Why are we humans and not robots?

[SamCogar]

So sayith …… jimmydasaint to Sam C:

I stand by my original statement in the absence of any scientific evidence to the contrary. Consciousness to a human level and also evolution of language present a mystery to scientists.

 

 

Like I told you before, ….. jimmydasaint, ….. the evolution of “consciousness and language” IS NOT a mystery to this scientist, ….. yours truly, Samuel C Cogar.

 

Jimmy D, me thinks you had best quit reading all that “tripe n’ piffle” commentary that is authored and published by those “psychobabblers” who are notorious for creating “weazelworded” rhetoric of little or no importance whatsoever other than to impress their “like-minded” peers and associates.

 

And again sayith ….. jimmydasaint to Sam C:

Sam, give me one paper on Mother Nature and how Mother Nature has performed experiments to reach one objective truth. Call it what you want, it is a whimsical notion. Why not just call it Santa Clause?

 

 

I will Jimmy D, ….. I will give you one (1) paper on Mother Nature ….. just as soon as you, Jimmy D, presents to me one (1) paper on your God Creator and how your God Creator has performed experiments to reach one objective truth associated with his/her/its creations.

 

Jimmy D, ….. I really hate to tell you this, …… but, …… GETTA CLUE, ….. the only reason that you are now an adamant and vocal “believer” in a Creator, ….. a God of Creation …… or a God of the Biblical Creation ….. is that your parent(s) and/or guardian(s) have been nurturing you to believe in said “creator”, beginning with the day of your birth.

 

Jimmy D, ….. “You are what your environment nurtured you to be”, ……. and unlucky for us, …. an Amazonian rain forest was not your “birth” environment.

 

You need to spend more time reading actual Biblical histories ......... rather than reading printed verbiage from your translated copy of the originally composed Bible that was mandated by Emperor Constantine.

[Moontanman]

 

Like I told you before, ….. jimmydasaint, ….. the evolution of “consciousness and language” IS NOT a mystery to this scientist, ….. yours truly, Samuel C Cogar.

 

Jimmy D, me thinks you had best quit reading all that “tripe n’ piffle” commentary that is authored and published by those “psychobabblers” who are notorious for creating “weazelworded” rhetoric of little or no importance whatsoever other than to impress their “like-minded” peers and associates.

 

 

I will Jimmy D, ….. I will give you one (1) paper on Mother Nature ….. just as soon as you, Jimmy D, presents to me one (1) paper on your God Creator and how your God Creator has performed experiments to reach one objective truth associated with his/her/its creations.

 

Jimmy D, ….. I really hate to tell you this, …… but, …… GETTA CLUE, ….. the only reason that you are now an adamant and vocal “believer” in a Creator, ….. a God of Creation …… or a God of the Biblical Creation ….. is that your parent(s) and/or guardian(s) have been nurturing you to believe in said “creator”, beginning with the day of your birth.

 

Jimmy D, ….. “You are what your environment nurtured you to be”, ……. and unlucky for us, …. an Amazonian rain forest was not your “birth” environment.

 

You need to spend more time reading actual Biblical histories ......... rather than reading printed verbiage from your translated copy of the originally composed Bible that was mandated by Emperor Constantine.

 

 

Hey Jimmy look! Pownies!

[MigL]

You can program 'fear' as a response to an input ( or several ) into your computer, Bender, and every single computer running that program will have exactly the same response.

Yet some humans are afraid of the dark, some aren't.

Some are claustrophobic, some are not.

Some are afraid of heights, some aren't.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this ?

We are not simply 'running a program'.

[Bender]

I could write a program that gives computers seemingly random fear responses based on the information found in their log files. e.g. if the program encounters a certain amount of forced reboots in the logs, it starts the "fear for crash" algorithm.

 

Where do human fears come from if not from past experiences?

Of course, if you do not like that hypothesis, I can adapt my program to whatever you suggest instead.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Bender

[SamCogar]

You can adapt your computer software to do whatever the hardware "instruction set" permits you to make "adaptions" to.

 

But your computer software can not do anything other that what the program code "instructs" it to do,

 

All computer program "code" functions correctly,

[Delta1212]

You can adapt your computer software to do whatever the hardware "instruction set" permits you to make "adaptions" to.

