logic vs feeling

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

I wouldn't think so.

why not?

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Fair enough. I think you're giving too much credit to animals and too little credit to computers. But time will certainly tell.

it's got nothing to do with credit. it's got to do with aptitude. animals can do things computers can't and vice versa. no animal can perform a fraction of the functions computers can. im speaking solely about their ability to actively engage their environment. i think that is something computers simply are not capable of doing and i dont see it happening. they have to be programmed. the complexity of any such program is staggering. 100 years of psychology and we still cant figure out how the human brain works. how can we expect to program such thinking into a computer when we don't even understand how it works in our own minds? trying to put that into a computer is so far off as to make it nearly incomprehensible.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Minor thread related trivia: I used to be the webmaster for realdoll.com a long time ago when I worked for the ISP that hosted their site. FYI: that shit is creepy. I used to see the "fan mail" from their site. Your wildest imagination could not come up with some of the very bizarre stuff people do with those dolls.

so it is a good thing i did not open that link on my school's server?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

so it is a good thing i did not open that link on my school's server?

Probably, yes

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

it's got nothing to do with credit. it's got to do with aptitude. animals can do things computers can't and vice versa. no animal can perform a fraction of the functions computers can. im speaking solely about their ability to actively engage their environment. i think that is something computers simply are not capable of doing and i dont see it happening. they have to be programmed. the complexity of any such program is staggering. 100 years of psychology and we still cant figure out how the human brain works. how can we expect to program such thinking into a computer when we don't even understand how it works in our own minds? trying to put that into a computer is so far off as to make it nearly incomprehensible.

Your mind is a collection of tools, no different than a computer. Your mind, however, makes today's computers look very rudimentary. Progress will largely change that.

Yes, a computer still has to be programmed. So does a person, however.

A program is nothing more than a logical construct. Your consciousness is also nothing more than a logical construct. Today, the functions of your inputs and the flexibility of your construct are far superior to the average computer. But there is nothing indefineable about them.

Life is not magic. The lines between the organic and the synthetic will continue to blur to the point that the terms will become rather irrelevant. That's nothing to be afraid of, by default.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Your mind is a collection of tools, no different than a computer. Your mind, however, makes today's computers look very rudimentary. Progress will largely change that.

Yes, a computer still has to be programmed. So does a person, however.

A program is nothing more than a logical construct. Your consciousness is also nothing more than a logical construct. Today, the functions of your inputs and the flexibility of your construct are far superior to the average computer. But there is nothing indefineable about them.

Life is not magic. The lines between the organic and the synthetic will continue to blur to the point that the terms will become rather irrelevant. That's nothing to be afraid of, by default.

Ha man, someone that sees things the way I do.

I'd be careful though, that kind of thinking isn't tolerated around here. Next thing you know people will be treating you like a machine.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Minor thread related trivia: I used to be the webmaster for realdoll.com a long time ago when I worked for the ISP that hosted their site. FYI: that shit is creepy. I used to see the "fan mail" from their site. Your wildest imagination could not come up with some of the very bizarre stuff people do with those dolls.

I can imagine. Real women can be a lot cheaper, but no way you can get them to do everything you want.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Ha man, someone that sees things the way I do.

I'd be careful though, that kind of thinking isn't tolerated around here. Next thing you know people will be treating you like a machine.

Ahnimus, you and I do not see things the same way. You see people as wholly dependent on their environment. I do not. I see people as accepting inputs from their environment and using their will to process that information and make free, non-determined choices based on it.

Secondly, there are many people on this board who will treat you like a machine for your views. While it's sad, I can ask this:

If your world view requires that men are no different than machines, why are you upset when you're treated like one?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Ahnimus, you and I do not see things the same way. You see people as wholly dependent on their environment. I do not. I see people as accepting inputs from their environment and using their will to process that information and make free, non-determined choices based on it.

Secondly, there are many people on this board who will treat you like a machine for your views. While it's sad, I can ask this:

If your world view requires that men are no different than machines, why are you upset when you're treated like one?

So... isn't your view of computers contradictory then?

I mean, you are saying we can have machines that equate to humans, but yet humans have some intangible thing called will?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

If your world view requires that men are no different than machines, why are you upset when you're treated like one?

