Ai Dreams Forum
AI Dreams => General Chat => Topic started by: Freddy on July 12, 2006, 10:38:10 pm
-
Spotted this on our quotes bit today:
B. F. Skinner
"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do."
-
Hey, that's a good one! :)
-
Hey, that's a good one! :)
a WOMAN WOULD be the first to agree with that :zdg_tongue
on a sirius note, though that quote really does spark some interresting thoughts & questions i.e. do men (& women) acually think in the first place?
-
I am sure you do not know me well which is why you said that. I'm not a "woman". Just because I'm female does not make me "woman". There was actually scientific studies that had proven that your gender and your way of thinking are very different. And my gender is NOT the reason I would say the things I say.
In the post, I read the word "men" as meaning "human" in general, despite presupposed genders.
-
There was actually scientific studies that had proven that your gender and your way of thinking are very different.
although conducted in a scientific way, such a study could never truly be considered scientific but must be considered phylosophical.
In truth it all depends on how you look at it.
-
I totally and completely disagree.
-
Fuzzie, he's probably right as seen in the light of attributional bias, the outcome is probably based on the premise all too often. This is made manifest by universities skewing results for the contracts, false consensus, etc. It's been known for some time concerning bias of results, makes me ponder if that's why the courts are swaying away from the scientific evidence more and more, and giving more credence to swaying the emotion of the jury. I think it all originated with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, people started looking at things quite a bit differently.
Not that I disagree with you in the slightest in reference to your thinking the quote is a good one, but who knows maybe Skinner did mean males.
-
well y'aint gotta getawl feeleesawfeecall awn uss :grin (if ur wondering think redneck hillbilly as you read that)
Dan,
Allthough you made a good point, i think u might have missed mine.
My comment: "In truth it all depends on how you look at it", was actually on:I'm not a "woman". Just because I'm female does not make me "woman". There was actually scientific studies that had proven that your gender and your way of thinking are very different. And my gender is NOT the reason I would say the things I say.
allthough i think i 'at least' understand your point.
-
I disagree.
-
Hey folks, ease off a bit, I posted it because I think he meant it as a wry jibe at men in general and it fitted with a lot of the things we lament about here.
And I think Jman didn't mean to imply anything - it was just a follow up quip on the original 'joke' in the quote - the joke was at the expense of men. He only really followed it up (you the unfortuante stooge FD) light-heartedly with what he said and in no defense of men or himself.
I really don't think Jman was out to offend.
Unfortunately it then went on to more serious ground and then the damage was done because you all got off on the wrong foot.
'Depends on how you look at it' - that's honest - everyone can't keep up with what has been discovered by science afterall...and you have to draw your own conclusions sometimes. I don't think Jman or Dan would deliberately come up with something offensive - if they were like that then they probably wouldn't stick around to discuss the philosophy of the argument.
We all grew up or are growing up with people who don't fit in with some ideal image of womanhood or manhood - we already know that men don't always act like men and women don't always act like women, if at all - so most people don't need that scientific approval. If anyone can't deal with that in life then they are in for a lot of surprises.
But I know none of you are that blinkered anyway, so please guys and girls don't make a mountain out of a mole hill - we all get our say here and try not to judge each other and we do that well.
-
Well said, Freddy.
I wrote something this morning but had to leave before posting.
Just got back and see you pretty much said what I was going to.
And said it well.
In fact better than I would have.
Sometimes those involved see mountains and it takes an observer to put it in perspective.
To drop another quote: "This too shall pass"
:cool
-
Amen 8)
-
Ok I didnt want to step in here but I feel I'm going to have to.
We all have opinions...on everything...from species to peas.
But lets try to keep it simple please.
Ok...these are my current views on the thread.
1. The original concept of this thread...the word in question casuing so much debate "men" well...we are after
all called "MANKIND" are we not? It dates back to a long time ago when women had no rights and were there for decoration, to make babies and keep the house nice and provide us "men" with a meal at the end of the day. very wrong I agree but thats the way its always been and is only now still starting to change.
