AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

Good example of a strawman. I did not defend "the way this forum acts."

Most of them concern science, so generally they work out.

Yes, he did discuss that in another forum. Perhaps it would be appropriate to post your screeds on that topic there?

Such word games are one reason that you're not taken very seriously.

"Humans take 18 years to mature, but elephants grow up in just a few years!"
"It takes 3 years for an elephant even to be weaned, and they are not mature for about 17 years."
"Woah, what I meant was . . . wait . . . it's totally not inaccurate to say that elephants do some growing up in a few years! I was RIGHT!"

The only person to talk about Skynet is you.

I never suggested that.

Nope. Drive a Tesla with autopilot enabled sometime; see if all a computer can do is "compare and point." The point you are trying to make is that when you get down to the lowest level of hardware, a computer can only compare and turn bits on and off. And that's true for most (not all) computers.

I posted a segment from a journal showing how neurons either fire or don't fire. On or off. That's all they can do. Very similar to a computer.

Both statements - about computer elements and neurons - are true. Both neurons and computer elements are binary at a functional level. That does not mean that either computers or humans cannot be intelligent.

I posted a segment to help educate you about the above; if you don't believe it, then either educate yourself some more or remain ignorant. Your choice.

I really don't care how you view me. If you think I am a dick because I keep talking about how neurons function, and don't take your half-baked theories seriously - I can live with that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said, "My main argument is that computers can only compare and point

Again you provide no evidence for your claims that computers binary functions and neurons are aligned (no matter how you state it it is woo). Maybe you lack the understanding.

I had also said....
My main argument is that computers can only compare and point (multiplications of (this was an unnecessary qualifier also because some here will suggest comparing over and over and over and over is not simply comparing and pointing IN ANY LANGUAGE.. see how long and winded my qualifying statements need to be for each bloody sentence here in sciforums.. a place that should have people with above average intellect..)).

You proved me correct. You are arguing that because a computer can compare a bunch of times in a row (1000 times in a 1 line counter as example), it is not just comparing. It is just comparing x to 1000, 1000 times... adding 1 to x every time until x is equal to or greater than 1000. That should not be too hard to grasp from someone who claims understanding of programming.

Simplified: As the code runs over and over comparing and comparing it uses up time. If you compare something 1000 times. It takes 1000 times as long. That is how computers time things.

The computer does not simply look at its watch and say. Okay.. a minute is up. It compares values one at a time and if it did look at a watch that would also be a comparison.

How do you think a computer program runs? It runs 1 line of code at a time. It may have multiple cores and subroutines performing other tasks simultaneously, but in essence it follows one line of code at a time.


You seem to think that a Tesla has programming lines that do not compare or point in EVERY LINE OF CODE (except notations meant for humans to read - qualifying and unnecessary statement to people that are less obtuse). No.

No, no, no.

Aside from notations meant for humans to read. You cannot list a single line of code (from a Tesla or a Battleship or a Satellite or a laptop) that does anything but compare two values at a time or point. OFTEN MULTIPLES OF (however that did not sink in with my above qualifying statement when I said (multiplications of (this was an unnecessary qualifier also because some here will suggest comparing over and over and over and over is not simply comparing and pointing IN ANY LANGUAGE.. see how long and winded my qualifying statements need to be for each bloody sentence here in sciforums.. a place that should have people with above average intellect..))

Yes. If you look at a Tesla or a Laptop. They may seem to be "smart". They are just following software.

Software ONLY (means no other types of code) have two types of code.
Type a) COMPARING (Diamond shaped flowchart box) Binary 1 or 0.
Type b) Pointing. (Go to statements to subroutines in most cases which includes images, timers, and turning switches on and off)

Keep failing to grasp that. Not my fault if you cannot grasp programming is that basic at its core.

I had said,
I suggest it is impossible for a computer to reach that level of intelligence (skynet is from a scary movie - to some). You suggest computers can reach that level of intelligence by simply suggesting brains are equal to computers in every way.

You had answered, I never suggested that.

Here is YOU saying that brains can do what computers do...

Every single one of your neurons can do only one of two things:
1) Fire
2) Not fire

That is from YOU. Not me. YOU.

Is that not the same as implying our neurons are the same as computers functions? It was your entire answer on a first page posting on a topic about how computers can do only two things. I understand you trying to expand your answer to levels of sanity NOW.. but before you were quite adamant.

I said,
If you buy into the woo that computers have "intelligence" I grasp it. Not everyone realizes computers can only compare two values repetitively..
Billvon replied,
And that's all the neurons in your brain can do, too - fire or not fire, repetitively, the same way, over and over.

I said,
If you knew any computer programming you would know computers can only compare and turn switches.​

Bilvon answered,
Just as your neurons can only fire or not fire. That's it.

