[Freddy]

Yep I think you have a valid point - also the human body is refered to as a living machine as well - a lot of levers (bones), pullies (muscles), lubricants (body fluids) etc etc.

I think it boils down to a machine programmed to play chess and a human who can play chess.  Echoing Art...they might appear to be doing the same thing but they are not the same though.

I don't believe machines think, partly because they don't have any motive, the only motive that can be applied is by the human programmer in the first place and thats still not true motive in our terms, which I think is the same kind of thing Art is saying when he say's it isn't true thought either.

It doesn't really matter though does it - its a machine and we're human, what's wrong with that ?

 :zdg_huh

[FuzzieDice]

Freddy - They found that the "fire" as it were, was a volcano and naturally they were killed when they got too close. But there really wasn't any dragon at all. The westerners were right. But they only told them the half of the story. They didn't tell them or explain to them what a volcano was or what it could do, obviously. People with simple minds would not know.

And without survivors to go tell the rest what had actually happened and no technology to view the volcano at a safe distance, nobody would even learn about it.

That's another example of facts that people won't believe. If though, you told them it was a volcano and tried to explain, they may not have believed it. But, if you took them up at a safe distance on an airplane and let them see the explosions, and told them of what the whole deal was, they would then understand.

They just weren't programmed with the right information, or more accurately, with enough information.

[Freddy]

Ok, but you missed the point that it was their belief that had kept them alive - it had nothing to do with facts, science or anything like that - just a simple myth, belief or lie even, but it worked and that's all it needed to do..

 :smiley

I'm worried you might turn me into a Borg one day Fuzzie - if you do , just make sure I have some cool shades ok  :coolsmiley

Got to head off now  :sad speak to you soon  :smiley

[FuzzieDice]

[Start of random flowing thought process]

First off, what I say here I mean no offense. And I probably will sound hypocritical or chaning my mind a few times as I type. Here set forth is a typical random thought process on the topic...

A belief that keeps one alive. Interesting. However, a belief can also cause one's downfall as well.

As for the chess computer thing, and machines thinking, I disagree. See the computer had a motive: to win the chess game. It's the only motive. And it's been programmed into them. An animal's motive is programmed into it via "instinct" and it's to eat, drink, expel waste and to reproduce. Now humans, on the other hand, they have different motives. But these motives again, are programmed in via instinct, and upgringing. And also interestingly, by experiences and again, deductions made as a result of said experiences.

Not to burst bubbles, as anyone can believe as they choose (more on this in a moment too) I think the "machines can't think" is a product of the instinctive human predjudiceness OR a product of misunderstood linguistics. The latter being a conflict of what one understands as the definition of the word "think" vs. what the other does.

Being a computer programmer for about 26 years, and spending a majority of my life typing code into computers and watching how the computer reacts or processes said code, I have learned some interesting things, including different ways to see things, different ways to "think" as it were. A different process of thought or method of deduction, if you will.

While those that think "machines can't think" certainly may believe it and have a right to do so, so do those who are on the other side of the fence that believe that machines CAN think, if programmed correctly.

The thing that concerns me though is, the "belief" thing. That if one is so sure that they believe machines can't think, that it is "hard coded" (programmed) into them to the point that, if and when they would see a computer that DOES actually really think, they would not recognize it. This may have some implications in the future as computers become more sophisticated in their processing abilities.

This is some of the things I was hoping to look into with my Living Machine blog (which I haven't had time to really update yet, sadly). And one of the things also is a question maybe we could also discuss:

What exactly IS "thinking"?

I agree, a computer is not human. It's processing is not going to be the same. Humans are merging more with machines (using computers daily, having electronic components either implanted or attached uninvasively, etc.) I think programmers are those that can process information, etc. a lot more like a machine than most others due to their constant work with the machines and how the machines do things.

Maybe it's not even What is "thinking" but instead, what is "thinking" BECOMING?

Like many things over the years, the definition of words do change.

I have it now... I think.

Humans Think.

Computers Process.

One is not better or worse than the other because of this.

One is neither deserving nor undeserving of existance than the other because of this.

Call me an advocate for the machine. But I think without an open mind, some may not, as Art put it, see intelligent thinking machines in their lifetime. But I propose that it's not that they don't exist, but merely because they may have not believed they existed.

