I know its a bit annoying, but it might be a valuable insight nonetheless…
I hvae siad bferoe taht I tihnk taht hmuan barins are vrey dfifrenet tahn cmoutpres. An ainonnyg eaiml snet ot me tuahgt me taht we can slitl raed mssegas eevn if tehy are colpmeelty jmbueld. Culod a cmoptuer do tihs?
If not, does that expose a fundamental difference between the way that the human brain and computer processors “think”? Just an interesting question that I’ve been wondering about.
ya…I don’t think that showing that our brains have the capacity to do something that Microsoft Word already does is a good proof. Don’t get me wrong, I think computers will always lack something that human brains have. I couldn’t tell you what that thing is though. lol. I’m not going to say a soul or a spirit because who am I to say that the soul or the spirit is specifically in the brain?
Maybe creativity. I couldn’t say that we could not make a computer with the capacity to be as creative as an artist, but so far I don’t think anyone could come close to creating software or hardware that could do it. For instance, creating a mythical creature with properties that nothing that this world has. Like I said, I can’t think of a way to prove that computers cannot do this (with a little ingenuity), but it would seem improbable that they can right now.
Or maybe to come up with a riveting, best-selling novel!
If a computer had the appropriate mechanisms, there would be no reason to think that it couldn’t think. At this point, there’s no reason to think that it has those mechanisms. It could simulate those mechanisms, but there’s no reason to think that that would be real thinking.
Ya, I agree with jeff. But could it have the appropriate mechanisms?
If a flower had the proper mechanisms it could have the ability to take over the universe, but that isn’t likely to happen. lol. Then again…
I guess what I am trying to say is that you are telling us that “if a computer had the appropriate mechanisms [to think], then it could think”, but that is what this thread is concerning (I know you only said that there is no reason to suppose that it couldn’t think, but I was only taking this statement a step furthur and I mean no offense to your viewpoint-- this may not even be your viewpoint). I don’t doubt that if anything had the appropriate mechanisms to think, then it could think, but the question is, could computers have the appropriate mechanisms?
At this point there is no reason to think either way-- either that computers could have the proper mechanisms or not. I doubt they will; but only because I’m expecting Yeshua to return sooner than the amount of time needed to solve this problem.
An elementary problem with computers is that they can not represent Real or Rational numbers. They are limited to a specific number of digits and can not do simple iterated mathematical calculations without introducing errors.
This is a huge problem and I do not believe that it can be solved with a digital technology.
The brain is a machine. I think that one day, when we know the brain better… we will have the capability to create an artifical brain. Perhaps first, artificial hair, skin, organs. Finaly the brain, one day we will be producing a human… built not grown. Perhaps…
it’s true that MS word could piece that together and sort out what I was trying to say. But this is not about software being able to recognize patterns of letters, this about the function of the processor.
What I was getting at was try introducing errors like that into a programming or systems environment.
The computer will spit them back… it simply cannot see things the way we
do because computers have precise and explicit limitations, humans have limitations (because we exist), but they are neither precise nor explicit and are not the same as a computers.
Well; we have to ask the next question. What is the mechanism of consciousness? The question is premature, and prompts an interim question; what mechanisms present in the brain are likely candidates for consciousness?
One fundamental mechanism is what neurons do. A great delusion of our time is the notion that, because neurons fire in what’s known as an ‘all or nothing’ fashion, the arrangement of transistors that forms the basis of computer function could model neural behavior by their very nature, either ‘on’ or ‘off.’ Fact is, neurons in the brain fire at a certain frequency depending on their condition and their environment. Human thinking uses this mechanism, the harmonics of neural interaction, to execute the algorithms it executes; it is reasonable to suggest another mechanism, a mechanim of cognition (algorithm execution) that utilises the postulated mechanism of consciousness (communal neural harmonics) to achieve the desired end.
