|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: faith in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Do you mean by fancied quantum compters that don't exist? and whose construction without close unity with science of genetics can cause a collapse of the/a food web, potentially (in worst case)??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Au contraire Brad they do exsist...
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/bios.nsf/pages/quantum.html So what was that about the collapse of the/a food web?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: I am well acquainted with his 'chinese room' argument. It is an excellent tool for examinnig the idea of intentionality. Unfortunately, it says nothing either way about whether or not the processes of the brain (ie., human thought) are algorithmic or non-algorithmic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Malachi Inactive Member |
Human thought is not algorithmic in the sense of how computers are. Computer processors solve one problem at a time in order. They only get things done by solving those simple problems very quickly. The human brain is a collection of millions of tiny processors that operate algorithmically on the individual level(nerve cells). It is the interaction between these millions of individual processors that allows for what we percieve as human thought. Some experimental work is being done to create computers with many small, simple processors working together instead of one super fast processor that most of modern computers use. This would be much more similar to the way that the human brain functions than the traditional single processor algorithmic way that computers of today function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The question Toff is asking is about human thought .. algorithmicor not ? The responses about the brain are analagous to asking 'isa micro-processor algorithmic?' It's not. If it's not doing anything its idle ... like a deadbrain. While in use, do the thought processes exhibit algorithmicactivity ? Please say how any processing could be other than algorithmic ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: What about parallel processing ? Multi-processor systems (evenyou're PC or MAC) evaluate parts of the code in parallel and put the results together when required. quote: Speed is irrelevent to a computers problem solving capability. The speed of a calculation is only relevent to the urgency withwhich the result is required. quote: Are you saying that each nueron is capable of processing data ?
quote: I think you don't know what algorithmic means. There are plenty of multi-processor computer systems about ... evenyour traditional PC or MAC has an ALU, FPU, BUS controller, etc. which are effectively separate but co-operating processors. Regardless of the number of processing nodes, the process can bealgorithmic ... you just have multi-processor algorithms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
The human mind works in a non-linear way. We multitask, and there are a myriad of things that are being proccessed, constantly. Computers (currently) are linear. Even a multitasking computer breaks up tasks (ie proccesses a bit of one program, stops, works on a bit of another one, then comes back and repeats.) Some new computers are parrallel, but even at this level, they are still dividing tasks and working on them in a fairly linear fashion.
However, research is currently looking into computer versions of nueral networks. It is quite possible that this avenue of computer development could lead to a sentient computer. Some interesting sites:
http://hem.hj.se/~de96klda/NeuralNetworks.htm#1%20Purpose http://vv.carleton.ca/~neil/neural/neuron.html Here is a morality question. If we create sentient computers, would sociey give them rights? How would we treat them? Would we just create a new form of slavery? As an atheist, I don't believe in a soul. However, I have an underlying appreciation for sentience. If we are able to create a sentient computer, I believe we have a moral obligation to grant such a being the same rights we would accord a human. Just curious what others view on this would be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Thats just what used to disturb me about Asimovs robot stories and his "three laws of robotics", the fact that sentient entities were created with no motivation but to serve their creators struck me as being morally no better than slavery on the part of those concerned with their manufacture and use.... Probably why I enjoyed "That thou art mindful of him" so much. Rather than finding it disturbing, as so many seem to, I found the robots rationalisation of themselves as being human, thus the three laws of robotics become the three laws of humanics, and by their mental and physical superiority a superior kind of human comforting in the sense that by exercising their capacity for logic they freed themselves of their built in servitude.... (though I`m not really that keen on a bunch of super metal mickeys taking over the world....)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: What do you mean by non-linear ?
quote: There is no such thing as a multi-tasking computer. The operatingsystem running on a particular platform either multi-tasks or it doesn't. quote: Parallel computing has been about for a few decades, I don'tthink that qualifies them as new (except in geological terms). ... again, what do you mean by linear ?
