Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[Arminius]

Wygotski is (partly) wrong, Piaget is (partly) wrong. Do you agree to that statement, Obe?

[Orbie]

Wygotsky is (partly) wrong, Piaget is (partly) wrong. Do you agree to that statement, Obe?

They are neither right or wrong. They are only trying to define a a conceptual schema, while it is a relation they are seeking. A relation which as of yet is beyond definition. I have just come upon a book i had stored in my garage for years, and recently i had a visitor, to whom i wanted give away some of my books. Came upon Piaget's ' The Child's Conception of Time' I have started a re read, for i have no recollection of any of it, yet i am sure to find some very keen insight and relevance there. The whole thing can be distilled from the last part of his conclusion, :

'Operations in psychological time would therefore seem to be mainly of a qualitative kind. Does this mean that there is no such thing as quantitative inner time? Bergson borrowed most of his imagery from music and, whenever this master of introspection wished to show that creative duration involved irreducibly intuitive and anti-rational factors, he did so in terms of melody, rhythm and symphony. But what else is music then an inner type of mathematics? Long before Pythagoras discovered the numerical ratios which determine the principal musical intervals, ancient shepherds, singing their songs or playing an air on their pipes, busily constructed musical scales and realized,without being able to put it into so many words, that a minimum equals two crotchets and a crotchet equals two quavers. Musical rhythm is, in fact, the most intuitive of all time measurements and is most certainly not imposed from outside. ....... .....

All this points to the common nature of temporal operations in all spheres, and to the close relationship between psychological and physical time..........'

Holderlin says, speech, as distinct from mere noise, can only exist, 'wenn die Stille kehrt.' For him, homecoming to internal roots implicates the 'intricate equilibrium between utterance and the unsaid'.

The Umnachtung,m or mental derangement, to which Holderlin succumbed. -or took upon himself (Sterner, On Difficulty) - the aetological classifications being in such a case wholly naive (childlike), is relevant, no doubt. But, in what way?'


For Wygotsky, speech is not an interiorization of extemporaneous thought, for him it is a process, 'where, words die, as they bring forth thought. It is thinking in pure meanings. "It is a dynamic , shifting, unstable thing, fluttering between word and thought.'

I retract my earlier argument with Zinnat, and withdraw from the purely positivist approach of no thought without words, since the changes which are inherent between usages are shared by both psychologists. But then, what is the nature of a wordless thought? Is it the many shades of grey between the the literal and figurative, between the qualitative and quantitative? Are these the mere products of immediate exposures to phonemes instantly connected and abandoned to phenomena? this may be it.

[Wizard]

Are humans already machines to begin with?

I take a child and program his or her brain, from an early age, through preschool to college. I am the teacher and professor. I can fill this child's head full of truth or lies. Does anybody care? Does the child have a defense? Or won't the child take to my programming without doubt? What if I am most trusted and the position of highest authority? What if the child is loyal to my truth, or my lies? What if I program a computer? What's the difference between programming a human, using human language, and programming a computer, using computer language? Is human language any different than computer language? It's all electrons, isn't it? What is the nature of information?

How should children be programmed?
How should computers be programmed?
What's the difference, if any?
Aren't humans already machines to begin with?

[Arminius]

Both Wygotski and Piaget claim to speak about something that nobody knows what it actually is: psychology (see also here).

[Orbie]

Both Wygotski and Piaget claim to speak about something that nobody knows what it actually is: psychology (see also here).

All hypothesis are delusive to a certain extent, they are intuitive encapsulations of gross unrealized substratum of knowledge. They elude clarification , and co-exist with fleeting illusions, of prescribed artistic illustrations, before they can be subjected to mathematical, physical and semantic tests. The psyche, is a term often use to describe some thing, event, occurrence, a hypothetical construct, that has no existence apart from the need to bridge the void created by the very act of invention, creation, and definition. It is the creative force, which knows, but needs to unveil the intricate subterranean chambers of it's constitution. It is not a persona, it is an urge.

[Arminius]

Is human language any different than computer language?

Of course: human language and computer language are different.

[Wizard]

Of course: human language and computer language are different.

Incorrect, computer hardware converts electronic impulses into computer language, nearly exactly, or completely exactly, to how the human brain also converts perception into sense data, through the bio electrical impulses of the human brain.

The brain acts as a CPU.

[Orbie]

Of course: human language and computer language are different.

Incorrect, computer hardware converts electronic impulses into computer language, nearly exactly, or completely exactly, to how the human brain also converts perception into sense data, through the bio electrical impulses of the human brain.

The brain acts as a CPU.

Not only that, both, the human mind and the computer function on similar schema, of dia-logue. Pairs of yes/no schema tied together in intricate accept/reject flows, where the flow chosen is the most situationally appropriate , most probable both qualitatively and quantitatively.
There maybe thousands or even tens of thousands of possible flows from which to choose from, on a changing matrix of possibility .