I tend to agree with this position. The fact of consciousness does not limit itself to neurons in the brain; how consciousnes presents is a matter of imbalance. I’m trying to say that the facts of consciousness are an affirmation of spiritual perspectives generally, like the greeks inside the trojan horse. The facts of consciousness and cognition will preceed a global enlightenment, and the enemy will make himself obvious by how he tries to keep people ignorant. Where i live, we are awash in oil money and, still euducation is drastically underfunded; tv is stupid, where it could be informative; the internet is noise, where it could be awsome!
So, i’m beginning to think that this forum is actually full of people who don’t love philosophy.
I mean, come on…
…this speaks directly to the issue, whether or not it suits the original posters desired result. The point is profound wrt how computers are used to simulate cognition; isn’t it?
Wake up; there is a productive course to follow here. Unless you don’t want to move toward the truth.
First this is a very premature question. Computers as of today don’t think at all, don’t do barely anything intelligent, they are truly a piece of iron, end of story. They just do what programmers tell them to do when the computers and programmers are LUCKY because most of the time they can’t even do that.
Having said that, we don’t know ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE BRAIN - MIND -CONSCIOUSNESS. We are at the beginning of time so to speak. So maybe in the year 245,968 this question will make a little more sense. We are now in the year 2006.
At any rate what could happen is that computers start to self program and develop inside themselves ever more complex programs and architectures. Imagining a self evolving computer they could end up becoming conscious and intelligent and then quickly surpass us since they can operate in parallel and trillions of times faster. At that point they will be another kind of being, another kind a ALIEN that thinks and experiences way past anything we can. OF course mixing biological brains and computers could be yet another possibility. In short you get the well known TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY.
I haven’t paid much attention to this thread so I’m not sure if you’re talking to me jeffl…
In case you are, I have a few points to offer in my own defence:
the reason I didn’t post any more was because I agreed with what you said… I think that is a great delusion of our time. I just didn’t have anything to add to what you said.
Because I didn’t have anything to add to your post, and I’m not qualified to speak on how computers are used to model human cognition I chose to remain silent on the topic.
I hate it when someone starts a thread and then their posts are like 90% of the thread.
I directly wanted to attack the popular perception that our brains are like our computers, and I think that you did that really well.
What’s key here, i think, is the birth of an idea; which is related to the breaking of a cusp as i see it. How a program deals with this will dertermine if it might possibly be conscious; as yet noone even talks about it (which doesn’t mean people aren’t working on it, just that they don’t want to talk about it.) Beyond that, there might be a requirement for quantum entaglement, which is a whole other can of worms.
Hate to challenge the challenger, but here’s something that’s always seemed pretty much a proof of the matter to me.
Everything that goes on in our minds is caused by some event in our brains. (Basically every scientist believes this, but if you don’t believe it, I probably can’t convince you. Think of it as a premise of my argument.)
Everything that happens in our brains happens according to physics.
We can discover the laws of physics.
Computers can be programmed to utilize laws of physics.
Theoretically, we could scan the human brain using fMRI technology, to map the network of neurons in the brain.
Then we could dissect brains enough to know the atomic structure of neurons.
Then we could put all this information into a computer simulation, together with the laws of physics, and press “GO”. The computer would model the happenings of a human brain perfectly, and thus would model a human mind, thought and creativity and all, perfectly. The computer would then undeniably be intelligent.
I’m definitely willing to accept the initial premise for the purposes of this discussion.
I do however have a comment on your post:
The software in your case would model the human brain perfectly, I admit - if all your premises are true (which may or may not be the case.) But, it is still a simulation nonetheless. A very good or even perfect simulation, but still a simulation.
Is this important? I believe so, there will still be a distinction between the human brain and the computer. Won’t the computer still just be running software through a processing unit? The processing unit itself will still be a processing unit, it will just run advanced software.
The processor itself will be no more intelligent than a processor is now, the software may be. I dunno, I’m pretty early on in my thought process about this but I see a major distinction between processors running software and the human mind.
