Exploring the Debate: Organic vs. Artificial Intelligence

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
For mentat to say "humans are computers" is absurd.

Ok. Perhaps you should explain why, as I don't see it's absurdity. Are our brains not computers?

You also failed to define any other type of intelligence other than artifical. If there is a need, which there is, to identifiy artificalness, then what's the other option.

Well, in the sense of "artificial" that I was talking about at the beginning of this thread, the other option is "genuine".

I think this is a classic case of someone being emotional over words.

Yes, I am the PF king of semantics, and don't you forget it .

Humans defined artificial to mean a certain thing. Now you're going and saying it doesn't mean that. Well, yes it does because that's the meaning WE GAVE IT. In other words, you're saying the brown cow isn't brown, or better yet a cow isn't a cow.

What did humans define "artificial" to mean, pray tell?

Regardless of the fact that you're speaking of intelligence, computers, or humans, your argument can quickly be ruined as I did above, using simple logic.

You did nothing of the kind.

DOn't take offense to this.

Of course not.

It's just that I read your post and so quickly formulated all this, it's my fingers that took the time here not my brain.

Let's try thinking before typing, to avoid "swiss cheese logic", shall we (no offense)?

GOod luck

Thanks.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Although mentat has made false statements surely unknowlingly as I don't doubt honest, and although he has broken rule 3 which I am about to add to my signature because it's very common now too, I have a tidbit to help his case, least i hope so.

Brains of species are defined as complex or advanced based on the amount of neaural connections, nerves I should say thus the amount of possibilities, and other similar critera. Of course taking notice of which parts of the brain a species has is also important.

Recently I saw some tech shows involving advanced intelligence. They compared these machines to humans brains by the amount of "electrical" connections in them VS the brain.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

The brain "does what it does" using two things

1. chemical interactions
2. electrical interactions.

The brain is entirely nerve cells. WITHIN a nerve cell, is the electrical reaction. BETWEEN NERVE cells is where the chemical interactions take place.

Now, since a given pice of technology would NOT need to have this between space, it could surely immitate a brain using only electricity.

suprised? Yes, indeed. Our brain processes are completely ELECTROCHEMICAL. That is the summation of processes by which we "think" and do other things like access memories or gain new ones.

So, I ask you, is a machine that uses only electrochemical interactions to process information artifical?

If so, then are we artifical? Despite what many wish to believe, that is all we consist of brainwise.

Perhaps the difference lies in the "nature" of what we can do with our brains?

I machine can access information, accept new information, change information and output information.

When can it USE information to create ITS OWN NEW INFORMATION?

Ever heard of DEEP BLUE?

DEEP BLUE is the considered currently the most intelligent machine. It is a machine that is designed to do one thing. play chess better than any human being, and never lose.

Yes it does lose. It also is designed to think. rather than having an entire program of all moves possible, and simply accessing that. It does this "thinking" thing.

It uses electricity, no chemicals.

Is it artifical, and if so why? If you need information on in just use google and type "deep blue" and add perhaps chess..I'll post this in it's own place because I suppose it will add a lot to mentat's questions and propsitons...

 

[wimms]

I am out. This is becoming noise exchange. See you in other threads.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Noise exchange? to me this is a good subject, one that, with common definitions, is certainly open to opinion, sorry you don't feel that way!

Here is a link to the revived part citing his original post and my post which I feel will open up some new thoughts for people interested:


https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=26086#post26086

Enjoy!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Although mentat has made false statements surely unknowlingly as I don't doubt honest, and although he has broken rule 3 which I am about to add to my signature because it's very common now too, I have a tidbit to help his case, least i hope so.

How about we remember that Mentat reads these as well, and speak at him, if we have something to say to him. There are few things more patronizing than speaking of someone in the third person, while they are present (and thus, being a teen and a middle child, there are few things I hate worse).

Recently I saw some tech shows involving advanced intelligence. They compared these machines to humans brains by the amount of "electrical" connections in them VS the brain.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

The brain "does what it does" using two things

1. chemical interactions
2. electrical interactions.

The brain is entirely nerve cells. WITHIN a nerve cell, is the electrical reaction. BETWEEN NERVE cells is where the chemical interactions take place.

Now, since a given pice of technology would NOT need to have this between space, it could surely immitate a brain using only electricity.

suprised?

Not at all, any biology textbook would tell you the same.

So, I ask you, is a machine that uses only electrochemical interactions to process information artifical?

It can be, if you define "artificial" as man-made. It's not any less genuine than any other process of thinking (of course, I can't think of any other processes of thinking, but the fact remains).

If so, then are we artifical? Despite what many wish to believe, that is all we consist of brainwise.

Please post which definition of "artificial" you are discussing, so that I can respond better.

Perhaps the difference lies in the "nature" of what we can do with our brains?

What "difference"? The "difference" between what and what?

I machine can access information, accept new information, change information and output information.

When can it USE information to create ITS OWN NEW INFORMATION?

I've seen humans do this all of the time. Humans are machines (unless you deny that our bodies are collections of parts that serve purposes), and they can do that. Besides, even if you exclude humans, you are talking about creativity, not intelligence.

Ever heard of DEEP BLUE?

DEEP BLUE is the considered currently the most intelligent machine. It is a machine that is designed to do one thing. play chess better than any human being, and never lose.

Yes it does lose. It also is designed to think. rather than having an entire program of all moves possible, and simply accessing that. It does this "thinking" thing.

It uses electricity, no chemicals.

Is it artifical, and if so why? If you need information on in just use google and type "deep blue" and add perhaps chess..I'll post this in it's own place because I suppose it will add a lot to mentat's questions and propsitons...

Deep Blue is man-made, and so it is that kind of "artificial". I don't think it's intelligence is any less genuine than a human's, if that's what you mean by "artificial".

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I responded to this on the new page. admin feel free to lock this as it's on the sequel!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I responded to this on the new page. admin feel free to lock this as it's on the sequel!

Kerrie, I have no problem with that (locking this one, and having us continue on LogicalAtheist's thread). It will be easier to deal with than responding to two threads.

Of course, his doesn't have the poll, but that's rather unimportant now.