[Arminius]

Of course: human language and computer language are different.

Incorrect, computer hardware converts electronic impulses into computer language, nearly exactly, or completely exactly, to how the human brain also converts perception into sense data, through the bio electrical impulses of the human brain.

The brain acts as a CPU.

That's no argument that these two languages ​​are the same.

Please notice that I'm not saying that this two languages have no common ground(s), but I am saying that they are just not the same.

[Arminius]

Wygotski claims exactly, that language is 'outside', whereas Piaget does claim the opposite ...

That's right, and (not only therefore) they are wrong.

[Orbie]

Hi, Arminius, opposites are not right or wrong, they are simply opposites. they may synch. And i am sure on some level they do. We are just not there, yet.

[Arminius]

Hi, Arminius, opposites are not right or wrong, they are simply opposites. they may synch. And i am sure on some level they do. We are just not there, yet.

Hi, Obe, opposites are indeed "simply opposites", but each of them can be wrong anyway.

[Orbie]

i would like to leave it at that, but the problem with Your last statement here, is that currently, the above cited 2 views are the leading contenders for the 'right' approach. So, although they may be right/wrong as any theoretical viewpoint, so far they both have workable constructs, and leading child psychologists are using them in working with children. Psychology today is one of multi phasic approach where it is not a question of the right or wrong approach, rather, it is trying differing approaches and see which merits the best result

[zinnat]

Sanjay, Wygotski claims exactly, that language is 'outside', , whereas Piaget does claim the opposite, that it is a-priori? So, So, You are taking contradictory positions, unwittingly but wisely. That is exactly my point and (Kant's) How are a priori-synthetic propositions possible? You are a Kantian!

Obe,

You can say that i am Kantian. Though, i should rather say that i agree with him at many issues about the methosdology of the mind. To me, he is the height of pure intellectual (non-religious) phiolosphy as far as the philosophy of the mind is concerned. No intellectual and convention philosopher has cross that limit.

As i see it, this is how the ontology goes-

First of all, there is some a priori capacity exist in the mind to sense and feel, whether he know, expreienced or thought about anything ever or not. This comes embeded with the mind at the time of birth. Not only humans, but every living entity use to born with this, though the quantum of the capacity differs in each case.

As this capacity enables us to sense and feel, and as circumstances use to change all the time, thus this capacity of the mind gets more and new feelings all the time. And, it start discerning and comapring between those, after a limit it starts emulating too. This is thinking.

When this manifested thinking needs to be communicated to the others, we invent some mutually agreed audiable sounds for our different thoughts. That is word or language.

So, language comes later. it is not the base. The base is our feeling capacity and that is precisely the language of our's or anybody living creature's mind.

We do not think in the terms of language or words. That is not even possible. Our invented languages used to be decoded by the mind into feeling for being understood. But, all this happens so instantly, we do not realize it generally.

Thinking is nothing but the complex form of feeling. And, in the same way, language is the complex form of thinking and its translation into audio for communication.

Had there was a single human in the world, no verbal language would be invented. But, that does not mean that lone person would not be able to think either.

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

No intellectual and convention philosopher has cross that limit.

He was an amateur.

The "language of the mind" is that of emulation. The mind emulates sensory responses in order to predict future situations, much as in a dream. The results of the emulation become the next stimulators (as though they were real experiences) that also send waves of emulated sensory events. It is a process of both parallel and serial processing of self-invoked, "artificial", emulation more commonly known as "imagination".

In AI, it is recursive neural networking.

[Orbie]

Sanjay, Wygotski claims exactly, that language is 'outside', , whereas Piaget does claim the opposite, that it is a-priori? So, So, You are taking contradictory positions, unwittingly but wisely. That is exactly my point and (Kant's) How are a priori-synthetic propositions possible? You are a Kantian!

Obe,

You can say that i am Kantian. Though, i should rather say that i agree with him at many issues about the methosdology of the mind. To me, he is the height of pure intellectual (non-religious) phiolosphy as far as the philosophy of the mind is concerned. No intellectual and convention philosopher has cross that limit.

As i see it, this is how the ontology goes-

First of all, there is some a priori capacity exist in the mind to sense and feel, whether he know, expreienced or thought about anything ever or not. This comes embeded with the mind at the time of birth. Not only humans, but every living entity use to born with this, though the quantum of the capacity differs in each case.

As this capacity enables us to sense and feel, and as circumstances use to change all the time, thus this capacity of the mind gets more and new feelings all the time. And, it start discerning and comapring between those, after a limit it starts emulating too. This is thinking.

When this manifested thinking needs to be communicated to the others, we invent some mutually agreed audiable sounds for our different thoughts. That is word or language.

