quote:

---

Original post by Invader X
Interesting. How do you explain that your own thoughts do not indicate your existence? (You do mean the proof of his existence and not that of a God, right?) (Have a link or your paper on the net?)

---

That''s not what I was suggesting. Descartes argmument about his own existence (and ultimately that of God) involved a conclusion that he could not know if he was dreaming or not. Without going into his full argument or lots of other stuff, I argued reasonably successfully that you could know if you were dreaming or not.

So, to reply to the anonymous poster: I was not attempting to disprove the existence of God, but merely to discredit the argument put forward by Descartes as to the existence of God.

Sheesh, if I could prove God didn''t exist, do you think the Roman Catholic Church (or many others for that matter) would let me live??? ;-)

Timkin

Ah, I misunderstood what you had said and thought your paper was about that your thoughts don''t necessarily mean you exist.

quote:

---

Sheesh, if I could prove God didn''t exist, do you think the Roman Catholic Church (or many others for that matter) would let me live??? ;-)

---

LOL

Invader X
Invader''s Realm

Electron:

You say, a brain has more "bits".

But who says, that the brain works on a binary base,
like the computer does?
And if the brain works completely different, than just calculating
things stored as true or false (1,0), I''m not so sure if
you can say then, a computer will be able to "think", if we
mean exactly what the human brain does, when saying
"think".
We can solve some problems by imaginating things as images,
,without mathematic calculations, I don''t know how the brain does
that (does anyone?), but it seems to be different than what a computer
does.

Before the concept of today''s computers has broken through,
they tried several different approaches to build a computer,
different from the digital concept.
So, the way today''s computers work, is not the only possible,
but turned out to fit best for what its inventors were going
to do with it.

Maybe the brain works with a concept we don''t know, and maybe
it''s much more complex than we can imagine.

One thing is for sure: We won''t be able to create and program
a model of human thinking structure, unless we don''t know
*everything* about it!

Forgot something:

What the hell is "ranom" ?

I believe, that "random" doesn''t even exist.

We say "random" to things that happen without expecting them.
But isn''t every "random" thing just a lack of input for our
"computations", for thinking?

If your friend walks on the street, and a TV comes down from
the air, and slays him. You say, it''s random. Wrong location
at the wrong time. But there are reasons why he walked there,
and why at this moment.
And the TV fell down, because a man threw it outa window.
Random? No. He argued with his wife, and got into rage.
Random? No. His wife turned out to have a lover.
Random? No. Her husband is no longer sexual attracitve for her,
he''s too fat. Random? No, he just eats too much potatoe chips
and chocolate......

But you didn''t know all this, so it''s just "random" to you.

We can''t get all things in the world in our mind, to know what
will happen next.

But it''s not *really* random, it''s just too much data.

anon poster, ever hear of the butterfly effect?
everything that happens does have a cause (and thus isn''t random), such as the guy was walking there at that time because a butterfly in china turned left instead of right. we just don''t know the relationships, that''s why it appears chaotic.
i think it is garbage, but it is an interesting thing to think about...

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

We can create real artificially life, due the fact that our brains just work with simple signals. We can make those signals digital. Dont think like this: "We cant create dreams on a computer" etc, due the fact that dreams are nothing more then signals as well.

I forgot to mention:
Real life is being split into 2 things, the world we are in now. And a "side world", that keeps all the data. Evolution is stored in there, and instinct. Before you even get born you''ll get the data from it, and start with it. That''s why we all improve and don''t have to start all over again each time.

Well, you''ve talked a lot about feelings and stuff, and I wish I''d seen this topic earlier.

The real problem with "real" AI is of course the question, what is intelligence. I know that this thread has gone on for a long time, but I''ve got an additional though to throw in here.

Turing has once drawn up the Turing test. He basically said that if a human can''t tell whether an entity he''s talking to is human or not, then that entity must be intelligent. Of course some people say that just because something seems intelligent it doesn''t have to be intelligent. Personally, I think that if a program really seems to be intelligent, it doesn''t matter whether it is intelligent inside(tm) or not. After all, I don''t even know what makes me intelligent inside.

However, there is a great problem with the turing test, mainly because we ourselves are just too limited.
Let''s assume the interrogator in the test asks the program (which doesn''t have an interface for bitmaps) about some painting. Now the program may have a database about different styles of art and famous paintings. It could answer that it likes e.g. the Mona Lisa.
However, the program has obviously never actually been to the Louvre, and it has never actually seen the Mona Lisa. It has never seen a single painting in its entire "life". This will limit the program''s reactions. It just can''t talk about paintings the way a human can. Therefore we are likely to say that the program is not intelligent.

This is, of course, a gross discrimination. What about blind people? They are intelligent, aren''t they?

There are many more examples I could put here. As you''ve talked a lot about feelings, let me ask you this: What about love? Can a being that doesn''t replicate or doesn''t need a partner to replicate feel love?

I will also put this the other way round. Let''s assume an intelligent program like the PDA-AI could talk to its owner. I wouldn''t be too surprised if that AI classed her as "non-intelligent", simply because she can''t feel directories and files the way the AI does...

cu,
Prefect

Actually.. the post isn''t very old, has only been alive for about a week or something. It just happened that ppl seem to have interest in the issue of AI. I didn''t expect it to be so popular, but it''s always fun to see what other people think and believe in when it comes to this.


Kenneth Wilhelmsen
Try my little 3D Engine project, and mail me the FPS. WEngine
--------------------------
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has
been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This
disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless
brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder

quote:

---

It could answer that it likes e.g. the Mona Lisa.
However, the program has obviously never actually been to the Louvre, and it has never actually seen the Mona Lisa. It has never seen a single painting in its entire "life". This will limit the program''s reactions. It just can''t talk about paintings the way a human can. Therefore we are likely to say that the program is not intelligent.

---

If you had never seen the Mona Lisa, you could not say whether you like it or not either. Just because it cannot discus things about paintings doesn''t mean that it''s not intelligent, it means that it is ignorant of paintings. As we all know, there are many ignorant humans out there =)

Invader X
Invader''s Realm