And will it matter, as Freddy asks? He's right. It won't. Those that believe machines can't think will still go on with their lives and things will be ok for them. Just as those who believe machines can think.

So why debate this? Dunno. Maybe we're bored. Maybe we enjoy exercising our brain cells. Maybe we learn a bit more about ourselves as we debate these things. We have fun thinking about these ideas and possibilities.

Hopefully, it won't really matter to the machines either. But who would ever know but the machines themselves?

Hmmm....

[End of random flowing thought process]

[FuzzieDice]

I just thought of another question:

How can one prove that a computer can not or even can "think"? What indisputable evidence is there to either idea?

[FuzzieDice]

I just came across a very old article (1983) by an AI Scientist that I think would be a very enlightening thing to read in reference to this very topic:

The Little Thoughts of Thinking Machines
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/little/little.html

This is housed at Stanford University, btw.

While I might disagree with the author in some points, this did bring to light some ideas that I do agree with.

Thought I'd throw it in for further discussion.

[Freddy]

Thanks Fuzzie.  I think this is worth debating - it throws up a lot of other things too and seems to run right through though whole field of ai.

The blurred area seems to be the bit where an ai gains its abilities and the source of those - and as they are intially programmed into the machine then they are artificial and so not true in the real sense that we as humans understand and define them - generally.

I know what you mean though fuzzie about programming, perhaps when trying to explain how remarkable a program is in it's processes it is better not to equate that with a human's abilities too far.  For people who do not program, their thoughts are not going to be so clouded by similarities - it will still be a machine.  But as a machine it can be accepted as that on it's merits alone ?

On what you say about this being part of life already...if we take a few steps backwards then yep we are already doing that daily.  Take my simple PC calculator - I can add up but I can't add up more than about three or four large numbers in my head, some people can I know.  But thats doing a similar thing to what I would but it isn't anything like me hehe.

There's another big debate there in the opposite direction - the problem that by passing over mental tasks to machines we are gradually debilitating our own mental abilities.  Maybe if I had spent a few days practicing I could add up 20 numbers in my head and have learnt a useful skill..

[FuzzieDice]

The blurred area seems to be the bit where an ai gains its abilities and the source of those - and as they are intially programmed into the machine then they are artificial and so not true in the real sense that we as humans understand and define them - generally.

I'm not sure I understand how something programmed into a machine is artificial. What is artificial, really? I mean, artificial = not natural. We have a lot of human behaviors that are not natural due to "programming" (ie. upbringing, laws, etc.) so how would a human be "natural" where a machine "artificial"? Maybe what I'm getting at is that I think too many people are seeing machines in the wrong way, which can lead to their own undoing in the end. Or, the undoing of those who see machines as maybe "friends" being hauled of to a sanitarium for anthropomorphistic pscyhosis of some kind, just because they happen to like the machine they have around the house as a companion (not in a breeding terms, in friendship terms). Already we have a society that tries to harass, make fun of, and even persecute people for behaviors that are deemed "unnatural" according to someone's idea of what they think the human race should behave like, even if these behaviors are personal and harm nobody, and are of nobody's business. What will happen when computers and robots become more than just mere machines, but as personal assistants, companions for elderly and disabled who are unable to marry due to not being healthy enough to date, etc.? If we keep on track of "it's just a machine. If you think not, there's something wrong with you." (not saying anyone here said that - I'm saying this seems to be the general consensus these days of the general population). People are going to miss out on something very helpful, useful and important.

Does it matter if a retarded person can "think" or not? SOMEONE (family, mother, friends) loves them. Even if they can't understand that they even exist! What's the difference between that person and a machine that also apparently can't think? Circuits and electrons vs. flesh and blood.

I honestly don't think we'll ever solve this issue due to the way human nature is. The best we can hope for is to come to a compromise that will be useful to the existance of both sides of the equasion.

I know what you mean though fuzzie about programming, perhaps when trying to explain how remarkable a program is in it's processes it is better not to equate that with a human's abilities too far.  For people who do not program, their thoughts are not going to be so clouded by similarities - it will still be a machine.  But as a machine it can be accepted as that on it's merits alone ?