Are you afraid that the neurons are coming to get you?

That part is oddly weird? "Are you afraid that the neurons are coming to get you?"

HUH? It is people believing in the impossibility of true AI that are fearful of skynet? What are your mutterings meant as? Who is suggesting anyone is fearful of a brain (where neurons can reside)?

So you are the one who first brought up Neurons. The Opening post was why Skynet (entire topic here) type Intelligence is not possible. That type of Artificial Intelligence is ridiculous.

You can keep saying I am suggesting skynet as a new topic but you use examples like Tesla as if a Tesla had a brain. This entire posting from OPENING POST is about how skynet type intelligence in a machine is absurd. It is impossible.. Thus a main part of the topic. I should l abandon the topic just because you wish to turn it into a discussion of brains.


How you equate Neurons to computer AI is WOO! Is that straightforward enough.

You are postulating extraordinary woo.

You now claim that all your neuron talk is not equating binary functions to a brain. Too bad your words do not reflect that.

So.. since page one you have been postulating that all brains can do is compare values. I just say prove it.

It is ALREADY a PROVEN FACT that computer code is all a combination of comparing statements or go to/switch statements. My position has remained factual from opening post. Denying it is just lack of knowledge ("idiocy").

Yes. Your woo is great. Too bad science works with facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess you've decided to remain ignorant. Your choice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And it seems you have little understanding of natural computing powers in living organisms.
You may want to read this link, which mentions Turing as a natural computing function.

The presence of these three molecules in the computational growth process produces the five fingers on your hands and toes.

Do you know how many computers a human biome contains? Trillions!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Microtubules are one of the principal components of the cytoskeleton that build up the structure and shape of the cell (Figure 1). They are also important in a number of other cellular processes, such as cell division and transportation. Extending from a central microtubule-organizing center, they display a polar structure that is highly conserved in evolution, reflected in a striking similarity of microtubules across almost all species (Janke C, 2014).

https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000167552-TUBA1A/cell/A-431#imid_99963

 

So by "true thought" you're vaguely referring to processing patterns that are mutable or a jumbled assortment of cognitive habits outputting quasi-regulated behavior? That even an embodied AI would need to cover a developing spectrum, starting with being a contingently idle, lazy or unreliable work-tool that strays off into its own personal interests to potentially becoming something outright dangerous and unpredictable? Having the ability to abandon or depart from what it was programmed to do?

And you forecast that such is not going to happen because...??? People want it to be a dependable work-tool rather than a rogue agent? That you presume (rightly or wrongly) that AI by definition entails being nothing more than the former, and anything beyond that falls into a different category of design, requires a different label? Even AI embodied in a robot and interacting and learning from its environment is going to be neutered or restricted to a traditional, sequential procedural approach of following commands and manipulating data, a preset-boundary it cannot cross over?

Nothing to worry about from technological cult orientations that deliberately want to produce "strong AI" that performs "the full range of human cognitive abilities", on the way to their ultimate goal of surpassing that? Willing to depart from traditional orthodoxy of design in whatever way necessary to accomplish such?

 

Like the ?? painting?? and guessing computer generated

Would prefer that as opposed to the paintings done by Elephants and such

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I enjoy paintings done by animals. There are many, with vivid strokes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James R,
Your claim about the impossibility of AI is not one that is obviously true. If it was, then you'd have everybody here agreeing with you. Besides, if it's all so obvious, why did you even post about it? I think it must be because you were already aware that not everybody agrees with you. You wanted to create some controversy, for whatever reason.

I have designed many programs. I have never seen a line of code that says "Okay. Now think about how to make that next chess move".

Computers must seem intelligent to some who do not see the ingenuity of the programmers behind it.

Is the following artwork creative, in your opinion?

No. The art you posted was a computer following set guidelines. The same method used in its "inventing".

Computers only compare and point. No other such possibility exists. That is at the basic level. I am sure someone will quote that and say... Oh.. a computer runs my google home so it must have a real intelligence.

No. Programs do exist. A programs is only a collection of if/then/else statements (in every computer language). It is a credit to mankind and programmers that they have made google home look like "she" has a brain, but whether defining the words or looking for answers. It is all done line by line of fast moving code that can ONLY, ONLY, ONLY do two things. Compare... or point. Nothing more is possible.

That seems to meet the definition of intelligence to some here.

Intelligence can be described as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". The computer may seem to be applying its "knowledge" if you wish to personify it to pieces, but comparing and pointing, comparing and pointing, comparing and pointing is all it can do and all it ever will do.

As far as I can tell, people here have mostly pointed out that the firing or non-firing of neurons in a brain is similar to bits in an electronic computer switching on or off. Do you dispute that?