 

But your computer software can not do anything other that what the program code "instructs" it to do,

 

All computer program "code" functions correctly,

So?

[Bender]

You can adapt your computer software to do whatever the hardware "instruction set" permits you to make "adaptions" to.

 

But your computer software can not do anything other that what the program code "instructs" it to do,

 

All computer program "code" functions correctly,

I can't suddenly start speaking Chinese either, because I don't have the right "program code" in my brain.

 

If you want, I can program my computer to make random errors.

[SamCogar]

 

If you want, I can program my computer to make random errors.

 

Uh, ..... "NO", ...... you can't.

 

I am sure that you can program your computer (generate computer code) that will randomly add, delete, change or modify a part or portion of the “output data”, ……. but, regardless of what was changed or modified, ….. said “output data” would still be functionally correct.

 

But now an “onlooker” or recipient of said “output data” would surely declare it to be “in error”.

 

Intermittent “failure” of electrical or electronic components will cause random errors.

[Strange]

You can program 'fear' as a response to an input ( or several ) into your computer, Bender, and every single computer running that program will have exactly the same response.

Yet some humans are afraid of the dark, some aren't.

Some are claustrophobic, some are not.

Some are afraid of heights, some aren't.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this ?

We are not simply 'running a program'.

 

 

Bad analogy.

 

Different hardware running different software with different data inputs and different histories will not all behave the same.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Strange

[Bender]

 

Uh, ..... "NO", ...... you can't.

 

I am sure that you can program your computer (generate computer code) that will randomly add, delete, change or modify a part or portion of the “output data”, ……. but, regardless of what was changed or modified, ….. said “output data” would still be functionally correct.

 

But now an “onlooker” or recipient of said “output data” would surely declare it to be “in error”.

 

Intermittent “failure” of electrical or electronic components will cause random errors.

I'm confused, first you say that "I can't", and then you say that I can make the output data to appear in error, which functionally comes down to "I can".

 

If we observe only the output of humans making errors or computers making errors, what's the difference? Is there any reason to assume fundamentally different processes are going on inside?

 

I guess it would also be possible to design faulty hardware, but why bother if I can simply program the desired output?

Edited February 17, 2017 by Bender

[Strange]

I assume the argument is that Humans Are Special (what with being created by aliens and everything) and so the human mind can do things that computers can't. Of course there is no evidence of that. But why let that get in the way of a good story.

[MigL]

I don't know where you got that from, Strange; that's not the argument at all.

 

To examine just one obvious difference...

A mind has adaptive capabilities. Its basic principle of operation may be similar to a computer, but it can also generate new circuitry to deal with complex problems. A computer cannot. Yet !

I remember what I learned when I first started working out with weights 41 yrs ago...

If you put a 6 hp load continuously on a 5 hp machine, you blow the machine.

If you put a 6 hp load continuously on a 5 hp body, you end up with a 6 hp body.

The mind and computers behave analogously because the mind can adapt.

A computer cannot 'grow' more circuitry nor can it re-write it own code as it sees fit.

 

If computers ever gain the ability to create circuitry as the problem demands, my assertion is that they will be no different than a human and will have all the extraneous stuff that Jimmy alluded to.

They will essentially be a new life form

[Strange]

I don't know where you got that from, Strange; that's not the argument at all.

 

 

I was referring to the OPs argument, not yours.

 

 

 

A mind has adaptive capabilities. Its basic principle of operation may be similar to a computer, but it can also generate new circuitry to deal with complex problems. A computer cannot. Yet !

 

Does the brain generate new circuitry to deal with complex problems?

 

You may be referring to plasticity, but that is a long way from how that works.

 

And there are computers that have self-modifying hardware that can be tuned for specific problems.

 

 

A computer cannot 'grow' more circuitry nor can it re-write it own code as it sees fit.

 

And there are systems that will develop new (as in, novel, not created by the programmer) algorithms to tackle new problems.

 

 

 

If computers ever gain the ability to create circuitry as the problem demands, my assertion is that they will be no different than a human and will have all the extraneous stuff that Jimmy alluded to.

