ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence

Reply
Old Yesterday, 06:11 AM   #241
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,242
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Agreed. Did you notice this part of my post:



I tend to think that computers will be capable of thought because I think human brains are turing machines. But I agree with you that that's not yet clear: we need to learn more about brains before that is demonstrated. That doesn't mean that we won't be able to build systems that function in the same way as human brains though, but it may mean that thinking machines are further off than many of us think.

Do you disagree with that?
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:12 AM   #242
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,660
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
Can you explain why?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:21 AM   #243
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,424
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yes, I still disagree. Whatever machines end up capable of doing it won't be thought.
I think it depends on your definition of the word "thought". If you define "thought" as something going on in a functioning organic brain, then the whole discussion is oxymoronic, because by definition machines are then incapable of thinking.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:22 AM   #244
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,242
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Can you explain why?
Scroll up, it's what I've been arguing from the beginning!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:46 AM   #245
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,660
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Scroll up, it's what I've been arguing from the beginning!
You argued that computers wouldnít be capable of thought. I said I think thatís a valid viewpoint. You are now saying that you think that no machine could be capable of thought and if you think youíve already made that case, well Iíd appreciate it if you restated it, because I really donít think you have.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:15 AM   #246
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,660
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think it depends on your definition of the word "thought". If you define "thought" as something going on in a functioning organic brain, then the whole discussion is oxymoronic, because by definition machines are then incapable of thinking.

Dave
That would be a weird definition though. If I define thought as something going on in my brain, then by definition you're not thinking. But I don't think that definition is what anyone means by thought. It's possible that TM has a good reason for thinking that no machine could ever be built that could be capable of thought. But I think if a machine were built that was having the same sort of conscious experience that he is having, he would consider it to be thinking, even if it didn't have a mother and father.

At least as far as I can tell he thinks that's impossible, not that we are defining thought differently from him.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:54 AM   #247
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,424
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That would be a weird definition though. If I define thought as something going on in my brain, then by definition you're not thinking. But I don't think that definition is what anyone means by thought. It's possible that TM has a good reason for thinking that no machine could ever be built that could be capable of thought. But I think if a machine were built that was having the same sort of conscious experience that he is having, he would consider it to be thinking, even if it didn't have a mother and father.

At least as far as I can tell he thinks that's impossible, not that we are defining thought differently from him.
To be honest, I'm not sure how anyone in this thread is defining "thought." What is its definition?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:02 AM   #248
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,777
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I disagree. A person is more than a sum of their parts.







I agree.







No, it wouldn't. A copy is not the original.







Nope. Still a copy.







The body, fine. The brain, nope. You don't have to believe in a soul to believe a person ceases to be when they lose their brain, or that a copy of a brain is not the same individual as the original.



You're basically arguing that if I had a clever enough Xerox machine you'd be okay with me murdering you, so long as another individual existed afterward who was sufficiently similar to you. The copy wouldn't be you. You'd be a separate person, who is dead.
This has come up before and I think it raises an interesting point. You are right any copy of me is not me, however if I was copied in my sleep and we both woke up in a room that was identical to the one we went to sleep in neither the copy nor me would be able to tell who was the original.

Where I think you are mistaken in your reasoning is that does not mean we would be happy with either of us being killed, after the point of copying we are two individuals that will start to diverge from the moment we are copies.

This usually comes up in regards to a thought experiment about teleportation and if it was destructive scan would you enter it, I wouldn't because the reconstructed person isn't me. But I do think that if we did ever invent such a thing we'd all as a society ignore that pretty quickly, it's amazing what we will overlook for the convenience.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:25 AM   #249
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,660
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
This has come up before and I think it raises an interesting point. You are right any copy of me is not me, however if I was copied in my sleep and we both woke up in a room that was identical to the one we went to sleep in neither the copy nor me would be able to tell who was the original.

Where I think you are mistaken in your reasoning is that does not mean we would be happy with either of us being killed, after the point of copying we are two individuals that will start to diverge from the moment we are copies.

This usually comes up in regards to a thought experiment about teleportation and if it was destructive scan would you enter it, I wouldn't because the reconstructed person isn't me. But I do think that if we did ever invent such a thing we'd all as a society ignore that pretty quickly, it's amazing what we will overlook for the convenience.
If Everett was right, you are being copied countless times every second (I recently heard a simple estimate of a minimum of 25000 given the 5000 nuclear decays happening in your body every second). All of those future copies are you, but they aren't each other. They share an identity with each other in the past, but not in the future (or present, after the branching).

I will become multitudes.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:39 AM   #250
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,242
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
If Everett was right, you are being copied countless times every second (I recently heard a simple estimate of a minimum of 25000 given the 5000 nuclear decays happening in your body every second). All of those future copies are you, but they aren't each other. They share an identity with each other in the past, but not in the future (or present, after the branching).

I will become multitudes.
Apocatastasis. That's the theory that the universe will end, then trigger a new universe starting, exactly like the old one. Constant apocatastasis is the theory that this happens all the time, not just after a universe's lifespan from big bang to heat death. Every nanosecond (or whatever teeny tiny bit of time) the entire cosmos and everything in it is destroyed then rebuilt, and we can't even perceive it. If true then not only is every individual multitudes but so is literally everything!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.