Outrageous philosophical questions

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 10:13 pm
odenskrigare;67870 wrote:
....not even relevant to my original question

Thank you for being candid. I appreciate it. But I do disagree in that every question I asked you was very relavent. We don't ask enough relevant questions Iike I just asked.Smile

Reply Tue 9 Jun, 2009 10:19 pm
William;67884 wrote:
Thank you for being candid. I appreciate it. But I do disagree in that every question I asked you was very relavent. We don't ask enough relevant questions Iike I just asked.Smile


Your questions may have been relevant to some overarching ethical quandary, but not to my original question, which was not ethical but, I guess ontological in nature
Reply Wed 10 Jun, 2009 05:41 pm
please refer to this thread
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 12:46 am
Sorry your thread idea isn't going anywhere Oden.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you give the academic definition of a computer. I don't see much of an argument to be made otherwise. I do admit that my knowledge of AI is lacking, despite my interest in the subject. Mathematics and logic keep creeping up on me and I forget to investigate their more interesting applications.
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 03:51 am
odenskrigare;67827 wrote:
It's not a misleading analogy. It's not even an "analogy". It's the neurological fact. Not only is every neuron like a threshold gate, it is a threshold gate.

These gates work in very different ways, but they are nonetheless computationally equivalent. And of course, it is possible to think of an indefinite variety of other ways of making a primitive gate. For example Ned Block use's the example of Cat and Mouse to make an AND gate.

We are creatures that have a useful and interesting biological level of description which the computer model of mind ignores and aims for a level of description which aims for a description unconcerned with the biological realizations of cognitive structures. As far as the computer model goes, it does not matter whether our gates are realized in gray matter, switches, or cats and mice. Of course, this is not to say that the computer model is in any way incompatible with a biological approach

Whether or not we decide that something is a computer depends on whether we choose to interpret states in a certain way and whether we do so is up to us, we could assign computational function to many things that are big or complex enough to have enough states, such as a hypothetical system of millions of cats and mice. To quote Searle "We can't, on the one hand, say that anything is a digital computer if we can assign a syntax to it, and then suppose there is a factual question intrinsic to its physical operation whether or not a natural system such as the brain is a digital
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 03:57 am
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the computer is made of. I may be mistaken in this belief (no one can really know), but I believe consciousness is a part of the fabric of the Universe, in the way that Spinoza did, if I am interpreting him correctly.

So any computational structure, an artificial computer, a brain, your system of cat-and-mouse gates (btw I think NAND rather than AND can realize any logical operator) is merely a facet of this consciousness, a very small way of expressing the whole.
Reply Thu 11 Jun, 2009 12:17 pm
richrf;67744 wrote:

As for me, I rather have my brain than a computers brain, but if someone wants to exchange their brain for a computer's brain, then it is fine with me also. Just don't Matrix me! Smile

Personally, I do not find an equivalency between the two. I can do all sorts of things that I like to do, that a computer can't do. For example, ride a bike in a park. But, I would not be surprised if there are people who would rather sit around cranking out numbers for their whole life, and I think a computer mind is a fine idea for them. It just doesn't work for me. Plus, I can make a computer any time I want (an option for me), while if I was a computer, I would not have that option.

Since you insist into either plainly misinterpreting me or attacking poorly put up straw mens, I wont make further attemps of discussion towards you.

Ps: Put a computer on top of a bike, give it legs, give it auxiliar wheels, program it to move the legs in a circular pattern... Smile

Poseidon;67801 wrote:
Is there a microsft emblem on the inside of your skull?:whistling:
Never checked Smile

William;67850 wrote:
Now, you have one. What is it you hope to accomplish that your old one couldn't?
Remember my appointments Smile

William;67868 wrote:
Good answer. Everyone wants a higher quality of life. Now let's say you are right. Now we have 10,000,000,000 plus people on the planet with man made brains living say 50 years longer and loving it. Man we are using up resources like it is going out of style and having kids out the kazoo, ripping their brains out at birth cause hell, who would want the old dilapidated one. Before you know it there's 20,000,000,000. Now I know you see where I am going with this. Before you know it the planet is depleated. Now what?

. William
Better brains means that everone can better imagine what the future will be like and realize we are marching towards doom, and start having less kids. Better brains also means more ways to go around the instincts and emotions telling us to have more kids beside we knowing thats doomy.
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:19 am
The thread has an interesting title, but there is only one question discussed, and that question cant by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be outrageous. Does anyone have any interesting questions that can be classed as outrageous?

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/13/2024 at 12:37:20