 

That is an interesting Idea. I am not convinced that this would be necessary for "real AI" (or whatever you want to call it) because these processes in the brain take many orders of magnitude longer than thought does. (As you say, days or weeks as opposed to milliseconds.)

[SamCogar]

I'm confused, first you say that "I can't", and then you say that I can make the output data to appear in error, which functionally comes down to "I can".

 

 

You just confirmed what I told you. aka: "to appear in error" to a user or onlooker.

 

Regardless of what the output data consisted of, …. it was in fact 100% correct and factual as per instructed (instructions) by the computer code that you created.

 

Iffen a computer program is not functioning the way that the programmer or “user” wants it to be functioning, ……. it is not the fault of the computer or the program, It’s the fault of the programmer, the systems analyst or the “user” him/herself.

 

Why do you think 100% of all the “output data”…… being generated by 100% of the …. climate modelling computer programs being used by NASA, NOAA, Berkley, etc., …… is utterly and totally FUBAR?

 

The answer to the above is, ........ SISO.

 

Cheers, ..... the ole computer designing dinosaur

[Delta1212]

I don't know where you got that from, Strange; that's not the argument at all.

 

To examine just one obvious difference...

A mind has adaptive capabilities. Its basic principle of operation may be similar to a computer, but it can also generate new circuitry to deal with complex problems. A computer cannot. Yet !

I remember what I learned when I first started working out with weights 41 yrs ago...

If you put a 6 hp load continuously on a 5 hp machine, you blow the machine.

If you put a 6 hp load continuously on a 5 hp body, you end up with a 6 hp body.

The mind and computers behave analogously because the mind can adapt.

A computer cannot 'grow' more circuitry nor can it re-write it own code as it sees fit.

 

If computers ever gain the ability to create circuitry as the problem demands, my assertion is that they will be no different than a human and will have all the extraneous stuff that Jimmy alluded to.

They will essentially be a new life form

Two things here, one, you're really talking about energy saving measures on the human side. That's not an advantage in potential that humans have, it's effectively a low power mode. The human body/brain does not have infinite ability to expand to handle ever greater challenges. There are limits that you will eventually hit. Looking at it from this direction, we do not start at our maximum potential whereas a computer does, and it remains there without constant use, where we do not.

 

Second, neural networks are effectively designed to rewrite their own behavior based on experience and/or trial and error experimentation in pursuit of a desired outcome. They can and will adapt to changing circumstances and problems if you wish to apply them in such a manner.

 

The AI Google now uses for translate, in fact, uses pre-existing knowledge of the languages it has already learned to translate in order to learn new translations. It stores semantic information about words that have related meanings and can therefore very quickly learn to translate between two languages it has already "learned" by translating from something else, even before it has been given any examples. In other words, if it knows English <> Japanese and Japanese <> Korean, it can figure out English <> Korean without being taught English <> Korean, although additional input will help refine it. And it does so without simply running it through Japanese like the game of online translation chaining.

[SamCogar]

........ and so the human mind can do things that computers can't. Of course there is no evidence of that. But why let that get in the way of a good story.

 

Oh, my, my, .... dat made me think of ....... "hell hath no fury like that of a highly emotionally irritated female".

 

Strange, the human brain/mind is a per se computer. A biological computer.

 

A biological self-programming, multi-processing, quad-quad-quad core super-computer that creates additional “data storage” as needed …….. and is constantly “re-wiring” and/or ”re-programming” itself on a daily basis ……. relative to the environmentally sensed info/data it receives via the sense organs.

 

Strange, in actuality, the only thing that an electronic or a mechanical computer can do ….. is to, per se, answer “yes” or ”no” when presented a “choice” to make.

 

And that is exactly why they are all referred to as "binary" computers. Binary = 2, ..... 0 or 1, .... + or -, ..... yes or no, .... etc.

Second, neural networks are effectively designed to rewrite their own behavior based on experience and/or trial and error experimentation in pursuit of a desired outcome. They can and will adapt to changing circumstances and problems if you wish to apply them in such a manner.

