A.I.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, you only see what is in front of you, the biological machine.

Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1? This is a question to see how you view the
difference between a man mad ...[text shortened]... ks in it, and I add 2 more
rocks to it...does the bag know it has 5 rocks in it now?

Kelly

Yea. Because I paid her to screw your silly ass and pretend she wasn't a whore out for money. But she knows.

Snark.

You make three classical logic errors. The first is the apple and orange thingy. The second is in assuming authority... implies it transfers. The third is in attributing a liability to an enemy, without explaining it, you claim triumph through magical means.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Yea. Because I paid her to screw your silly ass and pretend she wasn't a whore out for money. But she knows.

Snark.

You make three classical logic errors. The first is the apple and orange thingy. The second is in assuming authority... implies it transfers. The third is in attributing a liability to an enemy, without explaining it, you claim triumph through magical means.

What are you talking about?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What are you talking about?
Kelly

Okay, you only see what is in front of you, the biological machine.

Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1? This is a question to see how you view the
difference between a man made computer and a person’s
understanding.

I'm not trying to trick you; I'm trying to understand your view.

Just so I know, if I have a bag with 3 rocks in it, and I add 2 more
rocks to it...does the bag know it has 5 rocks in it now?

Kelly



This I guess. You wound up all tight assed and asked if a calculator and a human were of equal capability. It just seemed absurd. How to know the difference between an invention and a man? Well, gee, kellyjay... that sure is a hard one. How bout we wind up and ask each what they think of life? That might do. Any man will answer. Any piece of "magic" plastic will just set there. Much as you hate it. Your silliness just proves you need another cup of coffee. go get it. You are not exactly making points here.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
[b]Okay, you only see what is in front of you, the biological machine.

Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding ...[text shortened]... cup of coffee. go get it. You are not exactly making points here.

[/b]I guess you have not been following the entire conversation have
you?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you have not been following the entire conversation have
you?
Kelly[/b]

Well. No. But then it is about artificial intelligence. I get a bye on this one. Right? I mean... What is artificial as opposed to svw? Don't I have a free pass into this? The thought that I don't qualify is quite humilitating. I have tried so hard. You BASTARD! SHAME ON YOU!!!

Originally posted by KellyJay
... human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1? This is a question to see how you view the
difference between a man made computer and a person’s
understanding.

I'm not trying to trick you; I'm trying to understand your view.

Just so I know, if I have a bag with 3 rocks in it, and I add 2 more
rocks to it...does the bag know it has 5 rocks in it now?

Kelly

what do you mean by human understanding 1 + 1 = 2?

computers were designed at a low level to compute simple answers and to build complex answers from these.

but at what point can you say humans are different?

mowgli, the little boy raised by wolves, may not have understood 5 + 50 = 55 (too many items to count at once). almost certainly he did not understand fourier transforms, etc., but a computer can easily compute those kinds of things, and some programs can manipulate them.

thousands of years and thousands of predecessors went into each new grad's understanding of math. this knowledge was built up bit by bit, not sprung out of zeus' head, magically. are computers that different because they can be stamped out instantly?

how about fuzzy logic? could you simulate human understanding by fuzzing it up a bit?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What are you talking about?
Kelly

Heh. Recced.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, you only see what is in front of you, the biological machine.

Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1? This is a question to see how you view the
difference between a man mad ...[text shortened]... ks in it, and I add 2 more
rocks to it...does the bag know it has 5 rocks in it now?

Kelly

What does it mean to 'understand' something?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, you only see what is in front of you, the biological machine.

Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1? This is a question to see how you view the
difference between a man mad ...[text shortened]... ks in it, and I add 2 more
rocks to it...does the bag know it has 5 rocks in it now?

Kelly

Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1?

Actually I don't see that much of a difference between a human spitting out 2 to answer 1+1 or a computer calculating that 1+1=2. Especially when the sum is not attached to real things.

Just so I know, if I have a bag with 3 rocks in it, and I add 2 more
rocks to it...does the bag know it has 5 rocks in it now?

Does the bag have artificial intelligence? Please, let's not use Reductio ad absurdum type of arguments.

------
I think you are missing my point.

If the processes in our brain exists in the material (non-metaphysical) world then they are replicable. This is my point.

You are asking me to compare a very primitive form of A.I. with the highest form of intelligence known to man. I'm saying that I believe A.I. can evolve to that point, not that computers are as intelligent as man.

Originally posted by zeeblebot

what do you mean by human understanding 1 + 1 = 2?

computers were designed at a low level to compute simple answers and to build complex answers from these.

but at what point can you say humans are different?

mowgli, the little ...[text shortened]... uld you simulate human understanding by fuzzing it up a bit?

You do not know what understanding means, or just the way I'm
using it? The difference between a computer's understanding and
a person is basic, the computer has none and a human does. What
the computer lacks is a gasp of knowing whatever it is that it holds
in memory. It is simply again voltages stored, the voltages can
be flushed, they can be compared to something else, at the
direction of the programmer or operator. While a human
understands, they grasp the meaning, the value, apply thought to
what it is they are thinking about.

The analogy I'd apply is when we teach others to do complex work
and when we program a computer to do complex work. We can show
someone how to do a job, simply telling them to read these
instructions and do this or that. While we are also attempting to
give them understanding into why, the reasons for the task, the
desired outcome and so on. They can with their understanding
grasp the goal, looking at the task be able to trouble shoot issues,
come up with ways to do things that were outside of their training
on their own. As their understanding grows they become more
efficient in their ability to do the work, to trouble shoot issues, and
so on.