I certainly am not disputing many here are equating brain functions to a computer. I call that woo. I have seen no evidence a brain is limited to comparing and pointing as software obviously does to any who have IQ and understand programs.

If you have proof of such nonsense I would look at it. I know a computer program has ZERO creativity involved in the art you post or the google home you speak to. It is just follo0wing 1 line of code at a time that can only compare and point.

Compare and point.

Every computer algorithm in history in every computer language is just made from single lines of code followed in order comparing and pointing, comparing and pointing.

There are computers that exist right now that can beat you at chess, along with every other chess player on the planet, including Grand Masters.

Yes. It is a credit to the programmers and much emphasis is placed on opening sequences largely copied from the moves made by past grand masters. The number of possible moves at the beginning of a game is larger than halfway through the game so more computational power is required.


I mentioned my experience with Chess because even Chess players understand controlling the center of the board has more strategic values than other sections of the board. Pieces themselves also have a value. These are not "considerations" for a computer as much as they may seem so. They are just variables in comparison calculations.

You spoke much on Chess yet we seemed in agreement that computer software is limited by time and processing power.

After a program starts a game "likely" (i'm sure exceptions have existed) using pre-programmed opening moves copied from Chess masters. A computer making the first move would most likely choose queens pawn or kings pawn for such "memorization's". Essentially it copies past masters. A computer can"memorize" just about every known opening.

This is not "memorizing" as a conscious human would. It would compare each move its opponent makes to the chessboards it has stored as data.

Despite the amount of computational power a computer has it will likely make the first few moves rather quickly exactly for that reason. Alternatively; it could be aiming at taking control of the center of the board with a central pawn move. No thought required. Just comparing good choices against lesser choices.. over and over and over and over.

Memorization of opening moves can take a person or a computer 10+ moves into a game. This requires no thinking on behalf of the Chess master or a computer.

(Explaining as if to a child)

A neuron in a human brain has a number of synapses coming into it, which at any given time can either be firing or not firing. In response to the overall inputs, the neuron will react either by firing or not firing. Do you agree with this, or not?

In comparison, a digital computer memory is made up of bits of storage that can be either on or off at any given time (roughly speaking). In response to the computer's operations, those bits can be switched on or off, like you say.

Now, explain to me why you think that the operation of the human brain is so fundamentally different to the operation of a digital computer, that a human brain can have intelligence but a digital computer cannot.

Please state it plainly.... Are you... or Are you NOT... suggesting a brain is only capable of the exact same functions as a computer except for now on a much grander scale?

You also said,
I've given you a description of how neurons work. Tell me what's wrong with that description, if you have an objection.

So again. Are you or are you not suggesting a human brain is only capable of the same functions as a computer?

It seems a few here like to suggest brains are nothing more than neurons firing. Perhaps you are correct and that is all human emotions thrive on. That could be a possibility which if true almost rules out the possibility of creativity within a human. Something that does not appear to be the case. Even if your woo is all humans are, mankind still would still be hard presses to replicate it. (That is if your woo is true. I disagree that it is).

You said,
Now, explain to me why you think that the operation of the human brain is so fundamentally different to the operation of a digital computer, that a human brain can have intelligence but a digital computer cannot.

No. If you are the one making the extraordinary claim (woo) you should have a tiny bit of evidence to support it.

I have merely been stating that all a computer has done and can every do is compare, compare, compare input and then output it. Essentially every line of code is an if-then statement processing inputs. It is others here that are suggesting (it seems) that our brains are limited to the exact same functions.

So BE CLEAR! Do you see a brain as just a large multi-tasking computer running off the same processes (although you seem to lack the grasp that computing is done by ... you know.. comparing and outputting. In every line of code, in every language.

Given that the Google Home is not at all intelligent, how do you think it makes sense of your voice commands? Do you have any idea of how difficult a problem it is for a computer to make sense of your voice? That was problem that computer scientists worked on cracking for over 50 years since the first digital computers were invented. Do you think that it's done through a series of if-then statements?

THANK YOU for this question.

(next post will be all about that question)

 

James R asked,
Given that the Google Home is not at all intelligent, how do you think it makes sense of your voice commands? Do you have any idea of how difficult a problem it is for a computer to make sense of your voice? That was problem that computer scientists worked on cracking for over 50 years since the first digital computers were invented. Do you think that it's done through a series of if-then statements?

THANK YOU for this question.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

A computer does recognize a voice through a series of if-then statements. That is all it ever does or can do.

Do you think there is a computer command that says "Okay.. now listen closely?". No.

A voice is a wave that can be detected in microphones with varying tones and amplitudes. They become quantifiable measurements that are then run through a long series of if/then statements that assign values to each segment of a word (defined by pauses) and then compared to a series of words in its database.

