Joviex, you could emulate all functions of our brain, but I think therefor you''d only need a very fast computer with a good program.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

quote:

---

Original post by ga

Joviex, you could emulate all functions of our brain, but I think therefor you''d only need a very fast computer with a good program.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

---

actually, when physics can model our galaxy and the andromeda galaxy crashing into one another with 100 million stars, dark matter, the works, I think anything would be possible to model.

here is the link:

http://www.discovery.com/news/briefs/20000424/space_galaxy.html

as fer your statement, yes, that is what i am saying. You can emulate till the sky comes crashing down, the point is, it is not life, just mimicked functions. The computer will never think out of the box (based solely on silicon technology ---take a look into quantum computing for "real" life possibilites.

When Quality Matters Send all mail to amorano@bworks.com

100 million stars - but our galaxy has more than 100 billions! I think our brain has also got 100 billion neurons.
If a computer made of whatever you want emulates our brain you can''t say it''s more or less intellegent than a human. We aren''t living individuums because we''re intelligent - I think the most important characteristic of life is the ability to produce children which have got better abilities than their parents have, IMHO.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

quote:

---

Original post by ga

Probably most people think that they think on their own and make free decisions. But what we call thinking or understanding is nothing else than some physical reactions in our brains.

---

This is nothing to do with the free-will/determinism debate. The fact is, when I think, I know what I am thinking about. I am not just processing information, I am at least processing information about the processing of that information. That is another level, no matter how you want to look at it.

Kylotan:
"How can you say there is no "you know what you do"? When I do something, I can think about it and understand it. Whatever you want to call that, it is a level above merely performing the function itself... "

There''s no way to prove or disprove conciousness. It''s a futile argument to have unless you have some scientific method to prove that we''re not just a group of deterministic automatons.
You can process information in many different ways and at many different levels but this doesn''t prove anything. It doesn''t mean what you''re doing is governed less by laws of physics it just means it''s more complex than you can understand and break down.
Ever heard of emergent behaviour and functionlity? It means that the whole is more than the some of it''s parts and that may be all we are. I can''t say one way or the other, as I said, it would be futile even to try.

Mike

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan

This is nothing to do with the free-will/determinism debate. The fact is, when I think, I know what I am thinking about. I am not just processing information, I am at least processing information about the processing of that information. That is another level, no matter how you want to look at it.

---

Yes, you're often processing information about processing information, but you could also implement this on a computer.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Edited by - ga on 5/7/00 9:53:08 AM

szCurThought = szThoughtName;
ProcessThought(szThoughtName);

.
.
.

cout << "You are currently thinking about " << szCurThought->Name;

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

quote:

---

Original post by MikeD
There's no way to prove or disprove conciousness. It's a futile argument to have unless you have some scientific method to prove that we're not just a group of deterministic automatons.
You can process information in many different ways and at many different levels but this doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean what you're doing is governed less by laws of physics it just means it's more complex than you can understand and break down.

---

I never suggested it would be less to do with the laws of physics. In fact, I also clearly said that the difference in thought between us and a computer does not rule out humans being entirely deterministic. I never said we have fully free thought. Just that there appears to be a higher level of thought than we can achieve on a computer. They're different issues. As for there being no way to prove consciousness... well that depends on who you ask, obviously.

There is no sign that we are getting any closer to simulating intelligent thought in the realms of AI. Just more powerful and more efficient ways of simulating dumb thought.

And the 2 posters who said that it is easy to get a computer to 'think about thought' missed the point. You currently have to explicitly tell it to do so. No-one explicitly told me to be able to think about thinking. That ability has come from somewhere without it being explicitly coded. Unless you want to subscribe to the interventionalist theory of human development, which is not on-topic for this forum

Show me a neural net that considers and delivers an opinion on itself (-without- you explicitly coding it to do so), and I'll agree with you.

Edited by - Kylotan on May 8, 2000 6:21:14 AM

quote:

---

And the 2 posters who said that it is easy to get a computer to ''think about thought'' missed the point. You currently have to explicitly tell it to do so. No-one explicitly told me to be able to think about thinking. That ability has come from somewhere without it being explicitly coded. Unless you want to subscribe to the interventionalist theory of human development, which is not on-topic for this forum

---

Your abilities to learn, to think, to think about thoughts or thinking about whatever you think about is "coded" in the genetic code, which was developed by evolution. Electron''s idea was to emulate this evolution.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Hmmm, this is quite an interesting discussion on what consitutes true life. But something that wasn''t mentioned (unless I missed something) is emotions. Are emotions considered necessary for true life? All humans and animals FEEL. Computer cannot (and may never) actually feel anything. Most of what people do, say, act are based either directly or indirectly off of emotions. Emotions are so intertwined with how we think, it''s tough to not include that in the definition of life...