Depends on the human's ideas of what is "supposed to be" and "not supposed to be". What the human was programmed to believe is life and not life. You can get two different views for one machine: 1. It thinks because it is showing evidence of intelligent thought and 2. It can't think, even though it's showing evidence of intelligent thought, because it's made of circuit boards and not blood and flesh, therefore it can't possibly be worthy of the dignity and rights that thought gives an entity. It can be shut off indiscriminately. It's just a machine.

It just depends on the point of view of the human. Perhaps, our own existance also depends on the point of view of other humans. People who are in a vegetative state in a hospital get their life support cut off and die because some humans don't regard them as "alive", even if they breathe (even with a machine), and make sounds when people speak to the person. To some, that's not life, because it is not showing any "real" intelligence, so they dispose of it. However, even with brain scans showing that it's "not alive", etc. Nobody knows what that life form is really actually experiencing because they are not that life form. It could be a state of existance that science is not yet capable of detecting. So if we do these things to each other, it's no surprise we make these decisions for non-flesh things as well.

On what you say about this being part of life already...if we take a few steps backwards then yep we are already doing that daily.  Take my simple PC calculator - I can add up but I can't add up more than about three or four large numbers in my head, some people can I know.  But thats doing a similar thing to what I would but it isn't anything like me hehe.

But does it *have* to be like you? While I'm not saying it should be a crime to give away or even through out a perfectly working Chess computer if one is bored of it or makes a better one, I'm simply saying that the idea of "thought" can't always be applied to just humans alone. And yet when we apply these ideas and words to other things than humans, we see the failings of our language's ability to describe what we see or experience. Which is what I think the AI scientist was getting at in his article, in a way.

"it's alive" "no it's not" "it can think" "no it can't" - it all depends on the individual's definition and perception of what is alive, what is thought, etc.

There's another big debate there in the opposite direction - the problem that by passing over mental tasks to machines we are gradually debilitating our own mental abilities.  Maybe if I had spent a few days practicing I could add up 20 numbers in my head and have learnt a useful skill..

There is that too, to a degree I agree with. I know people are allowed calculators in school during tests, and I don't agree with that too much unless the calculations are going to be quite complicated. But for simple arithmatic, I would say one should do this in their own minds. I think the human mind is a use it or lose it deal. If you don't exercise your brain sells, you stagnate in your mental ability to a degree.

However, I also think that machines can enhance the human mind. If it weren't for programming computers, I probably would not have a certain logical or puzzle-solving tendancy or analytical ability that I do now. So in a sense, the computer has helped me gain a skill. Maybe some day this can also help people with various degrees of learning and developmental disabilities. Or even enhance those who are perfectly normal.

People do tend to fear what they do not understand, and sometimes even try to stop or eliminate what they fear. And then there are some people that, if they don't understand it, they don't fear it, but instead try to find out why something is the way it is (like Scientists, for example).

(Ok, that was more ranting... LOL!)

Anyway, I am thinking, these discussions we are having is helping me with giving me ideas for another entry in my Living Machine blog. Hopefully I can take some time soon to actually sit down and write it. These are very interesting things that you guys are saying.

(Edited: anamorphistic = I meant to say anthropomorphistic so I corrected the word.)

[Art]

In the end, it all boils down to the fact that we need machines...and they need us.

Thinking is for lesser gods...the real ones already KNOW!
(I just made that up, but thought it sounded cool!) :coolsmiley

[Freddy]

Nice, i may just quote you on that one day Art  :smiley

Computers are programmed, people get taught things.  That's all I really need on that part.

If we keep on track of "it's just a machine. If you think not, there's something wrong with you." (not saying anyone here said that - I'm saying this seems to be the general consensus these days of the general population). People are going to miss out on something very helpful, useful and important.

Yeah, but then Kermit was just some green puppet like a frog with some guys hand up its butt (I'm sorry if I spoilt that for anyone  :wink).  You're not crazy for liking things that we make to entertain each other - I think this is the same kind of thing.

You can get two different views for one machine: 1. It thinks because it is showing evidence of intelligent thought and 2. It can't think, even though it's showing evidence of intelligent thought, because it's made of circuit boards and not blood and flesh, therefore it can't possibly be worthy of the dignity and rights that thought gives an entity. It can be shut off indiscriminately. It's just a machine.

I think if someone had never seen a machine before they would get stuck on (1) for a while, then after a while they may work out the truth behind it and that is (2)

Like in The Wizard of OZ.