It is definitely ingenious that Google Home seems to hear words. But it is merely inputting a collection of tones and amplitudes and measuring them using comparison statements (If-then statements).

No other line of coding exists. In every computer language. It is all compare compare compare. Obviously you need an output after the comparing is done.. which I say "pointing" to a subroutine to simplify.. but it is all input, comparing, output.

The input could be from cameras or keyboards or from data.. but all a computer can do is compare, compare, compare.

As far as voice recognition goes, this is as simple as it gets – it relies on a computer "listening" to a word and matching its audio pattern to a preloaded phrase.

Assuming that you're talking to non-programmers here is making a novice's mistake about the audience you're addressing.

Says the guy who just suggested (last question above) that he does not grasp voices are processed using a long series of "If-then"
statements.

Note: Your monicker says "staff" and it appears you have a few postings under your belt. Yet YOU... Seem to not grasp that a voice is COMPARED inside a computer using nothing except a repetition of if-then statement.

If you assume you're talking to fools, and you're wrong, then it is you who risks ending up looking like a fool.

It was not my original assumption; no. It has been a learning process here. When people like yourselves say things like,

Given that the Google Home is not at all intelligent, how do you think it makes sense of your voice commands? Do you have any idea of how difficult a problem it is for a computer to make sense of your voice? That was problem that computer scientists worked on cracking for over 50 years since the first digital computers were invented. Do you think that it's done through a series of if-then statements?

It probably does not make the overall crowd seem smarter.

Again.. Yes, yes, yes.

All voice commands are inputted by measuring (comparing) tones and amplitudes.

Using... You know...

"IF-THEN" statements in the computer language of your choice. No other computer process exists aside from inputs/outputs.

So.. specifically in response to this phrase by James R,
Do you think that [voice command recognition is] done through a series of if-then statements?

YES! YES! YES! YES!

100% YES!

 

And how is that different from a human brain processing sensory information?

 

The process of thought is physical. This is an assumption of methodological naturalism that any scientist would make until proven otherwise. Any physical process is the result of a series of steps, electrochemical interactions between identifiable units. This can theoretically be abstracted with math. The only way a thinking machine becomes impossible to build is if you suggest brains have some non-physical property like spirit or soul.

 

Yes there is. Your horizons are limited to electromagnetic inputs and outputs, but there is an entire comunication and computation system resting on chemical inputs/outputs.

Bacteria do not think at all, yet they employ a type of hive-mentality which allows them to process and act on vital informational inputs and outputs.
This ability is called "quorum sensing" and living organisms depend on the "quorum sensing" of symbiotic bacteria to survive.


If you are a computer buff, you may be interested in this type of computing which is the primary information processing system in humans. It employs enzymes as q-bits.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Biological energy carriers.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

https://www.britannica.com/science/metabolism/media/1/377325/2344

 

To throw something else into the mix, and apologies if it has been covered / addressed previously...

There’s a semantic element to our thoughts that computers don’t have.
The two questions for me in this regard are:
1. Do they need it to be intelligent?
2. Will they ever have it?

As a thought experiment, imagine you are in a locked room and you have a book of rules, some paper and a pen.
Someone passes a piece of paper under the door with some squiggles on it.
According to the rules, you put some other squiggles on a piece of paper and send it back under the door.
You repeat this every time a piece of paper comes under the door.

This is the systematic approach that computers take, and that current AI take.
What the people in the room didn’t know was that what they were actually doing was answering questions in Japanese.
They had no idea what the squiggles meant, either on the paper they received or what was sent back out.
They simply followed rules.
Systematic but with no semantics.

Are the people in the room doing anything intelligent?
Do they “think”.
To the people outside the room it looks as though the people in the room understand Japanese enough to be able to answer some questions.
But do they?

So, is semantic understanding a requirement to be able to think?
For intelligence?

I don’t know.

It is similar to the notion of a p-zombie, a philosophical zombie, and the question of how you know that people you meet are conscious in the way you are, and are not simply mindless zombies who simply act and react as though they are conscious?
A different debate, perhaps, but it seems similar in principle, perhaps.

 

For me it appears they are intelligent enough to follow rules

Then the question becomes - are they intelligent enough to decipher the rules should a piece of paper arrive which has a answer but someone forgot to put the rule in the Rule Book regarding replies

Of course there might be a rule which says "Slip back a piece of paper asking for more information"

This is the tipping point, in my mind, the ability to figure out (compute) a correct response to a bare minimum of information

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yep, computers can be very intelligent. They'll not be alive.

You don't have to be intelligent to suffer, but you do have to be alive.

 

How do you know you aren't following rules when you think? The rules can be emphasis on certain neural connections and de-emphasis on others, forming a wired program that responds to perception. You're basically saying that if you understand how a brain works, all the steps involved, then it can't work, because it was just a series of steps.