So, language comes later. it is not the base. The base is our feeling capacity and that is precisely the language of our's or anybody living creature's mind.

We do not think in the terms of language or words. That is not even possible. Our invented languages used to be decoded by the mind into feeling for being understood. But, all this happens so instantly, we do not realize it generally.

Thinking is nothing but the complex form of feeling. And, in the same way, language is the complex form of thinking and its translation into audio for communication.

Had there was a single human in the world, no verbal language would be invented. But, that does not mean that lone person would not be able to think either.

with love,
sanjay

Sanjay,

The first view places emphasis on the idea, the second the phenomena. The meaning theory associated with the first, view predisposes meaning with a view that change in meaning implicates very little difference on the understanding of the child. This is Piaget.

The other view emphasizes learning as considering changes in the ideas surrounding meaning, as pivotal. Here the primordial ideas are not entirely discounted, but are minimized, thereby shifting the emphasis.

Whether there are primordial, precognitive thoughts in either scenario, becomes not totally irrelevant, but mostly a hypothetical question.

[zinnat]

No intellectual and convention philosopher has cross that limit.

He was an amateur.

The "language of the mind" is that of emulation. The mind emulates sensory responses in order to predict future situations, much as in a dream. The results of the emulation become the next stimulators (as though they were real experiences) that also send waves of emulated sensory events. It is a process of both parallel and serial processing of self-invoked, "artificial", emulation more commonly known as "imagination".

In AI, it is recursive neural networking.

In a sense, he was amatrue because he was not tranied for what he attempted. But, that does not mitigate his position. He still achieved that no other conventional philosopher could.

Secondly, You are not deducting the process completely.
How can a mind can even emulate ever if it does not has the capacity to feel/sense/understand that emulation, in the first place? And, why should mind even bother about emulation? It must have sensed something first, then would have desired emulation.
Why are you leaving that first stage?

Emulation is not the only capacity that mind has. Emulation is the combine effort of feel and will, which are the two different chatacters of the mind and both come embeded. Emulation cannot happen in the absense or either. Pure feeling cannot manifest emulation unless the feeling entity does not has the desire to emulate.

with love,
sanjay

[Orbie]

I think the reason epistemology has-regressed to Sassure, is because it is both: a figurative and literal modus operandi of returning to the sources of symbol-sign formation. The existential reduction of bracketing meaning has proven ineffective , especially in the Continent, and pre cognitive literacy may re-enact in this way, the very earliest way symbols evolved. But thought in this cave picture age, is tantamount to thinking visually. Can visual presentation and re-presentation be interpreted as 'thought'? If not, then there is no way that a break free continuity between pictures and signs can be established. There may at one time have been such, but if so, meaning has been degraded to the point where we have to return to it.

Emulation does not either escape criticism, nor sensation or will.

[James S Saint]

Emulation is the ONLY thinking that a mind does. The initial sensations and resultant verbiage use constitute the premise concepts and final actions involved. Everything between is entirely emulation.

That is why people learn more quickly through experience than reading or lectures and why symbols and sounds emulate their associated concepts.

[Orbie]

Emulation is the ONLY thinking that a mind does. The initial sensations and resultant verbiage use constitute the premise concepts and final actions involved. Everything between is entirely emulation.

That is why people learn more quickly through experience than reading or lectures and why symbols and sounds emulate their associated concepts.

Emulation of experience is mimicking not thinking, unless the use of the word think can be re-defined to include wider parameters. First, the meaning of thought has to be signified. What then is thought? Most will whip out Webster and 'look it up'. But James, the tension between referentiality and use has already been seen as variable and controversially , as of yet indefinite. So that does not work. What does?

Original ideas and their associative counterparts can not be emulated because there are none. That's the point. There may be, but they are visual re-presentations. There is a break there, and no gap-less continuum can be demonstrated, where it can safely be said-'that's where it began'

[James S Saint]

Obe, you are conflating simulating with emulating. A simulation uses a proposed model to stand in for or represent a real entity and projects behavior based on presumed principles. An emulation uses artificial stimulations to trigger natural responses. The parts of the brain doing the thinking are the same parts that respond to real stimulation except the reactive output is turned off, else the person "sleep walks", acting out his thoughts (such as talking to oneself out loud) or is "delusional", not being able to distinguish real stimulation from his own artificial stimulation. That is why those maladies exist.

[James S Saint]

And no offense intended, but this whole issue of how the brain thinks is not really a philosophical issue any more. It is a hardcore engineering fact. There is actually very little mystery about it. Recursive, recurrent, and forwardfeeding processes are simply the way neural networks function, whether organic or mechanical. It doesn't matter what we would like or fancifully imagine might be taking place. There is nothing that a human brain does that an artificial brain (a neural network) hasn't been designed to replicate and surpass.