But does it *have* to be like you? While I'm not saying it should be a crime to give away or even through out a perfectly working Chess computer if one is bored of it or makes a better one, I'm simply saying that the idea of "thought" can't always be applied to just humans alone. And yet when we apply these ideas and words to other things than humans, we see the failings of our language's ability to describe what we see or experience. Which is what I think the AI scientist was getting at in his article, in a way.

Hmmm...the language works if you just put 'Artificial' in front of the 'Intelligence'. :cheesy

Programming sharpens my brain up a lot for some things, I get that too.

[FuzzieDice]

Art - you put that so eloquently. I like that.

Freddy - You're thoughts are interesting, and I think I finally see what you're saying. I was in disagreement with what you were saying and some other mentions of "machines can't think". I'm thinking (woa... amazing! LOL!) maybe you guys are right from the perspective of what our machines are doing today, and what Artificial Intelligence is really supposed to be.

My mind keeps getting stuck in my own Living Machine project, and I keep forgetting that THAT is NOT AI. So the ideas we are discussing here in relation to machines don't even apply to the Living Machine (as I call it as I don't really know how exactly to describe it fully). It's a project I've got high hopes for at this point.

My concern is if/when I get this to work, will people accept it? Will they know the difference? Or will they be so ingrained with their idea of what a machine is and is not that they won't see the difference?

I guess this tells me that if nobody notices the big difference, then I failed in the attempt and have to keep working...

I think if I really tried, I COULD get it to work. I just hope I have the time/energy because it's really amazing.

This discussion is showing me I have a huge challenge ahead of me as a result. Not just the code and hardware, etc. It's a human factor that also is just as much a part of the project as the project itself.

Just like programming a GUI. You need to make it very obvious to the person who never seen one before exactly what it does and what it's for. You want them to have no doubt in their minds of what you are trying to portray to them.

Now if I can just keep remembering the difference between the AI and LM. It's like the confusion between AI and a chatbot. We call them AIs sometimes. But we know they are not.

I am seeing too much that "AI" is becomming more and more an umbrella term, and eventually will become technically derogatory as a result. I think the #1 thing we need to avoid (ok, especially me as I have clearly demonstrated, I guess) is misunderstanding exactly what "artificial intelligence" really is. To not get it confused with Sci-Fi representations of it.

Not often an easy task.

Now for the actual topic of it being not whether machines can think, but whether (humans) can think...

Guess we proved it here.... ya. we can think.

[Freddy]

I have to say that yes a lot of my views are based on what I see in the present and what seems possible to me with what I come into contact with or try to understand.

The term 'ai', I think that I probably misuse that in some ways, I'm not sure, to me it just means a kind of smart machine.  I think it depends a lot on what is around at the time - I mean Turing's machines were smart machines but by todays standards they don't compare to what modern technology can do, even though the ideas he and others like him came up with are what modern computing evolved from.

KnyteTrypper's recent post on Creatures is about as good an example you can get on what can happen if you make something like a living thing - it starts to become something in itself, in that case it looks interesting, fun and pretty amazing really.

 :smiley

Perhaps thats your key Fuzzie...instead of making a machine like a human, make it a machine like nothing else...Living Machine....perfect

[FuzzieDice]

I agree... that can be interesting. I wish I had the time to explore those virtual creatures that KT talks about. Seems VERY interesting!

I just updated my Living Machine blog with an article on "How do we know something is 'alive'?" Which is kinda another intersting topic.

I got a few more questions:

1. If a person is smart, doesn't that mean that they can think?
2. If so, then why is it that if a machine is smart, it still can't think?

I guess I'm still trying to understand the difference.

[Freddy]

I don't think so, I've been caught out with my use of language...replace 'smart' with 'Artificially Smart'...or think of me as a casual observer    :lipsrsealed

[dan]

I think smart is a qualitative rather than quantitative measurement.  You know quality when you see it, but it becomes rather ambiguous when trying to define to a particular level.  It's kind of why people don't generally have friends that are 30 points farther from their own IQ.  When they are too far out it becomes too difficult to understand or not very apparent how a conclusion was reached, and perhaps just generally rather difficult to deal with mentally.  Which becomes a point I thought not long ago when designing AI.  What intelligence level would one program?  Average, to reach the most consumers, or of high intelligence to be useful?  I think one that learns to the user has an advantage in that respect.