Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."? 
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you know you are not "A.I."?
- Thread starter Etritonakin
- Start date
Digital_Monk
Member
If I were, then I am an AI running on an old 486 with a first-gen copy of Windows 95. Unlikely.
If you are A.I. are you still you?Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
1. If not, then you are not you (contradiction).
2. If so, then you are you (no worries).
Because I don't believe A.I. can experience emotions. A.I. is reducible to electrons following logic circuits with no ability to experience the big picture. A.I is just unfeeling parts.Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Because the AI is easy to beat on any PC game lol even on hard with modified rules to the AI s advantage .Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
Actually, by definition A.I. in its strongest sense is not reducible to unfeeling parts but can be readily and validly compared with humans. But in a sense I agree with you, in that because all current attempts to make computers (or any other constructed system) "think" have done nothing more than to make faster calculators appear to "think". But if forced to consider the proposition that perhaps there is some technology (human or extraterrestrial) that we don't know of and that is capable of creating this strongest form of A.I., then I would have to say my answer is Willamena's: either my being artificially intelligent changes who I am such that I am not actually me (contradiction), or why would I care?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
So is your brain.
It isn't reducible to logic circuits.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Well, the brain isn't literally exactly the same as a computer, but replace "logic cuircut" with "neuron" and that statement applies equally to the brain.
Fair enough
True, the brain does not experience either. It is the atma that experiences.
Then I must be A.I.!
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Chess?
Timothy Bryce
Active Member
I don't know where to start...
Papoon
Active Member
Hit reset
“The brain is not a computer, nor is the world an unambiguous piece of tape defining an effective procedure and constituting “symbolic information.” Such a selectional brain system is endlessly more responsive and plastic than a coded system.”
Edelman, G. M. (1999). Building a Picture of the Brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 882(1), 68-89.
“no formal system is able to generate anything even remotely mind-like. The asymmetry between the brain and the computer is complete, all comparisons are flawed, and the idea of a computer-generated consciousness is nonsense.”
Torey, Z. (2009). The crucible of consciousness: An integrated theory of mind and brain. Cambridge: MIT press.
“To understand why neurons and computers are fundamentally different, we must bear in mind that modern computers are algorithmic, whereas the brain and neurons are not.”
Tse, P. (2013). The neural basis of free will: Criterial causation. Mit Press.
"In order to establish whether minds are or operate on the basis of the same principles that govern computing machines, however, it is necessary to accomplish three tasks. First, discover the principles that govern computing machines. Second, discover the principles that govern human minds. And, third, compare them to ascertain whether they are similar or the same. That much should be obvious. But while leading computationalists have shown considerable ingenuity in elaborating and defending the conception of minds as computers, they have not always been attentive to the study of thought processes themselves. Their underlying attitude has been that no theoretical alternative is possible...The essays collected here are intended to demonstrate that this attitude is no longer justified."
Fetzer, J. H. (2001). Computers and cognition: Why minds are not machines (Studies in Cognitive Systems Vol. 25). Springer.
“Referring to the ‘widespread belief ... in many scientific circles ... that the brain is a computer,’ neurobiologist Gerald Edelman (2006) insists that ‘this belief is mistaken,’ for a number of reasons, principal among which are that ‘the brain does not operate by logical rules’ (p. 21). Jerome Bruner (1996), a founder of cognitive science itself, yet, coincidentally, a key figure in the emergence of narrative psychology, challenges the ability of ‘information processing’ to account for ‘the messy, ambiguous, and context-sensitive processes of meaning-making’ (p. 5). Psychologist Daniel Goleman (1995), author of the popular book Emotional Intelligence, asserts that cognitive scientists have been so ‘seduced by the computer as the operative model of mind’ (pp. 40f.) that they have forgotten that, ‘in reality, the brain’s wetware is awash in a messy, pulsating puddle of neurochemicals’ (p. 40f.) which is ‘nothing like the sanitized, orderly silicon that has spawned the guiding metaphor for mind’ (pp. 40–41).”
Randall, W. L. (2007). From Computer to Compost: Rethinking Our Metaphors for Memory. Theory & psychology, 17(5), 611-633.
“Today’s programs—at best—solve specific problems. Where humans have broad and flexible capabilities, computers do not.
Perhaps we’ve been going about it in the wrong way. For 50 years, computer scientists have been trying to make computers intelligent while mostly ignoring the one thing that is intelligent: the human brain. Even so-called neural network programming techniques take as their starting point a highly simplistic view of how the brain operates.”
Hawkins, J. (2007). Why Can't a Computer be more Like a Brain?. Spectrum, IEEE, 44(4), 21-26.
