Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Not really. You could set a bank of computers to manipulating symbols all day, until those got interpreted by a human into feeling 'symbols' (aka qualia), there'd be no actual meaning in there. Cleverbot doesn't have a clue what it's talking about. Just as it has no attachment to life.
Just as a false equivalence is not a false dichotomy, the opposite of something is not nothing, it's minus something. Signal, no signal is not the full story of logical possibility. True, not true, meaningless, imaginary(paradoxical). Making Turing two sandwiches short of a picnic and a very significant paradox.
When we did not understand how humans worked we said they were machines.
You will find that as we fill in the gaps of our knowledge of humans we don't use this silly description anymore as it has become meaningless. As the empirical evidence accumulates so we invent better words for this evidence. We can't keep calling the things we discover "a machine". How would we differentiate between evidence.
You see there is no such "thing" as a machine. It is an abstraction we use to class " things".
Things are what we call them to differentiate them from other things.
These names have meanings/associations which when added up differentiate the thing from every other thing.
This is what science is supposed to do. Discover the difference between things.
So when you say what the brain does is consciousness and since the brain is a machine we can make a machine that does what a brain does. You are about as up to date as Galen. It is revealing that none of this has happened since Galen.
No, we have much more words for what the brain does by now.
Thanks for the thought that the brain is a machine it was interesting but not for long.
Thanks for the thought that any thing other than a machine was a machine.
It's wrong and it's time to move one.
You'll let me know when you discover a modern professional neuroscientists who describes what they discover as a machine.
Some of what you imply I said about you, I didn't say about you. Some of what you attribute to me I didn't say. I won't call straw man because the brain is a clumsy machine and I don't take brain farts personally.
Now, we are in semantic land regarding what is and isn't a machine. Maybe I use a broader definition of the word than you.
Please help me understand what YOU think is and is not a machine.
Which of these do YOU call machines:
- Babbage's analytical engines.
- A Turning "machine."
- A Von Neuman "machine."
- A modern digital computer.
- A finite state "machine" running on a computer (a basic building block of a neural simulation).
- The Internet and the collective of computers attached to it.
- The ribosome.
- Cellular "machinery" as individual pieces and as a collective.
- A heart.
- The brain.
- A chimp.
How and where do YOU draw the line between machine and more than machine?
(it's on topic because whether or not a conscious machine is possible affects how consciousness is explained)
One of the most important units of living cells is the ribosome. Below is a video that shows how it works. Notice they use the word "machine." Machines like it are responsible for everything happening in living cells and between cells. The brain is made of cells. The brain makes consciousness. At what point, as you pull back from microscopic cellular machinery to a conscious brain, is it no longer a machine?
Not really. You could set a bank of computers to manipulating symbols all day, until those got interpreted by a human into feeling 'symbols' (aka qualia), there'd be no actual meaning in there.
Some of what you imply I said about you, I didn't say about you. Some of what you attribute to me I didn't say. I won't call straw man because the brain is a clumsy machine and I don't take brain farts personally.
Now, we are in semantic land regarding what is and isn't a machine. Maybe I use a broader definition of the word than you.
Please help me understand what YOU think is and is not a machine.
Which of these do YOU call machines:
- Babbage's analytical engines.
- A Turning "machine."
- A Von Neuman "machine."
- A modern digital computer.
- A finite state "machine" running on a computer (a basic building block of a neural simulation).
- The Internet and the collective of computers attached to it.
- The ribosome.
- Cellular "machinery" as individual pieces and as a collective.
- A heart.
- The brain.
- A chimp.
How and where do YOU draw the line between machine and more than machine?
(it's on topic because whether or not a conscious machine is possible affects how consciousness is explained)
One of the most important units of living cells is the ribosome. Below is a video that shows how it works. Notice they use the word "machine." Machines like it are responsible for everything happening in living cells and between cells. The brain is made of cells. The brain makes consciousness. At what point, as you pull back from microscopic cellular machinery to a conscious brain, is it no longer a machine?
A universe is a machine.
A galaxy is a machine.
A solar system is a machine.
A planet is a machine.
.
.
.
.
A ribosome is a machine
A atom is a machine
.
.
.
Its a fun game, but it is not only pointless, it is scientifically useless.
Cherry picking a youtube video were a commentator uses the word machine to describe a ribosome is laughable.
She goes on to describe mRNA passing through the ribosome like "a computer tape".
Using language from one area we are familiar with to describe another area that we are not familiar with is simply a sign of the immaturity of our understanding.
It might help you as a specialist computer expert to understand biology but its simply a learning aid not the real description.
Confusing the metaphor with the real thing is infantile.
I suppose you also think the video was of an actual ribosome?
People can make mocking reference to science-fiction, but I've lived it; given the choice between a Startrek communicator and my smartphone, I know which one I'd choose. Most of the everyday technology we have now was science-fiction (or not even dreamt of) when I was at school.
Here is some other science fiction that also came true but I could have never dreamt off it happening outside of the USSR when I was at school practicing hiding under wooden benches to survive a nuclear conflagration.