People act as if I am a machine with a specific set of instructions void of emotion. This is not true, emotion is part of the human instructional code.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

So... isn't your view of computers contradictory then?

No. I didn't say humans and computers are the same. I said that the limitations and functions of both are similar.

I mean, you are saying we can have machines that equate to humans, but yet humans have some intangible thing called will?

I said that you can have machines that perform functions quite similar to humans, yes. Try thinking of it this way:

200 years ago, people manufactured things by hand. The idea of a machine putting together the intricate machinery of, say a watch, was unthinkable. However, machines did come along that were able to accomplish that task. And those machines were built in a way where they mimic human actions. However, those machines are not human.

The same goes for a computer. Just because you give a computer the ability to not only act like a human but also think like a human does not make the computer suddenly human.

Humans do have a thing called will. It is not "intangible". Computers may one day also be structured to have their own wills and that will also not be "intangible". However, possession of a will does not equate to being human any more than having an arm equates to being human.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

People act as if I am a machine with a specific set of instructions void of emotion. This is not true, emotion is part of the human instructional code.

Emotion is part of the "human instructional code". However, when you proclaim that emotion is as simplistic as you do here:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3975003&postcount=274

you discount the myriad of factors that go into such evaluations. Furthermore, you discount the very real possibility of not knowing what to do and, more importantly, the will required to do anything.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

No. I didn't say humans and computers are the same. I said that the limitations and functions of both are similar.

I said that you can have machines that perform functions quite similar to humans, yes. Try thinking of it this way:

200 years ago, people manufactured things by hand. The idea of a machine putting together the intricate machinery of, say a watch, was unthinkable. However, machines did come along that were able to accomplish that task. And those machines were built in a way where they mimic human actions. However, those machines are not human.

The same goes for a computer. Just because you give a computer the ability to not only act like a human but also think like a human does not make the computer suddenly human.

Humans do have a thing called will. It is not "intangible". Computers may one day also be structured to have their own wills and that will also not be "intangible". However, possession of a will does not equate to being human any more than having an arm equates to being human.

Ok, so now you are saying that computers can have will?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Emotion is part of the "human instructional code". However, when you proclaim that emotion is as simplistic as you do here:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3975003&postcount=274

you discount the myriad of factors that go into such evaluations. Furthermore, you discount the very real possibility of not knowing what to do and, more importantly, the will required to do anything.

That was an example of a single response to a single stimuli. It was very simplified. Obviously I don't think that's what it takes.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, so now you are saying that computers can have will?

Of course. Why couldn't they?

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

That was an example of a single response to a single stimuli. It was very simplified. Obviously I don't think that's what it takes.

Then you need to explain the simplification -- otherwise people are going to seriously misread you.

Nearly every post I've seen from you lately treats people as if they were worms or some other animal with very simplistic, instinctual minds. It's not surprising that people are going to use their minds, their emotions, their language and their will to reject that. They're right to do so.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course. Why couldn't they?

Then what determines will?

If you are going to create something that has will, you need to know how will works. I completely agree that we could create will, but that requires determinants.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

Then you need to explain the simplification -- otherwise people are going to seriously misread you.

Nearly every post I've seen from you lately treats people as if they were worms or some other animal with very simplistic, instinctual minds. It's not surprising that people are going to use their minds, their emotions, their language and their will to reject that. They're right to do so.

You didn't see the pages and pages I've written in the past on this?

People didn't understand the complex representations I've provided before. So I simplified.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Then what determines will?

Are you asking what is will, or what determines whether or not something has a will?

If it's the former:

A will is a logical construct wherein an object recognizes its own existence as distinct from the existence of others and has the ability to examine its inputs and make conscious choices on its own.

If you are going to create something that has will, you need to know how will works. I completely agree that we could create will, but that requires determinants.

No, it requires attributes.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it requires attributes.

Same deal. It requires something. Anything that is required by something else is therefor a determinant.

No one has been able to give me an example of an effect without a cause.

As soon as we ask "How?" we assume there is cause and effect.

Until someone can give me a clear example of an effect that has knowingly no causes. I won't buy into free-will.