When they finally get to the point of allowing you to see what real neural androids can do, it is going to make you feel so mentally handicapped that it is going to scare and depress you pretty seriously. They very seriously don't need You.

[Orbie]

And offense intended, but this whole issue of how the brain thinks is not really a philosophical issue any more. It is a hardcore engineering fact. There is actually very little mystery about it. Recursive, recurrent, and forwardfeeding processes are simply the way neural networks function, whether organic or mechanical. It doesn't matter what we would like or fancifully imagine might be taking place. There is nothing that a human brain does that an artificial brain (a neural network) hasn't been designed to replicate and surpass.

When they finally get to the point of allowing you to see what real neural androids can do, it is going to make you feel so mentally handicapped that it is going to scare and depress you pretty seriously. They very seriously don't need You.

In Your previous posts You indicated semantic differences as significant, and the next blog dismissed any philosophical implications within the study of mind, based on the idea, that more and more emphasis is shifting toward the mechanistic wired in views of brain function, away from the neurological-psychological interpretation.

I tend to agree with You, but only with the following caveat. The fact that evolution has advanced to the point where brain function has been transplanted to the machine. The fact is that it was the human brain which thought of the computer is significant, because it was within the potential of the human brain to come up with it. The computer may be looked at as the evolutionary extension of the brain, and even if, the capabilities of the computer far exceed in certain functions, it is to the credit of the human brain that this became a possibility.

The question of whether the artificial brain will ever become smarter, other then faster and more efficient, is highly questionable, since smartness begs semantic questions as to what being 'smart' actually mean. My feeling is that artificial intelligence will outpace the natural brain quantitatively ,whereas, the human brain will become ever more important in qualifying factors relating processing of information.

[James S Saint]

Sorry, that was supposed to be a "...no offense intended...".

And [no] offense intended, but this whole issue of how the brain thinks is not really a philosophical issue any more. It is a hardcore engineering fact. There is actually very little mystery about it. Recursive, recurrent, and forwardfeeding processes are simply the way neural networks function, whether organic or mechanical. It doesn't matter what we would like or fancifully imagine might be taking place. There is nothing that a human brain does that an artificial brain (a neural network) hasn't been designed to replicate and surpass.

When they finally get to the point of allowing you to see what real neural androids can do, it is going to make you feel so mentally handicapped that it is going to scare and depress you pretty seriously. They very seriously don't need You.

In Your previous posts You indicated semantic differences as significant, and the next blog dismissed any philosophical implications within the study of mind, based on the idea, that more and more emphasis is shifting toward the mechanistic wired in views of brain function, away from the neurological-psychological interpretation.

I'm not sure what you said, but what I was saying is that it isn't a matter of interpretation any more. People like Kant had to guess about such things. Science has gone far pass any speculations on the matter other than small sophisticated details. The military has had the brain mapped with extreme accuracy for decades, fully aware of exactly how much EMR or chemicals to use in order to cause exactly which effects. They have hypnosis down to instant perfection. They don't really need to experiment or hypothesize any longer. It would be about like experimenting to see what air is really made of.

The fact that evolution has advanced to the point where brain function has been transplanted to the machine. The fact is that it was the human brain which thought of the computer is significant, because it was within the potential of the human brain to come up with it. The computer may be looked at as the evolutionary extension of the brain, and even if, the capabilities of the computer far exceed in certain functions, it is to the credit of the human brain that this became a possibility.

Machines have nothing to do with evolution other than interfering with it. And yes, Man is to be credited for being so stupid as to create a life form so very much more advanced than his own.

The question of whether the artificial brain will ever become smarter, other then faster and more efficient, is highly questionable, since smartness begs semantic questions as to what being 'smart' actually mean.

Only to people who have no idea of how far past those questions the world really is. It is about like wondering if a machine could ever outrun a horse. When they hadn't seen it yet, they wondered if there wasn't some mysterious phenomenon that would prevent it. After they saw machines out run not only horses but everything else, they stopped asking the question. But the question was silly to begin with. And right now it is seriously silly to wonder if AI systems can be more intelligent than humans. They can be as far past human intelligence as how much they can outrun horses.

My feeling is that artificial intelligence will outpace the natural brain quantitatively ,whereas, the human brain will become ever more important in qualifying factors relating processing of information.

The human brain has only fading residual use, soon to be none.

[zinnat]

Emulation is the ONLY thinking that a mind does. The initial sensations and resultant verbiage use constitute the premise concepts and final actions involved. Everything between is entirely emulation.

That is why people learn more quickly through experience than reading or lectures and why symbols and sounds emulate their associated concepts.

James,

You are yourself saying that that initial sensations. That is what i am sugesting.
The first thing that the mind has to do is to sense. Eeverything else is secondary and secondry things cannot be the original language.

Emulation happens when sensing gets complex and will tries to emulate those.

I can agree with the rest.

with love,
sanjay