I agreed with the parts that were not stricken out.....What other explanation is there
Let me see if I can explain it again in terms a FICTIVE conscious computer of the future may comprehend assuming it understands some English that is…
I quoted your post
This post contained lots of stuff
I struck out some bits that I did not agree with
I left the bits that I agreed with
I then wrote "There you go..... I agree" to explain that the bits that remained were stuff I agreed with
In other words I was agreeing with the bits in your post that were left after removing the bits I disagreed with
Therefore I was agreeing with parts of your post
Implying that I was in agreement with some things YOU said
Thus inferring that I agreed with YOU with a CAVEAT that I was not in agreement with ALL what you said
In my case I was in fact agreeing with him on most of his post and struck out the bits that I did not agree with. This apparently needed additional explanation other than saying
Well a human brain can see a way to show why there are an infinite number of primes. That may well be because a human brain does more than compute, also it intuits. Given that what the human brain is seeking to do is to map its own perceptions, and it ultimately contains a map of its own perceptions, this is not surprising. The computer does not contain a map of its own perceptions. It can only calculate from the values of our perceptions we feed into it. Then we give it an incomplete set of states to do this (0,1), which doesn't help matters.
The BBC program about AI is proving quite interesting. Especially when listening to what the people doing this research actually think. Not necessarily what we've been told here.
This is a GREAT documentary.... I think some people here need to watch it INTENTLY to perhaps learn a little humility as well as appreciation for REALITY.
To realize why the above statement is so wrong see if you can spot the difference between this sentence
Charles the First walked and talked Half an hour after his head was cut off.
and this one
Charles the First walked and talked; Half an hour after, his head was cut off.
The "atomic strings" are exactly the same yet the meaning (I hope you noticed) is utterly different.
Lest you nitpick about the punctuations being an added set of "atomic strings" think of the SPOKEN sentences where the punctuations are just representations of the INTONATIONS of speech....how can a sentence reduced to definitions of its constituent set of “atomic strings” convey the differences in NUANCES OF MEANING and INTENTIONS of the spoken language with all its intonations and stresses?
The net informational content of the dictionary is nil, since it just defines words in terms of other words. You need to know the meaning of the words before you can use a dictionary usefully.
I think anyone who is interested in this thread should watch this video with INTENSE ATTENTION to EVERY WORD and every second…. Maybe even watch it TWICE.
But if you are not able to concentrate for 59 minutes then have a look at these minutes
30:10 to 32:20
34:55 to 41:45
42:12 to 45:05 (especially 44:43-45:00)
56:55 to 57:35
BUT....ABOVE ALL.... minutes 48:50 to 50:40.....especially the sentence the scientist says at minute 50:08 to 50:10.
Finally..... I would love to see how someone can explain the fact that humming helped the presenter to finally walk the tight rope (minutes 42:12-45:05)?
Why exactly would that be the case?
Would a computer program to manipulate the actuators and read the gyroscopes and other transducers to make a robot do the same thing need to also be playing an MP3 to actually help it balance and move better?
I think this situation is a TELLTALE of how the brain works as opposed to programmed machines.
Could it perhaps be due to the positive and negative feedback loops of all the sensory input and output signals combined from within and without the brain with the attenuation, convolution, augmentation, reverberation, initiation and relaying of electrochemical signals combined with cross talk and cross sparking between various and all parts of the closely INTERTWINED and CONVOLUTED BUNDLE of matter called the brain giving rise to evermore feedback?
Finally..... I would love to see how someone can explain the reason that humming helped the presenter to finally walk the tight rope (minutes 42:12-45:05)?
Haha. I know Lila. She's fierce. She should have got him to read a book. Reading also seems to help balance - possibly because it distracts the conscious inhibitions that prevent our unconscious brain (where more thinking goes on) from making the necessary corrections.
How anyone thinks you could separate the brain (mind?) from the body and still have the same outcome truly baffles me.
Unless (until?) a machine can feel and experience the same way as a human does, there will be no machine that 'thinks' like a human. As it stands, a human can fall in love with a machine, but a machine isn't going to fall in love with a human. For the same reason, it's a far easier challenge to remove the attachment to life (own and others) in a human than to create an attachment to life in a robot (own and others).
One big flaw with the Turing test...does the success of an imitation prove it is the thing?
If a person thinks they are talking to an intelligent person, does that make the machine intelligent like a person?
If the fish thinks the bait is a fish, does that make the bait a fish?
If the Viceroy butterfly fools the predator into thinking it's a Monarch butterfly, does that make it a Viceroy butterfly? Nature is full of examples of mimics, there's no reason to assume that humans avoid such illusions. Indeed, every good magician knows they don't. If the lady looked like she was cut in half, does that mean she was cut in half?
Haha. I know Lila. She's fierce. She should have got him to read a book. Reading also seems to help balance - possibly because it distracts the conscious inhibitions that prevent our unconscious brain (where more thinking goes on) from making the necessary corrections.
How anyone thinks you could separate the brain (mind?) from the body and still have the same outcome truly baffles me.
Unless (until?) a machine can feel and experience the same way as a human does, there will be no machine that 'thinks' like a human. As it stands, a human can fall in love with a machine, but a machine isn't going to fall in love with a human. For the same reason, it's a far easier challenge to remove the attachment to life (own and others) in a human than to create an attachment to life in a robot (own and others).
One big flaw with the Turing test...does the success of an imitation prove it is the thing?
If a person thinks they are talking to an intelligent person, does that make the machine intelligent like a person?
If the fish thinks the bait is a fish, does that make the bait a fish?
If the Viceroy butterfly fools the predator into thinking it's a Monarch butterfly, does that make it a Viceroy butterfly? Nature is full of examples of mimics, there's no reason to assume that humans avoid such illusions. Indeed, every good magician knows they don't. If the lady looked like she was cut in half, does that mean she was cut in half?
Well it's clear that the ability to recognise and relate symbols without knowing the meanings attached is one aspect of what we call intelligence. But it's by far the only aspect of human intelligence.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