2. "a WOMAN WOULD be the first to agree with that"...i saw the funny side of what was written but unfortunatly Fd took a little offence. Perfectly understandable but then if my ex wife took the same offence everytime she got lost in the car and i said to her well your woman dont worry about we would have got divorced far sooner than we eventually did lol. The comment as I saw it was a light hearted swing at female thinking in general, and we all do it...male and female...at both sexes, just look at how many women say men think with their (edited) and not their brain, or that our brians in our pants. Certain things have stuck over the years with regard to certain views of the general fairer sex. I doubt this is something that will ever change so we just have to get on with it. Women complain at them being used as sex objects in films and advertising...do you ever see an ugly guy in an advert...or leading a film...course you dont...women would then not watch/buy it would they? But do we complain about it? no we dont, cos men think differently. Its a thing unfortunatly we have grown up with and its been installed into us from a young tender age, and lets hope that the people campaigning against this sort of thing can get some headway.
3. The scientific view is interesting in both aspects. Women will always think like women and vice versa with men. Fact of life, men really are from mars and women really are from venus (read the book very good lol). In terms of the scientific I also have to agree with FD in the fact that I too have read and seen docu's on this thing and its one general way of thinking and not their sex that determines what they are and what they think. Though this is also contractided at times by basic genetics.
4. So to sum up, I believe in all honesty the original comment was intended as humans in general, though worded in the usual old fashioned way. A light hearted coment was made which could be viewed as funny OR belittling to the female gender.
Hopefully this now settles the problem and we can get back to the original friendly forum we all know and love. Though "forum" has to be the operative word here, we are allowed our opinions and we are allowed to an extent to express our views etc, we just have to have a little more thought how some people may react to others comments, and likewise accordingly, we also need to take a lot of what is written at face value.
So we can either now continue with the theme of the thread or close it? I personally opt for continuing as the original thread idea was great.
So please...lets stay on topic
:zzz_judge1
-
I need to make a few statements really quick an then we'll get back to the original topic Freddy posted...
I totally disagree with the quoting of my replies and the idea that scientific evidence of my state of being could be somehow inaccurate.
I agree that we shouldn't make mountains out of molehills. This thread when on (quoting me even more after that) when it should not have.
As moderator and as a man (despite my being physically female), I'll do two things:
1. Humbally apologize for my first response to this post, which I realize a man may think I thought men are unintelligent. I am of the personal opinion that men and women alike can think, as they are both sentient beings. I even think animals can think. So technically, I should not have said what I said in the way I said it.
2. Due to the woman references, I think it's best we not discuss THAT topic any longer here, as I do not want women or even FTM (Female to Male) transgendered people or those who are both, or like me, brain one, body another to feel unwelcome. This forum is for EVERYONE. Including JMan, Dan, and everyone else here. Everyone is welcome and should feel welcome.
So since we are in disagreement over some things here, let's do what I remember we used to do in my GEnie online services days: Agree to disagree and say no more on the disagreement we had here. :)
Now, as for Freddy's original quote, if I may rephrase my response:
(Quoting Freddy)
B. F. Skinner
"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do."
(End quote)
This is interesting because humans program the machines to begin with. In other debates here, I have noted that it might even be possible that a machine may overrule it's own programming. Thus, I think, the programmer's ability to program an AI to learn from it's environment and interaction with others is the only thing required to make the AI "live" as such. After that, just as a parent raises a child, the child grows, learns and after the learning (ie. programming) process, it's on it's own. Whether the child continues to follow the rules of their upbringing or not is then the child's sole decision upon adulthood. And not every adult follows their upbringing so what the parents "thought" or whether the parents can "think" really can become irrelevant.
For example, parents that severely (and sadly) abuse their children. There are those abused kids that grow to adulthood, marry and have kids. I've heard from many of them that they would NEVER treat their child the way their parents treated them. Some of the things the parents did to them was obvious that the parents weren't "thinking", as such.