I recall watching a play about Helen Keller, early in Helen’s life she
was raised not being taught anything by her family, because she
couldn’t see or hear her entire life, they didn’t know how to reach
her. While she was a young they got her a teacher, the teacher started
showing Helen hand signs for things. At first it was simply do this,
and that happens, then at one point in the play, as the teacher was
signing water, Helen understood what was going on. She understood
what the sign water was for, the liquid had a name.

Computers again have no understanding, they are given instructions
through programming and inputs, they do what we tell them. The
voltages simply run through the system when and how we tell it. The
computer has no grasp of what 010010001101 is or a any other
sequence of numbers. Those are simply high and low volts being
passed through the system, nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka

[b]Do you believe that a computer output, is on par with human
understanding at any level, because you don't see the difference
between a human understanding 1 + 1 = 2 and a computer spitting
out 2 to answer 1 + 1?

Actually I don't see that much of a difference between a human spitting out 2 to answer 1+1 or a computer calculating that 1+1=2. E ...[text shortened]... g that I believe A.I. can evolve to that point, not that computers are as intelligent as man.
[/b]

I understand you don't see the difference, but unlike a computer you
can. The computer deals in voltages again, we program them to take
our input, and give an output that makes sense to us. For the
computer 1 is simply an assigned value. When I say assigned value
it isn't that the computer understands it, that it grasp it is the
number 1, it is what we tell it. The same can be true of other things
we put into the computer, we assign the value, we can give that
value some weight over other values, we can apply off sets, and we
can do what ever we want.

There was/is a tool used by people the name escapes me right now;
it was simply a means to help them add. The design was a square
with strings running through the empty space and beads on the
strings. They would move the beads and come up with answers to
addition. This is all a computer does; it just has many more strings
and beads, and runs on electrical power.

I was not attempting to insult you with the rocks in the bag, but
prove a point. The bag has no understanding, but you can add in
it by placing more rocks into the bag. The bag holds the number
of rocks you put in or take out. There is no understanding for the
bag, only values, only rocks. While the computer has only voltages
in the various components that will be there until we call upon them
to move, just like the rocks in the bag will be there until we do
something with the rocks in the bag; understanding not required.

If the processes in our brain exists in the material
(non-metaphysical) world then they are replicable.
This is my point.

Okay, define non-metaphysical, what is it you are
claiming we are, and are not? I believe this is where
I’m missing your point.

You are asking me to compare a very primitive form
of A.I. with the highest form of intelligence known to
man. I'm saying that I believe A.I. can evolve to that
point, not that computers are as intelligent as man.

I understand this is what your claim is, I’m telling you that it isn’t
possible, because our computers have no understanding, they are
not intelligent. There is no evolve to a computer, we simply make
them and we are building the next models.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I understand you don't see the difference, but unlike a computer you
can. The computer deals in voltages again, we program them to take
our input, and give an output that makes sense to us. For the
computer 1 is simply an assigned value. When I say assigned value
it isn't that the computer understands it, that it grasp it is the
number 1, it is what ...[text shortened]... e is no evolve to a computer, we simply make
them and we are building the next models.
Kelly

Okay, define non-metaphysical, what is it you are
claiming we are, and are not? I believe this is where
I’m missing your point.

I define metaphysical as a phenomenon that cannot be understood or come to be understood by science.

(Note that understandment is different than prediction. It does not imply action->reaction linearly. A good example would be quantum physics.)

I’m telling you that it isn’t
possible, because our computers have no understanding, they are
not intelligent.
Maybe my communication skills are the problem (especially because English is not my native language) but this statement reflects that I'm not transmitting my opinion correctly.

I believe the thought processes of the brain are replicable. This is the major point.

I believe that it would imply a very different structure than the current computer architecture but I have no reason to believe it can't be done.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I understand you don't see the difference, but unlike a computer you
can. The computer deals in voltages again, we program them to take
our input, and give an output that makes sense to us. For the
computer 1 is simply an assigned value. When I say assigned value
it isn't that the computer understands it, that it grasp it is the
number 1, it is what ...[text shortened]... e is no evolve to a computer, we simply make
them and we are building the next models.
Kelly

The tool is called an abacus.

I think you're making an error by arguing that computers now do not have intelligence, when the subject for debate is what might happen in the future.

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Okay, define non-metaphysical, what is it you are
claiming we are, and are not? I believe this is where
I’m missing your point.

I define metaphysical as a phenomenon that cannot be understood or come to be understood by science.

(Note that understandment is different than prediction. It does not imply action->reaction linearly. A good example ...[text shortened]... ture than the current computer architecture but I have no reason to believe it can't be done.
[/b]

Your communication skills in English are excellent.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The tool is called an abacus.

I think you're making an error by arguing that computers now do not have intelligence, when the subject for debate is what might happen in the future.

I understand that, and I'm saying we cannot get there from here.
Meaning there is nothing about computers now that make me think it
will ever be possible under the current make up of computers. There
is no AI today, there is only programmed responces. Even if some
of the programs are highly complex, it isn't really intelligence for the
computer. It is more like us piutting human qualities and human
motives on animals or other things we look at and study, because
human qualities are all we really know and understand when we
speak of living beings.

I do not equate programmed responces as intelligence any more than
I would say that if we dug a long ditch for water to flow, that we would
be by our setting up that path create AI, setting up paths for voltages
through circuitry with stop starts is not intelligence by the computer, it
is just skill by the programmers and chip makers on display creating
a useful tool, a eletronic abacus. (thank you by the way)
Kelly