jacoboram126
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't believe in reincarnation though I do believe in being raised up after death and their will be justice in the end.
Bryan said:Yes; of course.
I remind you again that Arthur C. Clarke did believe that computers are conscious, and I certainly agree with him!
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with treating depression with or without drugs...
I wasn't sure what to make of that. Surely you don't REALLY believe that the boy had no brain, do you? :laugh:
aussieavodart said:Bryan said:Yes; of course.
That strikes me as....insane! Clearly we have always have a choice to do things or not do them.
aussieavodart said:I remind you again that Arthur C. Clarke did believe that computers are conscious, and I certainly agree with him!
what argument did he make in favor of a computer being conscious. I can't possibly imagine what it could be.
aussieavodart said:It seems pretty obvious to me that consciousness indicates *some* degree of autonomy- a computer is useless without constant input.
aussieavodart said:I'm not sure what any of that has to do with treating depression with or without drugs...
I'll explain: if we are all just biological machinery then it would follow that any kind of mental disturbance is just a malfunction of these processes and can only be corrected by altering the biology(via drugs or surgery). Yes?
*But* people overcome those problems all the time without using drugs, so how can it be that everything is determined by biology?
Bryan said:aussieavodart said:It seems pretty obvious to me that consciousness indicates *some* degree of autonomy- a computer is useless without constant input.
Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?
Bryan said:aussieavodart said:Bryan said:Yes; of course.
That strikes me as....insane! Clearly we have always have a choice to do things or not do them.
Sure we do. I have no idea why you consider that (what I referred to above) as being "insane".
Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?
You must be joking. The history of treating "mental disturbances" in humans is still in its infancy, just like the problem of explaining conciousness in man and machine. Don't use any of that to try to predict what a person may need, to solve such a disturbance.
aussieavodart said:That's the thing though- it requires input. It has to be programmed. There is no true autonomy there, at least nothing that can't be predicted. A computer can't decide it doesn't like doing certain things and rebel against it's user, nor can it turn itself on or off whenever it wants. It needs constant instruction.Bryan said:Sure. So what? :dunno: Don't you think it's possible (in general) to program a computer to have the same kind of "autonomy" that a human has? A computer that has a real-time clock; direct access to the real physical world, including the Internet; direct physical access to the human beings who walk by it and talk to it, etc. etc.? Don't you think such access to the real, physical world would give it decisions to make about the things it "wants" to do?? Don't you see that if you make the same general principles true of computers that are currently true of humans, computers will BECOME the same as humans?
twenty.five said:Reincarnation is nonsense.
People know they're going to die and it scares them, so they make up stories to comfort them. And they truly believe them because they are too frightened to do anything else.
GeminiX said:twenty.five said:Reincarnation is nonsense.
People know they're going to die and it scares them, so they make up stories to comfort them. And they truly believe them because they are too frightened to do anything else.
Quote for truth
I completely understand why people need to believe in *something* after we die.
The way I look at it, I was oblivious before I was born and I'll return to that "state" when I die, in the mean time I'll do my best to be a decent person and maybe leave a legacy that will benefit others.
Bryan said:I fear we have generations of people who have grown up to think that computers are such dully predictable machines and humans have a consciousness so mysterious and ineffable, that never the twain shall meet. I laugh at the famous English physicist Roger Penrose, and the American doctor who works with him (can't recall the doctor's name at the moment) who are convinced that consciousness is so ineffable, it must involve quantum states of matter, and so they've dutifully suggested certain parts of the brain which could (supposedly) generate such quantum states! :laugh: I wish I could see a confrontation between them and Arthur C. Clarke.
GeminiX said:The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence.
aussieavodart said:GeminiX said:The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence.
How do you reduce a first person experience down to a bunch of numbers?
GeminiX said:aussieavodart said:GeminiX said:The only reason we cannot make a computer behave exactly like a human (yet) is purely because of the number crunching required to emulate a biological intelligence.
How do you reduce a first person experience down to a bunch of numbers?
There are several ways being proposed and even experimented with, personally I would use a simulation approach for the first generations and probably for quite some time; allowing the AI to exist in a virtual environment based on typical human development. The problem we face is the complexity of the models, and that even today we don't have the raw computer power to run these sorts of simulations at anywhere near real-time. Also, don't forget that it's not an apples to apples comparison.
A newborn baby up to a toddler has far less opportunities to make meaningful decisions than an adult making it ideal to start developing a complex AI.
edit - fixed grammar.
Bryan said:I fear we have generations of people who have grown up to think that computers are such dully predictable machines and humans have a consciousness so mysterious and ineffable, that never the twain shall meet. I laugh at the famous English physicist Roger Penrose, and the American doctor who works with him (can't recall the doctor's name at the moment) who are convinced that consciousness is so ineffable, it must involve quantum states of matter, and so they've dutifully suggested certain parts of the brain which could (supposedly) generate such quantum states! :laugh: I wish I could see a confrontation between them and Arthur C. Clarke.
CCS said:Humans are programmed, from birth, though we can get additional programming from our environments. Chess computer programs learn when they are defeated, and update their opening book as they go. Humans are sad under some situations and happy under others, motivating them to act certain ways, which sounds like programming to me. Yes, our programming often is flawed, but evolution weeds out the bad ones, or at least suppresses those genes via death or lack of reproduction during time periods when the genes are not as beneficial. I'm pretty convinced that I don't have free will, but rather have the illusion of free will, since I keep procrastinating and doing other stuff that a flawed program would do, but I don't accomplish what I deep down inside want to accomplish. My father does not believe in free will either, and has the same problems I do.