So, the programmer's ability to "think" would be irrelevant I beleive. But I do believe all humans and animals can and do think. All sentient life with some type of brain or processing center has the ability to think. But maybe the question is HOW they think?
For example; a person with mental retardation who can not communicate or interact well (if at all) with those around them. But sit them in front of a piano and they can play such beautiful music! Some have other talents as well. I have read where the human brain of some mentally retarded people would develop so that what is missing in one area of the brain may become enhanced in another area of the brain.
Thought, ability to think, to reason of the creator. IS that a factor for a creation to become what it is?
Now we are back on topic.... Let's see what we can come up with. :)
-
Marius, I didn't see your post until after I posted mine. But you're the admin and I agree. Though I still feel I was half at fault here as well and still needed to apologize. :)
As to the topic... I agree let's continue. :)
-
Before I get back on freddys orginal topic. i'd like to apologise to FD if I offended you.
"And I think Jman didn't mean to imply anything - it was just a follow up quip on the original 'joke' in the quote - the joke was at the expense of men. He only really followed it up (you the unfortuante stooge FD) light-heartedly with what he said and in no defense of men or himself.
I really don't think Jman was out to offend."
Holaluya!!
I shouldn't have made the joke in the first place, but since I have, the hole discusion does spark a lot of interesting 'thoughts'.
But I agree, lets agree to disagree for now. maybe we can get back to this discussion at a later date, but on a different thread or a different forum(one meant for general philosofy).
now on to the origonal topic:
maybe its not weathor 'Humans' or 'machines' think, but the differences in witch we think.
-
Well, I refuse outright to "get back to this discussion" ever again. For personal reasons. It's closed.
Apology accepted. Thank you. :)
About whether it's humans or machines that 'think' but differences in which we think - I personally believe we are right on target here.
I have done a lot of programming since I was 14, and I have noticed at times that sometimes, it even determines how I made decisions in real life. For example, if I was up for days on end, getting only about 4 hours of sleep per night, and doing nothing but coding most of the time (breaks for food, etc.) then I ended up even dreaming about the programming. And then when it came to real-life, I even got told I think too much like a computer. :)
The method of If/Then or other logic can be another (different) thought process. And it is just that: A Process, maybe not even involving much (or any) thought to begin with.
Which leads me to wonder: is there any thought in logic?
-
I had to go for a definition in a dictionary to help, found this :
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic
The key bit I think is that it is a system of reasoning.
But note the seperate listing for computers, which don't reason, just perform - hold that thought just for now!
'System of reasoning' implies thought to me, along the lines of one plus one equals two. But then if a machine is doing the same thing it's behaving logically, which then implies thought ?
....hmm, I hear Mr Spock saying "It's life Jim, but not as we know it." from someplace.
-
Quote:
Which leads me to wonder: is there any thought in logic?
End Quote
Funny, but in this case the reverse is not true:
Is there any logic in thought?
Too many times people act, speak, do without logical thinking.
A machine does not posess logic or reasoning in it's real state but merely
carries out an ordered, programmed set of instructions. Acting logical is not to
imply that logic exists, be it in man or machine.
Sudoku, the popular puzzle, relies entirely upon logic. A computer could be programmed
to solve it but only by using a pre-programmed set of instructions...not logic in the true sense.
-
I was just thinking of Mr. Spock when you said "logic" and "reasoning". :)
And in Star Trek, Mr. Spock's Vulcan culture was not based on emotion, but on pure logic (except every 7 years, which we won't get into that discussion right now ;) ). It was an interesting representation that the character portrayed, almost as if he was a computer or something. In fact, didn't Dr. McCoy often complain that very thing about Mr. Spock being too Computer-like?
-
Art, you have a point there.