quote: Again, pretty old research .. I did nueral nets in my undergraduatedegree about twelve years ago ... and they weren't new then. quote: If they are sentient they should have rights ... if they havethe appearance of sentience, then they are mechanisms and rights make no sense. Given that the consensus of opinion on chimps and gorillas is thatno matter how well they can learn sign language they are just dumb animals I would guess governments would bend to political and economic pressures (as always).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Sorry if the majority of my post was vague and out of date. My main point is that computers are limited in the number of tasks and what type of tasks they can perform. The human mind is much more complex, and doesn't work on a binary system. Neural nets seem to be based on the concept of processing information in an artificial system in a way similar to the human mind. My point was if we continue down that road, it is quite possible we could create a sentient computer based on neural computer technology. I admit that my information in this field is quite weak. If you do know more about nueral nets, I would be most interested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
bretheweb Inactive Member |
Darwin
quote: Question: How are you defining sentience? It seems to me that our anthropomorphic tendancies preclude accepting "dumb animals" as sentient beings, so why would an artificial intelligence be any different?
quote: No better or worse than we treat other humans, I'm certain.
quote: Probably not as an AI would be horribly expensive, dont you think?The creation of an AI robot would require a return on its investment though. Indentured servitude? quote: How about if the definition of sentience included other primates?Would you consider granting them them same rights? There is a movement afoot in California to endow pets, ie., cats, dogs, horses, with similar legal rights as a way of protecting them from cruelty. Call me human-centric, but I'm disturbed by the legal ramifications of such an act. Joz:
quote: Excellent.The problem then becomes "how do you make *humans* follow such a code?" Ha! While we can define "human being" from a genetic perspective, ie., a member of the species homo sapien sapien, etc., how do we adequately define it from a social/legal perspective if the definition of sentience will include other primates or AI's? brett
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No problemo. Sorry if I was a little curt in that reply though.
quote: I'm pretty sure that brains are limited in that way too. I readsomewhere long ago, that the consious brain cannot process more that 7 or 8 things at once ... not sure how that was found or where I read it .. but there are limits on what a human can think about in one go. That's not to get confused with thinking, breathing, walking, etc. That's analgous to a modern car or airliner, with a number ofseparate control units responsible for different independent tasks. I agree that the human mind is more complex ... but then it hasfar more component parts in the mechanism that generates it. Not really sure how the underlying notation of the thoughts/calculations bears on complexity of the processing.
quote: Not really. Neural nets are based on an assumption about human thoughtwhich stems from the brain structure as neurons etc. For an artificial neural network to do anything it has tobe trained first using a known input/output set. It can then produce consistent results for inputs which it has not seen before. My personal feeling is that that's not really how human brains operate. The main question had about HUMAN THOUGHT though was in what waycan any kind of processing be NON-ALGORITHMIC. To calculate anything we must have some process which is undertaken in order to reach a result ... an algorithm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7603 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Not necessarily. Have you read Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind" on this very subject? Not that I'm endorsing his conclusions, but I think he demonstrates quite effectively that non-algorithmic thought is a credible model of consciousness. Well worth a read. You will find, or probably already know, that this is an area of intense (and frequently vicious) controversy. All good fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
On a nano-magazine discussion site, I had posted this question about collapse and have not looked back lately but while I checked there was no response. I know that there is much work being done in nano-science but the surface, if I may use a word, does not seem to be commensurable with those I am aware of in ecological theory short of lots of pits I would guess none of us could "see". I was actually thinking of a statment by Feynman I had read years ago before this nano work has picked up steam.
The collopse MAY occur, because unlike simply adding these new hardwares to society in the sense of simply dumping additively cumulative wastes. If one of the nano-bot computers actually builds fogs that surface with the hidden player microbes we do not know the number of they could like Becker's copper for a salamder be a barrier to reproductive multiplicative increase out competeing in an exponential way that unlike simply killing off a species or two (lots of them) as we now do with techonology a whole ecology could be wipped out finding man running for life to the stars. This would be a bleak future indeed I wish not to bequeth the next generation (with).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Aww, c'mon Brad. You're just railing against the next logical evolutionary step. So might the dinosaurs have railed against the future takeover by those horrible mammals if they had been capable of thinking about it. You're only upset 'cause we're doing the creating this time around.
Damn, I better check my medication levels. I actually understood that last post... [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-09-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024