 

 

Delta, ......and just where in ell did your afore stated “neural network(s)” acquire their …… “pursuit of a desired outcome”. Were those designed neural networks also “effectively designed” to create their own personal and specific “pursuit” thingy? Or did the "designer" of the neural network ...... also design the "pursuit" thingy?

 

The AI Google now uses for translate, in fact, uses pre-existing knowledge of the languages it has already learned to translate in order to learn new translations. It stores semantic information about words that have related meanings and can therefore very quickly learn to translate between two languages it has already "learned" by translating from something else, even before it has been given any examples. In other words, if it knows English <> Japanese and Japanese <> Korean, it can figure out English <> Korean without being taught English <> Korean, although additional input will help refine it. And it does so without simply running it through Japanese like the game of online translation chaining.

 

 

Now Delta, your above usage of the word(s), to wit, ……. “knowledge, learned, learn, knows, figure out, being taught” …… in reference to the “ability” of Google’s language translation software …….. sure makes that software “code” sound all pretty and fancy and smart and edumacated and also most probably a loyal Democrat partisan.

 

But the literal fact is, if it involve or pertains to computer programs, aka programming code, .... tain’t none of your above noted verbiage that applies ……. other than as an “artistic expression” to appease or impress the person reading your commentary.

 

Claiming that a computer “learns” when new information is recorded on its storage medium ……. is equivalent to claiming that a filing cabinet “learns” whenever new paper documents are inserted in one (1) of its drawers.

[EdEarl]

To the title of your thread: we are robots. We are also bodies that behave exactly the same when forces act on us: e.g. we fall just the same as stones. So what?

 

But we are very complex robots. It turns out that this complexity leads to phenomena like consciousness, language, science, and free will. The 'why-question' is silly. It obviously once was evolutionary advantageous to develop consciousness and the capability to anticipate the consequences of ones actions. The rest is history.

We are robots with a program to procreate, just like all other living things. Our opposable thumbs, walking upright, brain, etc. are used to achieve our prime directive, "procreate". History records who is successful.

[dimreepr]

A biological computer.

 

 

What do you mean by this? Because a computer certainly isn't biological, even when it mimics both.

[SamCogar]

 

 

What do you mean by this? Because a computer certainly isn't biological, even when it mimics both.

 

The word "compute" means to calculate.

 

Thus any entity that is capable of calculating a result of some form or type can be called a computer.

 

Thus there are fluid computers, mechanical computers, electronic computers and biological computers.

[dimreepr]

 

The word "compute" means to calculate.

 

Thus any entity that is capable of calculating a result of some form or type can be called a computer.

 

Thus there are fluid computers, mechanical computers, electronic computers and biological computers.

 

Not in the way you think.

[Eise]

 

The word "compute" means to calculate.

 

Thus any entity that is capable of calculating a result of some form or type can be called a computer.

 

Thus there are fluid computers, mechanical computers, electronic computers and biological computers.

 

Yep:

 

These are computers:

 

[SamCogar]

 

Yep: These are computers:

 

 

And below is pictured the “difference engine”.

 

Charles Babbage (26 December 1791 – 18 October 1871) was an English polymath. A mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer, Babbage is best remembered for originating the concept of a digital programmable computer.

 

Considered by some to be a "father of the computer", Babbage is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer that eventually led to more complex electronic designs,

 

In 1991, a perfectly functioning difference engine was constructed from Babbage's original plans.

Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage

 

 

[dimreepr]

And below is pictured the “difference engine”.

 

What's your point?

It seems you're arguing against your own premise.

 

This in the link provided by Eise:

 

"The human computer is supposed to be following fixed rules; he has no authority to deviate from them in any detail."

 

[SamCogar]

 

It seems you're arguing against your own premise.

 

 

And just what was my premise ....... and why would I argue against it?

 

HA, I don't have a "split" personality so I can't very well argue with myself.

 

Just why are you fixated on a "Two faces of Eve" personality fault (mental disorder)?

[dimreepr]

 

And just what was my premise .......

 

the human brain/mind is a per se computer. A biological computer.

 

 

and why would I argue against it?

 

 

You tell me.

 

Just why are you fixated on a "Two faces of Eve" personality fault (mental disorder)?

 

 

When you learn to count, let's talk.