And then another thing came to mind - why are there things called "Logic circuits"? Some in the computer field think of logic as 0's and 1's. But now it's called "Digital". For example, digital is to logic what analog is to emotion. Ie. one is either it is, or not, and the other has varying degrees.
Perhaps, an AI will be like a Digital to Analog converter... converting analog (human emotion) to digital (logic? If I can put it that way?) form. Or rather, digital, computer-readable format.
-
'Logic-circuits' because...
A valid result of a logical argument depends on it's conditions being determined as right or wrong. And they must be determined as right or wrong to achieve a result or conclusion.
In circuitry...
Switches are 'on' or 'off'.
In the kind of midway, human-and-machine-almost-meet part, called digital and binary...
They are 1 or 0
And for us..
things like 'true' or 'false', 'right' or 'wrong' .
I just slipped on the man/woman banana peel there - originally i put man-and-machine, even though I know I am meaning women too. Words huh?!
-
Human and Machine, perhaps? :) And then again, I've read where even Monkeys (animals) could use computers (not just in jokes but in scientific experiements). So animal and machine too...
Just for fun, if you want to know if humans are capable of thinking, or rather, HOW they think, try googling for "Superstitions" and see what sites come up, and read some of the superstitions that have been around for ages (and that some still believe in). :)
-
Point taken, but I was only trying to give a plain explination.
Thanks, I'll try that when I have apologised to our fellow animals ;)
Our family cat says a kind of "Hello" , like "Meeyoowllooo" ;D I think people who have cats will get that, but people who don't have cats may laugh, I don't mind, but parrots too...
Fuzzie wrote:
Which leads me to wonder: is there any thought in logic?
Art wrote:
....Funny, but in this case the reverse is not true:
Is there any logic in thought?...
and
A machine does not posess logic or reasoning in it's real state but merely
carries out an ordered, programmed set of instructions. Acting logical is not to
imply that logic exists, be it in man or machine.
On Fuzzie's, I think that sometimes it might look and seem like there has been no thought.
In your response Art, I can't quite see what you mean and I sit with blankness in my mind.
The last quote I put in because it shows care is needed with what we (I) think is implied.
-
Freddy,
I have had a chess computer for many years. That's all is does...plays chess and very well, I might add.
Is the machine logical? NO! Does it ACT logical? YES, especially to the uninitiated, but most of us know that it is just a computer carrying out a pre-programmed set of instructions. When it does this, the computer APPEARS
to make logical moves but only based on the program, NOT because the machine is logical or smart by any stretch of the imagination.
Ergo, to act in a logical manner does not necessarily imply that logic exists, only perhaps that it is being emulated.
Not every human is a logical being. We have all done what we refer to, usually after the fact, as a stupid mistake.
Humans are prone to errors in judgement based on many factors such as emotions, greed, jealousy, rage, the desire to show off, get even, etc. It is what makes us human and it is also the source of our greatness weakness.
Pure logic without emotions is no better that a machine running a program.
Still blank?
-
Not so blank thanks :)
-
Art - I know some humans that act like all they do is act according to their programming (ie. upgringing, what they were told they are "supposed to" believe, etc.) You could give them a fact to the contrary of their belief right in their face and they would outright deny the obvious! Of course, making fools of themselves, then they would laugh and say that the person presenting the fact is the idiot!
I wonder if these "humans" are really even sentient? Blinded, yes, but some carry this mentality to their grave with them (ie. they believe this into old age, etc.)
What makes a human (or even a machine for that matter) stand out is maybe it's ability not to think logically or emotionally, but it's ability to....
(ready)
Reason....?
-
OK, let's think about this for a moment...
Sentient - powers of sense of sense perception (I think, therefore I am, etc.)
Reason - The faculty of thinking logically. Good judgement, common sense. A normal
state of mind - sanity.
Therefore, I submit that there is not a single machine, bot or program (and several people I've met over
the years) that absolutely do not fall into the aforementioned categories.
A bot or machine only "knows" what has been programmed.
