, who programs the computer to understand how to change things based on the input.

Originally Posted by dissonance

We are computers (in the broad sense of the word -- information processing machines) with specific kinds of input systems, and specific kinds of processing algorithms.

The blatant statement "Brain = Computer" made by Noc is not accurate. Brains are more complex, computers are similar to parts of how our brain works, but not the brain as a whole.

Originally Posted by dissonance

Computers and humans need energy -- we could conceivably make a machine that extracted chemicals out of similar kinds of food, and moves around the environment seeking out those kinds of food (it would be incredibly hard, but definitely not theoretically impossible).

Yes but we would have to play God by giving it those abilities. We have the ability to seek food intrinsically. And were it to be able to metabolize, and therefore grow, and additionally if it could reproduce (or self-reproduce), it is no longer just a computer, it is life.

Originally Posted by dissonance

Plus, if you actually listened to my "everything is a deductive process" argument, you could hopefully see how even intuition could be programmed into a computer.

Bleh alot of repeating myself.. key word in your sentece: Programmed. It is Not Intrinsic.

Originally Posted by dissonance

Again, how would you argue that the brain is capable of something that a computer is literally incapable of doing? I'd like an example of a process that can not be thought of as input/output relations.

Fear, anger, joy, anxiousness, tiredness, hatred, love, greed, humility, get the picture? These are input/output relations.

Originally Posted by dissonance

Our race has been "programmed" by our surroundings. A computer is programmed by its surroundings...

Not an accurate analogy, it is too vague.

Think about Abiogenesis, Evolution, Natural selection, mutations, genetics, etc. Do these apply to computers? Simply put, a computer is not programmed from its surroundings, it is programmed from us, we are God to computers. Yet, we need no God to come into existence.

------------------------------------------------

I'm not going to be able to respond to anything from here on, too time consuming and i've got homework.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Didums

Humans are not a natural product of evolution? Humans cannot come into existence by themselves? Which of those was that a response to?

If it was the former, then you are wrong, if it was the latter, then I agree (we come into existence from our parents).

Humans cannot come into existence by themselves. And they could not have come into existence through natural selection without exactly the right ecological circumstances. In other words, the surroundings determine the traits.

Same is true of computers, their surroundings determine the traits they have.

Also, what the hell does "natural" mean?

Who initiates the changes.

Um, the system reacting with the environment determines the changes. Ditto for humans. Some of the changes happen inside the computer (analogous to internal processing in humans), some outside (noises it makes, images on the screen).

"Who" is a meaningless question in this discussion.

Computers are quite good at mathematical processing, because thats how we intended them to be.

What kind of processing isn't mathematical?

Who attaches the camera, who programs the computer to understand how to change things based on the input.

Again, "who" is a meaningless question here. The attached camera is developed because of the environment. Just like the eye developed because of the environment.

The blatant statement "Brain = Computer" made by Noc is not accurate. Brains are more complex, computers are similar to parts of how our brain works, but not the brain as a whole.

Hmm. I hope one day you take some computer science and mental modeling classes.

Yes but we would have to play God by giving it those abilities. We have the ability to seek food intrinsically. And were it to be able to metabolize, and therefore grow, and additionally if it could reproduce (or self-reproduce), it is no longer just a computer, it is life.

What does "playing God" mean? What does "intrinsically" mean? What does "life" mean?

What would stop us from creating computers that can create computers? Would those computers be fundamentally different? No. They'd just have different data. The fact that computers are information processing machines will always be true.

The brain is an information processing machine... Do you really not see this?

Why do you say computers don't grow? Their data changes in response to the environment. Same with humans. We have learning algorithms, computers have learning algorithms...

Bleh alot of repeating myself.. key word in your sentece: Programmed. It is Not Intrinsic.

Intrinsic? What does that have to do with anything?

Fear, anger, joy, anxiousness, tiredness, hatred, love, greed, humility, get the picture? These are input/output relations.

Those are labels we put on specific kinds of information processing that our consciousness does not have direct access to.

That doesn't mean those things aren't information processing...

How would something that isn't information processing interact with something that is? Doesn't make sense. Try to resolve that one for me...

Not an accurate analogy, it is too vague.

Think about Abiogenesis, Evolution, Natural selection, mutations, genetics, etc. Do these apply to computers? Simply put, a computer is not programmed from its surroundings, it is programmed from us, we are God to computers. Yet, we need no God to come into existence.

Covered all this.

I'm not going to be able to respond to anything from here on, too time consuming and i've got homework.

Too bad.

[Oleander]

About time we gained the courage to separate Darwinism from Evolution. Creationists have done Darwinism no end of good by making it synonymous with Evolution in the same way that the USSR became synonymous with Communism or Socialism when in reality they are just one version. Darwin was a man of his time with no knowledge of genetics and it is painful to hear a bigot like Richard Dawkins promote as 'Darwinist' molecular genetics that Darwin never imagined and end up sounding every much a believer in his untenable faith as any Creationist.

