Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith in evolution
one_god
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 32 (451)
10-26-2001 5:57 PM


At beginning "god said let there be light" or there always existed physical property of matter and energy.
light (physics/law of science)
hydrogen
sun
other atoms
molecules (chemistry)
planets
virus (gene, asexual reproduction)
bacteria (female X gene)
bacteria (same sex reproduction, female XXgene)
male (defective female Y gene, sex help hasten evolution)
plants
higher order animals
groups (low level social/communication)
HUMAN (communication)
family
tribe (speech)
country (writing)
world society (telecom)
computer
As evolution took place, higher order things were created. I guess country is becoming like one entity with humans as being a cell of country's body. Country at war are sort of like survival of fittest. I guess world conscios is forming, UN/geneva convention etc.
With distributed processing, it seems computer consciousness will be inevitable soon or later.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:51 PM one_god has not replied
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 8:08 AM one_god has not replied
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2002 11:27 AM one_god has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 2 of 32 (3957)
02-09-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by one_god
10-26-2001 5:57 PM


this is where the line gets blurred. our brain is a series of complicated electrical impulses and chemical reactions. are these all reproducable in a computer? is it possible that a computer would be able to create a new personality of its own? from scratch? is there really a ghost in the shell.
im not talking bout the evolution part of course.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by one_god, posted 10-26-2001 5:57 PM one_god has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 5:41 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 32 (3978)
02-10-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by one_god
10-26-2001 5:57 PM


Is there a question here?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by one_god, posted 10-26-2001 5:57 PM one_god has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 6:06 PM mark24 has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 4 of 32 (4019)
02-10-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
02-10-2002 8:08 AM


what makes a human, human?
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 02-10-2002 8:08 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 02-11-2002 8:47 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 32 (4103)
02-11-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 6:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
what makes a human, human?

The inability to successfully breed with other species.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 6:06 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 32 (4187)
02-11-2002 11:18 PM


That would mean a platypus was human. Are you sure you want to use that definition?

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 02-12-2002 10:51 AM The Barbarian has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 32 (4198)
02-12-2002 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 11:51 PM


The question is simple, as regards computer 'intelligence'. Is human thought algorithmic? If it is, it is possible that one day we may be able to create 'intelligent' computers, with personalities, etc. If it is not, then we will never be able to creation AI.
So the question is simple: is human thought algorithmic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:51 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:59 AM toff has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 32 (4232)
02-12-2002 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by The Barbarian
02-11-2002 11:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
That would mean a platypus was human. Are you sure you want to use that definition?
An incomplete question gets an incomplete answer.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by The Barbarian, posted 02-11-2002 11:18 PM The Barbarian has not replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 9 of 32 (4358)
02-13-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by toff
02-12-2002 5:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
The question is simple, as regards computer 'intelligence'. Is human thought algorithmic? If it is, it is possible that one day we may be able to create 'intelligent' computers, with personalities, etc. If it is not, then we will never be able to creation AI.
So the question is simple: is human thought algorithmic?

i cant figure that out, we dont use our entire brains to think out one thing and we can just do it without even looking at what were doing just by guesses. i cant think of steps to my thinking but i can think of a kind of relation. we think of one thing and usual it brings up a memory of a related experience and we dont have to wait for any of those to come up, we just know it and almost never forget it. our brain is however still chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 5:41 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by toff, posted 02-13-2002 8:53 AM KingPenguin has replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 32 (4383)
02-13-2002 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i cant figure that out, we dont use our entire brains to think out one thing and we can just do it without even looking at what were doing just by guesses. i cant think of steps to my thinking but i can think of a kind of relation. we think of one thing and usual it brings up a memory of a related experience and we dont have to wait for any of those to come up, we just know it and almost never forget it. our brain is however still chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

That's very nice. However, it doesn't address the question: is human thought algorithmic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 12:59 AM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:37 PM toff has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 11 of 32 (4403)
02-13-2002 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by toff
02-13-2002 8:53 AM


i was talking about the brain being algorithmic and i say it isnt.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by toff, posted 02-13-2002 8:53 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by toff, posted 02-14-2002 2:35 AM KingPenguin has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 32 (4479)
02-14-2002 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by KingPenguin
02-13-2002 3:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i was talking about the brain being algorithmic and i say it isnt.

The brain is a physical organ; it is neither algorithmic nor non-algorithmic, nor can it be. The issue is human thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by KingPenguin, posted 02-13-2002 3:37 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 02-20-2002 9:18 PM toff has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 32 (5197)
02-20-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by toff
02-14-2002 2:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i was talking about the brain being algorithmic and i say it isnt.

The brain is a physical organ; it is neither algorithmic nor non-algorithmic, nor can it be. The issue is human thought.

The brain is not algorithmic.
Brains are not like computers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by toff, posted 02-14-2002 2:35 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by toff, posted 02-21-2002 10:10 AM nator has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 32 (5217)
02-21-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
02-20-2002 9:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The brain is not algorithmic.
Brains are not like computers.

The brain is a physical organ. It cannot be either algorithmic or non-algorithmic. How it WORKS is either algorithmic or non-algorithmic. If that's what you meant, then I'd love to see whatever evidence you have that our mental processes (ie, human thought) is not algorithmic. Nobody has ever been able to find any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 02-20-2002 9:18 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by joz, posted 02-21-2002 10:50 AM toff has replied
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 8:54 AM toff has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 32 (5219)
02-21-2002 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by toff
02-21-2002 10:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
Nobody has ever been able to find any.
While I disagree with his line of reasoning John Searles attacks on functionalism are clearly non-trivial....
You would do well to acquaint yourself with his concept of intentionality as expressed in his "chineese room" argument.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by toff, posted 02-21-2002 10:10 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by toff, posted 02-22-2002 4:24 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024