Again, I refer to my chess computer. It makes great moves, evaluates many possible positions before making them and is seldom incorrect, yet it is NOT smart, sentient or showing and reason other than carrying out a set of instructions.
As much as we'd like to see the day where machines can "think", make decisions and carry on meaningful conversations, I don't know if we'll see it in our lifetime.
akit sknaht :afro
-
Evening all, don't mind me, just bringing in some more wood for the fire here...up...okay there we go..
People with beliefs contrary to our own...hmmm I don't know much about phsychology, or trigonometry but even if we can make someone elses beliefs invalid, then in some cases we might not be doing them, ourselves or anyone else any favours.
I point to my long lost cousins the Unka Bunka tribe ( relatives of the Oompa Loompa's but a bit taller) who lived on the Island of the Firey Mountain. For many years they had the belief that a dragon lived atop the firey mountain and would tell their children that this beast would burn them to cinders if they were to ever set foot on the 'mountain'.
For many generations the Unka Bunkas lived in harmony with the dragon, never wandering into it's realm, and so naturally by the virtue of their belief, they lived long happy and healthy lives.
That was until one day, a ship sailed out of the west and landed upon their shore. They were amazed at the site and welcomed the explorers, but also warned them about the Dragon.
The men of the ship laughed and told them no such beast existed in all the world and in seeing the wonderful ship and all the incredible treasures and gadgets the Unka Bunkas realised the explorers must be right.
And so finally when the explorers departed, the Unka Bunkas decided it was time to venture in the realm of the dragon and this they did, never to be seen again.
And now as you gaze into the newly stoked fire, think for a while what might have been the fate of the lost Unka Bunkas and if the explorers really had brought them enlightenment.
:shocked
-
Art, I'd like to have a bit more hope than that. :)
While I can see your point about the chess computer, you mentioned the word "think" in that you believe machines can not "think".
According to Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary (www.m-w.com), the word "think" is defined as the following (let's use this for this particular discussion as it seems to fit out of the others available)
intransitive verb
1 a : to exercise the powers of judgment, conception, or inference : REASON b : to have in the mind or call to mind a thought
Reminds me of perhaps the process of a program sending data to the memory banks vs. a human brain's neuron firing.
While we may "think" as in look at the information we take in and come to a decision on the information, then act on it... a computer can be said to do the same. The information being the input. The decision making process being the set of if/then statements and algorythms it uses to deduce the best course to act upon.
We sometimes work the same way: if something is one way then from our experience (algorythms, or pre-programmed due to laws, beliefs, upbringing) something is true.
Maybe we should examine this from your chess computer example.
A chess computer as you have said, follows a program. What is in the program is a series of instructions, yes. But what KIND of instructions is the interesting part. If/then statements. Chess computers typically will take a look at the positions of your pieces and try to deduce what moves are available to you. Then it will determine what will happen if you make any of those possible moves. IF/Then statements come into play:
1. Look at oponent pieces on matrix and store positions in memory along with the possible squares they may occupy on next move.
2. Look at computer pieces. Look up the pieces in the matrix (or array) to see if any of those pieces may be occupied by the opponent pieces on the next move.
3. If a piece is in danger, determine possible moves to move piece out of the way.
At this point, depending on the skill level of the computer you selected prior to playing the game (if this option is available), the computer may even do what is known as "look-ahead" by so many "steps". What this does, is then it will do the following to see if it's next move would be in danger. Maybe it will rate or flag each move in priority as most dangerous to least dangerous. When it's done the whole routine of looking ahead, etc. it will then look at the flagged moves and the one that was flagged as most dangerous will then be done so that it can save itself. It may even store the look-ahead moves that it anticipated you make. Most sophisticated programs will even look this up based on the "patterns" of your own moves it may have stored in it's database, to also use as a determination (via algorythms) on what moves you are most likely to make, so as to fine-tune which moves to flag as possibly dangerous.