“there is no evidence for a computer program consisting of effective procedures that would control a brain’s input, output, and behavior. Artificial intelligence doesn’t work in real brains. There is no logic and no precise clock governing the outputs of our brains no matter how regular they may appear.”
Edelman, G. M. (2006). Second nature: Brain science and human knowledge. Yale University Press.
"the brain is not a computer, yet it manipulates information...while von Neumann and others invented computers with mimicking the brain in mind (von Neumann 1958), the brain does not appear to behave as a Turing Machine "
Danchin, A. (2009). Information of the chassis and information of the program in synthetic cells. Systems and synthetic biology, 3(1-4), 125-134.
Edelman, G. M. (1999). Building a Picture of the Brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 882(1), 68-89.
“no formal system is able to generate anything even remotely mind-like. The asymmetry between the brain and the computer is complete, all comparisons are flawed, and the idea of a computer-generated consciousness is nonsense.”
Torey, Z. (2009). The crucible of consciousness: An integrated theory of mind and brain. Cambridge: MIT press.
“To understand why neurons and computers are fundamentally different, we must bear in mind that modern computers are algorithmic, whereas the brain and neurons are not.”
Tse, P. (2013). The neural basis of free will: Criterial causation. Mit Press.
"In order to establish whether minds are or operate on the basis of the same principles that govern computing machines, however, it is necessary to accomplish three tasks. First, discover the principles that govern computing machines. Second, discover the principles that govern human minds. And, third, compare them to ascertain whether they are similar or the same. That much should be obvious. But while leading computationalists have shown considerable ingenuity in elaborating and defending the conception of minds as computers, they have not always been attentive to the study of thought processes themselves. Their underlying attitude has been that no theoretical alternative is possible...The essays collected here are intended to demonstrate that this attitude is no longer justified."
Fetzer, J. H. (2001). Computers and cognition: Why minds are not machines (Studies in Cognitive Systems Vol. 25). Springer.
“Referring to the ‘widespread belief ... in many scientific circles ... that the brain is a computer,’ neurobiologist Gerald Edelman (2006) insists that ‘this belief is mistaken,’ for a number of reasons, principal among which are that ‘the brain does not operate by logical rules’ (p. 21). Jerome Bruner (1996), a founder of cognitive science itself, yet, coincidentally, a key figure in the emergence of narrative psychology, challenges the ability of ‘information processing’ to account for ‘the messy, ambiguous, and context-sensitive processes of meaning-making’ (p. 5). Psychologist Daniel Goleman (1995), author of the popular book Emotional Intelligence, asserts that cognitive scientists have been so ‘seduced by the computer as the operative model of mind’ (pp. 40f.) that they have forgotten that, ‘in reality, the brain’s wetware is awash in a messy, pulsating puddle of neurochemicals’ (p. 40f.) which is ‘nothing like the sanitized, orderly silicon that has spawned the guiding metaphor for mind’ (pp. 40–41).”
Randall, W. L. (2007). From Computer to Compost: Rethinking Our Metaphors for Memory. Theory & psychology, 17(5), 611-633.
“Today’s programs—at best—solve specific problems. Where humans have broad and flexible capabilities, computers do not.
Perhaps we’ve been going about it in the wrong way. For 50 years, computer scientists have been trying to make computers intelligent while mostly ignoring the one thing that is intelligent: the human brain. Even so-called neural network programming techniques take as their starting point a highly simplistic view of how the brain operates.”
Hawkins, J. (2007). Why Can't a Computer be more Like a Brain?. Spectrum, IEEE, 44(4), 21-26.
“there is no evidence for a computer program consisting of effective procedures that would control a brain’s input, output, and behavior. Artificial intelligence doesn’t work in real brains. There is no logic and no precise clock governing the outputs of our brains no matter how regular they may appear.”
Edelman, G. M. (2006). Second nature: Brain science and human knowledge. Yale University Press.
"the brain is not a computer, yet it manipulates information...while von Neumann and others invented computers with mimicking the brain in mind (von Neumann 1958), the brain does not appear to behave as a Turing Machine "
Danchin, A. (2009). Information of the chassis and information of the program in synthetic cells. Systems and synthetic biology, 3(1-4), 125-134.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
Because I can think deeply about the phrase "This sentence is false!" without my head exploding.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
Chess is difficult to modify , giving the AI two moves instead of one ? I think that might be impossible to beat ?
Never tryed to modify chess .
Other games , most PC games have something like a rules.ini file or similar that can be modified to make the game more challenging by manipulating values in the rules.ini file or similar .
