So you cannot click on a link and then click on the slide bar of the video to go to the assigned minute?
Oh well.... maybe you should learn how to do that.
If you are incapable of doing that or too lazy then just do not bother and go away…..but do not blame me for not transcribing video scripts for you when you could just as easily watch the video. I am not your stenographer.
But I did do that. How else would I have been able to transcribe the sentence?
My point is that
you watched the video and had to note the time at which this sentence occurs in order to give us the location of this sentence in the video. With the exact same effort you could have easily typed out this sentence.
Did it occur to you that many people find it annoying to have to visit external links to find out what someone is referring to? To impose this annoyance on others when it would take no extra effort on your part to avoid causing it is somewhat inconsiderate.
Have you considered that I have actually posted the link to the video and must have therefore considered quite well why I was citing it.
Yes I did, and I concluded that if you you had considered it sufficiently you wouldn't have bothered making such a pointless reference.
Have you considered the CONTEXT of the citation..... if you where in fact able to READ the post and the post it was responding to and the HIGHLIGHTED bit in that
Yes, I did consider the context of the citation, but I also considered the context of your reply.
You may have grasped the CONTEXT of the whole thing and this post of yours would not have been a giant big snidely CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY.
Exactly what have I quoted out of context?
There are no examples in your post of anything a human brain could output that a computer could not,
in theory, also output.
You see the bit in the video was "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" ....... that was why I cited it.....because it was something that machines cannot do while brains can......you see you have to be able to COMPREHEND the CONTEXT of a post before you comment on it with childish superciliousness.
If we're going to talk about contextomization or quoting out of context, then it's clear that you're the one guilty of this.
Let's take Mr Scott's post:
Q: How is a computer-simulated conscious brain NOT like computer-simulated photosynthesis?
A: The brain and a conscious computer both output the same thing: control signals for the body.
Computers routinely output control signals to animal and mechanical bodies. We can do this already.
Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?
You concentrated solely on the final sentence, and completely ignored the context provided by the preceding sentences.
With the possible exception of analyzing aerial photographs, everything you referred to as examples of things the "
brain outputs that machines could not" are actually products of a
physical body under the control of a brain. In order to produce these works the only thing the
brain outputs is "
control signals" that direct the body, as Mr Scott pointed out in his post.
But you've completely ignored this context and instead posted examples of the
product of this output rather than the output itself, in clear disregard of the meaning made clear in Mr Scott's post.
I, on the other hand have accepted the new context provided by your examples and attempted to argue that these products of human creativity can theoretically also be produced by a computer.
If anyone here is guilty of "CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY", it's you.
ETA: Reading further through the thread, I see that Mr Scott already pointed this out to you, but your response to that indicates you aren't even aware of the contextual information in the post itself. So for your benefit, I've highlighted the relevant contextual information above so you can re-read the highlighted parts until you understand.
And how does that detract from the fact that it is "something else the brain outputs that machines could not"
Because it's not something that machines are not theoretically capable of outputting.
Whether it can be programmed or not is a matter of CONJECTURE since at the moment it has not been done with all the knowhow we have and with all the RESOURCES the USA military has put to it.
It's not a matter of conjecture. It's a matter of
computability theory. If the task of interpreting these images was not a
computable function it would theoretically impossible for anyone or anything to interpret them. Since humans can interpret them, then this must be a computable function, and therefore it is theoretically possible for a computer to do this.
Whether or not it would be
practical to program a computer to do this is a different question entirely. Possibly it might take an absurd amount of processing power or time (which amounts to the same thing, as double the amount of time is equivalent to double the amount of processing power), or it might require programming in vast amounts of contextual knowledge and understanding that humans unconsciously acquire in childhood.
But the fact that the USA Military is involved in this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
It is clear you do not know how to read posts...