So in essense, the computer really can be said to be doing a form of "thinking" or deduction. Sure, it's statements. But it's much more sophisticated (depending on the program, of course) than "If the player moves, pick a piece and move it according to these instructions for that piece) until the game ends. Some chess programs are this simple, and after awhile, can be easily beaten. But the more sophisticated ones do have a form of fuzzie logic programming and algorythms that go a little bit beyond simple following of instructions. Sure there are rules to follow as to what pieces can move in what ways. We also have to follow those rules to play the game properly.
Now on the human side of the equation: When a human plays chess, the human will basically visualize in their mind how the game will play out if they make certain moves. Breaking it down, the process is much the same way as what the computer does.
Sure it follows a set of rules. But while you are playing the game with the computer, are you "thinking"? You're following the same rules, and basically doing what the computer is doing. Trying to determine what your opponent is going to do and trying to avert any way possible that may lead you to lose the game. So, how is this "thinking" for a human but not for a computer if both are essentially following the same rules at the time of the game?
Sure a human can walk away and do something else, which the computer can't do. As it was designed to just play a game of Chess. But, if someone came up to you and said "Let's play a hand or two of Texas Hold'em" and you never played the game before, and don't know how to play, for example, you won't be able to "think" to play it unless your friend "programs" (ie. teaches you how) to play the game!
The one thing to keep in mind is that a machine is not human. A machine can not work the same way a human can. However, in the scheme of things, neither is a dog or a cat a human, and their way of thinking is far different from humans as well. (Cats like to think they have the better brain but we'll not talk about this right now ;) )
We often believe a cat or dog can think. But, can a cat or dog play chess?
Just some more ideas.
I believe computers can think. Yes. But maybe what some of us are looking for is a more generalized form of "thinking" in that not for one specific function, but for mult-functions or do a variety of things, like an AI is supposedly supposed to be able to do. To emulate human thought.
Still, if we aren't taught (programmed) how to do something, how do we learn it without being taught? No matter if someone shows us, tells us, or we read a book or look it up on the internet, or even just watching others do the task. We are 'learning', thus being programmed to follow a set form of rules or instructions to get to the end result.
It's like the old saying that man is an organic computer. It just may be true.
How we think may not be the same as how another entity thinks.
I bet if you reprogrammed the chess computer to play cards, it would be able to do it. But of course you'd have to change the hardware, etc. obviously. :) Same as if you want to teach someone how to scuba dive. You have to give them the diving gear.
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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
-
[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]
-
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?
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.)
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
You guys made some interesting points!
Dan - I see what you're saying. And your question is a good one. What level of intelligence? It might have to depend on the application to which the AI was created for, I would think. Some things, like answering the phone and forwarding to the proper rep if the answer isn't already in the database to be read back to the caller, that probably wouldn't need to be a very intelligent system. We have those in use now in some areas. However, one that has to say, calculate ballistics, and interact with military personnel, or one that works in law inforcement doing forensics analysis and profiling, and interact with investigators, that AI may need to be quite a bit more intelligent, as it were, in order to analyze and interact appropriately and accurately.
-
Sorry, didn't want to interupt the flow but I think we uncovered how the language plays an important part in the understanding though.
Like my use of 'smart' confusing the difference between human smart and what a machine can do. Without recognising it as artificial then thoughts seem to go off the map for me.
Reading back a few posts...If you want to know if you (we) can think Fuzzie, try asking yourself what you were doing when you replied to the posts :wink I'd say you were thinking.
A machine would be programmed to scan the posts looking for matches, patterns, inferences or whatever and send back some response. So the real thought in those processes comes from the programmer I would say, the machine being a tool.
Coming back to meet you now ... if the above is true enough could/would the ai be as 'intelligent' as the programmer?
If Skinner wasn't worried about if a machine thinks, why was he more worried about if humanity does ?
-
Here's the clincher: While the programmer may have programmed the AI as it were, the AI should also have been programmed to LEARN from it's interactions and experiences.
