User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 28

  1. #11
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Because we made computers to do work that specific individuals couldn't (excepting the infamous human calculators that can beat computers at their own game of computation speed). We built them on principles of logic, which we attempt to use as they do but ultimately stand no match against the utterly unbiased, objective logic utilized by computers. We poured the logical side of our minds into the creation of computers much like we poured the emotional side of our minds into art. Ultimately however, the emotional portion of our minds is inherently systematic with the fluctuations of chemicals in our brain, much like the computers' reasoning. This would suggest that we are computers, or more likely, computers are human. (Assuming there are no constructs such as the soul or any other religious affects)
    That is incorrect, because the logical side of the human differs fundamentally from that of a computer. Yes, in a sense, logic is logic. But a computer's form of logic is binary-based, it is an invention of the human mind but it doesn't reflect the operation of a human mind.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #12
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    That is incorrect, because the logical side of the human differs fundamentally from that of a computer. Yes, in a sense, logic is logic. But a computer's form of logic is binary-based, it is an invention of the human mind but it doesn't reflect the operation of a human mind.
    I yield then. Apologies for my incorrect assumption.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I yield then. Apologies for my incorrect assumption.
    So when or how can a binary-based computer ever be considered intelligent?

    When is it possible to distinguish between something that appears to be intelligent and that which really is intelligent?

    If its intellect is binary-based, then won't it always be artificial 'intelligence', that is, "intellect" only mimicking human intelligence (although without the admixture of emotions and moral valuations)?

    Isn't the attempt to see computers as intelligent just anthropomorphizing them, as when theists anthropomorphize God as having a human form of intellect only with infinitely greater capacity?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #14
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    So when or how can a binary-based computer ever be considered intelligent?

    When is it possible to distinguish between something that appears to be intelligent and that which really is intelligent?

    If its intellect is binary-based, then won't it always be artificial 'intelligence', that is, "intellect" only mimicking human intelligence (although without the admixture of emotions and moral valuations)?

    Isn't the attempt to see computers as intelligent just anthropomorphizing them, as when theists anthropomorphize God as having a human form of intellect only with infinitely greater capacity?
    We don't have any evidence to discredit the claim that intelligence is only limited to that of the human nature, but nor do we have any evidence that suggests that intelligence isn't indicative of only the human-kind.

    Would it be possible to manufacture a human brain in a computer without the usage of binary-based computing? I'm no expert in computer sciences.

    It would be us attempting to humanize the intellect of computers, though we would have no true perspective as to whether or not the computer is actually intelligent simply because we only view intelligence through our own experience of it within ourselves.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    We don't have any evidence to discredit the claim that intelligence is only limited to that of the human nature, but nor do we have any evidence that suggests that intelligence isn't indicative of only the human-kind.

    Would it be possible to manufacture a human brain in a computer without the usage of binary-based computing? I'm no expert in computer sciences.

    It would be us attempting to humanize the intellect of computers, though we would have no true perspective as to whether or not the computer is actually intelligent simply because we only view intelligence through our own experience of it within ourselves.
    It's like saying, "I've anthropomorphized it to such an extent that I can consider it to be intelligent." Like pointing out that a computer can drive a car, because it's programming and sensory input tell it when there's an obstacle in the way. Then, if you do this enough times with enough examples of various "intelligent" computers, one finally decides that, yes, this is real intelligence.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #16
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    @Mal12345

    So when or how can a binary-based computer ever be considered intelligent?
    When is it possible to distinguish between something that appears to be intelligent and that which really is intelligent?


    The generally agreed on test for this is the Turing Test.

    The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. In the original illustrative example, a human judge engages in natural language conversations with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.
    The fact of the matter is that it's still a very open philosophical question that from a subjective conscious being's point of view that any other being has consciousness. So indistinguishability has to be a 'good enough' test.


    If its intellect is binary-based, then won't it always be artificial 'intelligence', that is, "intellect" only mimicking human intelligence (although without the admixture of emotions and moral valuations)?

    Concerning mimicry, see above about indistinguishability. As far as the possibility of computers being able to have intelligence and consciousness, the theory is based that everything in existence follows rules and is mathematically predictable. In other words, everything is representable by an equation, including us. Anything which can manipulate mathematical symbols has the ability to emulate those patterns, including consciousness and intelligence.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    @Mal12345

    So when or how can a binary-based computer ever be considered intelligent?
    When is it possible to distinguish between something that appears to be intelligent and that which really is intelligent?


    The generally agreed on test for this is the Turing Test.



    The fact of the matter is that it's still a very open philosophical question that from a subjective conscious being's point of view that any other being has consciousness. So indistinguishability has to be a 'good enough' test.


    If its intellect is binary-based, then won't it always be artificial 'intelligence', that is, "intellect" only mimicking human intelligence (although without the admixture of emotions and moral valuations)?

    Concerning mimicry, see above about indistinguishability. As far as the possibility of computers being able to have intelligence and consciousness, the theory is based that everything in existence follows rules and is mathematically predictable. In other words, everything is representable by an equation, including us. Anything which can manipulate mathematical symbols has the ability to emulate those patterns, including consciousness and intelligence.
    The Turing test begs the question of what intelligence is. Google brings up this definition of 'intelligence': "1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." However necessary those two parameters are, they are not sufficient to define intelligence because it leaves out the important factor of *what* is acquiring and applying the skills. If it turns out the anything (not just a mind) can have knowledge, skills, and human-like intelligence, then by that definition such capacities can also belong to machines. Furthermore, as alea pointed out, machines can then be considered persons and granted the same rights as humans.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #18
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    The Turing test begs the question of what intelligence is. Google brings up this definition of 'intelligence': "1. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." However necessary those two parameters are, they are not sufficient to define intelligence because it leaves out the important factor of *what* is acquiring and applying the skills. If it turns out the anything (not just a mind) can have knowledge, skills, and human-like intelligence, then by that definition such capacities can also belong to machines. Furthermore, as alea pointed out, machines can then be considered persons and granted the same rights as humans.
    What I posted does not contest that. I was just answering your questions with the current scientific views on such things.

    As far as the factor of *what* is acquiring, that's entirely a political and cultural issue if such a situation became important.

  9. #19
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    So, basically neural nets on chips? Not a bad idea.

    And, yeah, one of the most used standards for machine intelligence is "good enough to replicate a human, " which is often in turn whether or not a set of people can are handed a bunch of outputs from people and machines and not being able to discern which type of entity produced which output.

  10. #20
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,782

    Default

    Maybe we're programs http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...imulation.html and our language is like binary to the programmers and can't understand it. maybe the language in our subconscious is a code, hmm hmmmmm hm,mmmmm
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

Similar Threads

  1. If human beings still have the power to learn from example...
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:52 PM
  2. ENTJ learning from ESTP
    By LeonardoLestat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 02:25 AM
  3. Little Lesson, Big Lesson...What do you learn from your "mistakes?"
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 10:41 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