I believe that evolution can only really be understood as applying to whole environments, not to isolated individuals or genes. Rupert Sheldrake has some good ideas that suit modern research better than Darwin and Lamarck also explained things like cave fish losing their sight better than Darwin ever did. It probably takes a bit of all of them and there is no single 'answer'.

[Didums]

Dissonance,

My messages were clear. The use of "Who" was to emphasize that We are the computer's "environment", Humans attach the camera, a human isn't an environment, if you fail to see that it is an unjust comparison then I understand why you responded in such a way as you did. "What does "playing God" mean? What does "intrinsically" mean? What does "life" mean?" My message in using these words were also very clear.

I'm not interested in playing a game of semantics, a dictionary is a great resource.

[Evan]

How is a human not part of the environment?

The dictionary definitions of those words aren't viable in this argument. They are too subjective.

My point in asking you what they meant was that I bet you cannot provide a sensible definition for those things in the context of this discussion.

[Didums]

Originally Posted by dissonance

How is a human not part of the environment?

We are part of the environment. But we are not the environment as a whole. You talk about humans as if we are the environment to computers. Environments are composed of Biotic and Abiotic factors. The way we adapt is by the environment as a whole, biotic and abiotic. Computers 'adapt' only through the Biotic, we Arbitrarily change them (Can you see why I say we are God to computers?)

Can you now see my objection to the analogy: "Humans are to Computers as Environments are to Humans"? (I know that you didn't say that direcly but its the jist of what you were saying)

Originally Posted by dissonance

The dictionary definitions of those words aren't viable in this argument. They are too subjective.

Contexual hints are always there. If you really cannot see them I'll gladly show you Exactly what I meant, but thats like giving someone the answer without having them do the problem..

Originally Posted by dissonance

My point in asking you what they meant was that I bet you cannot provide a sensible definition for those things in the context of this discussion.

I would not have said those things if they didnt mean anything in the context, its your job to figure it out, if you can't, i'll tell you. Also, by what I said in the response the the 1st quote above, you should understand what I mean much more clearly.



Also.. I've always had difficulty conversing with INFJs, if that means anything..

[Evan]

Meh. I do have problems describing my Ni "vision". My Intuition AND Thinking are based on the internal standard, so while my views are logically sound, it's somewhat unnatural for me to translate them. Especially because I don't have the luxury of non-verbal communication (tone, gesture, etc.).

I never have any problem explaining my ideas to INTPs in real life, but I seem to be constantly misunderstood on the internet by INTPs especially.

It's funny, because I've talked about all of these ideas (the analogy program:computer::mind:brain for example) to all of my professors who all understand exactly what my viewpoint is. One of them is INTP, one ENTP, one INTJ. They always agree with me too...

Gah, these threads are so frustrating because it's taken me like 50 times the effort to get my point across (and people are still misunderstanding) than in real life.

I hope nocapszy helps me out here because he at least gets what I'm sayin... (although people WANT him to be wrong, because he doesn't care about tact, heh.)

Anyways, I'm done with this thread because I've presented my ideas in like 10 different ways and lots of people still don't get it.

[Nocap]

And in response to your last post to me: I don't have to present anything in a thorough or even respectable way. I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm here to post my ideas. The computer thing is irrefutable. Dissonance doesn't know how to present it and I don't feel any sense of responsibility to explain it, so if you really want to

know the truth, you'll look it up.

Otherwise, it's clear that you're not interested in finding out about anything -- just defending CC, or knocking down dis.

For the record, he and I aren't even the first two people to consider it, and we're not the only ones to believe it now.

In my experience, the only people who don't see how a brain is a computer are people who don't really know the fundamental workings of either.

[SillySapienne]

At the sub-atomic level, yes, essentially ALL things are the "same", made up of the same parts and driven by the same physical laws. And even though at greater levels of complexity, ALL things are still driven by the same physical laws, we must ask ourselves, what exactly it is that differentiates the biotic realm of things from the abiotic realm of things.

I am a living thing made up of nonliving parts, it is a perplexing thing to think about.

I am no cognitive-neuroscientist, but I am quite sure that a computer is a non-living thing made up of non-living parts.



It is 11:30am here, way too early for me to be up, so I am going back to shweep.

Complex adaptive system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and Nocap, YOU BETTER HAVE AS MANY OR MORE INFRACTIONS AS I, if not, that shit is just plain sexist unfairness, you fucking dick.

And... LOL



Computer = Brain

Computer = Toilet

Brain = Toilet

YAY!!!!

[Nocap]

Chick, if you're made of nonliving parts, and you are alive, where exactly does the life come in?

That is to ask, which level is the one where you become valued -- what system causes it? Where do morals and physically intrinsic values come into the equation?

If you could answer this please... you would literally cure my depression once and for all.