Thus, you have two paths now. The programmer will go about their life and have different experiences from the AI who will have different experiences from the programmer.
Thus they could very well develop two different way of looking at things (ie. pattern matching, etc.)
Suppose the AI's video sees the grass is blue, matching it with what in the database is labeled blue hue. Maybe due to the fact the AI's video and color system is a bit off.
The programmer knows the grass is green, recalling being told that shade of caller is named "Green".
Now a colorblind friend of the programmer can say that the grass is a medium to dark grey. Because they can't see color, then they only know the shades of grey (they may have been told it was "green" but to them green can also look nearly or exactly like another hue of the same luminosity and saturation).
So, you have 3 different views of what the color of grass is. Is the machine wrong because it can't "think"? If that's so, then the colorblind person can't think which is why the person was wrong?
What I'm saying is, WE use pattern matching, which is "this is an apple" when we are a kid. "This is a dog. This is the color red." We program computers the same way because that is the only way WE know how to learn.
Things like this can get complicated to think about. Perhaps we should just THINK and not try to put some concepts into words because there is no way to describe some things. Thought, smartness, intelligence, life. Intangeable things that are up to a person's perception or view and while some have attempted to "prove" the existance of, they may not be able to CONVINCE someone ELSE of such findings.
Some may not think I'm actually thinking. Some may vehemently say I'm "ranting" which takes no thought whatsoever, and what I come up with is insignificant and of no real use (to them) and so they'll deduce that it's no real use to ANYONE.
Again, perceptions.
And I thank you for percieving my posts as "thinking". :) Thing is, I think too much and too deeply about things, often over-analyzing and I seem to either confuse people, or come up with descriptions that others can't fathom or rather not believe.
Communication is the #1 key it seems. But I think not HOW to communicate, but WHETHER or not to communicate. As they say: A picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe a thought is worth much more?
-
Skinner was a behaviorist who raised his daughter in a box because he thought it was the right thing to do. I'm not so sure "he" was worried, but the cause and effect of the statement and the controversy arising from the known behavior of the day being the reason for the statement. Remember back then men were macho, women were barefoot and preg., etc. etc., and yet still see the controversy today, it shows how much we really are products of our environment. I'm just a salivating dog at heart. Now create AI with both behaviorist and inate (DNA), and yet the ability to know and advance beyond, with knowing it knows. Then maybe someone might be fooled enough to believe it was sentient. All that "who is the one that is doing the knowing" is enough to know it's hard to discern whether something is sentient. I stink; therefore, I need a shower?
Isdummy () { n++; };
cout << Isdummy::n << end;
I guess that's where "Fuzzy" logic comes in (no offense dice)...being able to C++ around enough to seem as if it is apparent to fool someone. I heard the Haptek movement used a fuzzy logic, which makes is "seem" pretty realistic, although still looks fake, but more real than say an MS Agent.
-
Ok, I have to keep my mind on AI and chatbots here. :) Something hard to do when I'm always thinking of my project (which is none of the two). LOL!
I agree that one can emulate behaviors using certain programming algorythms. Thing is, what about the fact that computers can calculate and process information at a much faster rate than humans can? Would eventually it process things to the point of self-realization or will it be like the Deep Blue vs. Kasperov thing?
I think it all depends on the programming. The code itself is what it boils down to. Of course, the hardware (components that make up the machine) may have something to do with it as well. Faster computer = faster processing time leaving more time to process other things. Larger storage = more room to store and retain. And computers have a better retention rate than humans as well.
The hardware is there, now what about the software? Currently we don't have anything quite that good as to "think" as far as chatbots and AI is concerned (as I'm finding if I think strictly on those topics alone, and not other topics in with it). One I keep things separate, I see that humans can not "program" life - just yet.
But I think it's in there somewhere. I think that a machine can "think" if it had the right software. But, the programmer has to be able to think in order to make the program for the computer to be able to do the same.
Hmmm... Interesting to "think" about. LOL!