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 20th August 2019, 06:11 AM   #241
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
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 20th August 2019, 06:12 AM   #242
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,674
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 20th August 2019, 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: 29,447
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
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 20th August 2019, 06:22 AM   #244
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
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 20th August 2019, 06:46 AM   #245
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,674
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 20th August 2019, 07:15 AM   #246
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,674
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 20th August 2019, 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: 29,447
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
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 21st August 2019, 07:02 AM   #248
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,804
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 21st August 2019, 08:25 AM   #249
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,674
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 21st August 2019, 08:39 AM   #250
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
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
Old 21st August 2019, 06:32 PM   #251
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,674
Well, I was talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that sounds cool too.
__________________
"... 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 22nd August 2019, 05:24 AM   #252
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Well, I was talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but that sounds cool too.
If there are many worlds maybe that's how it works: the universe is destroyed every instant and replaced by multiple universes each time, to reflect every possible outcome of every action.
__________________
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 22nd August 2019, 05:27 AM   #253
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Not yet, because we don't currently have the technology to emulate a brain.
Either that, or we don't that the brain to emulate the technology.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 22nd August 2019, 05:33 AM   #254
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Either that, or we don't that the brain to emulate the technology.
Well said.
__________________
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 22nd August 2019, 06:05 AM   #255
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,932
Apparently identifying mushrooms is a thing. My nephew is a rock star AI developer. (He was even sought out by Musk to impart wisdom.) One of his early student projects was a program that identified mushrooms within a picture.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 22nd August 2019, 06:08 AM   #256
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,296
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Apparently identifying mushrooms is a thing. My nephew is a rock star AI developer. (He was even sought out by Musk to impart wisdom.) One of his early student projects was a program that identified mushrooms within a picture.
Having read the news stories about Musk, I'm not the least surprised to find out he's heavily involved with mushrooms.
__________________
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 02:52 AM.
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.