Text 8687, 129 rader
Skriven 2006-09-20 16:34:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9184.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <2j93h216vgj16hono9njciqlv8lqmmo79i@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<r0fkb2hp2rer61sjlf8mu080nukrcq9iub@4ax.com><b-WdndF4yeBVHCfZnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@comcast.com><tutlb254fojs61c8unms3lhhptfkc

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:40:33 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:nc8vb29meqilgk385nndnvui13ip7h8hbr@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:18:32 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:pdssb21ipo7pbhk8pk33rbtumq7o3ardd1@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:01:03 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
>>>> <nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, I'm not so sure that the band and the computer are so 
>>>>>>>> different,
>>>>>>>> except insofar as bands are more sophisticated than today's 
>>>>>>>> computers,
>>>>>>>> which have the cognitive sophistication of insects (no snide remarks
>>>>>>>> about rap, please). And I don't see any reason why the computer
>>>>>>>> couldn't be given the same emotional drives as we have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At the moment, that's a statement far more composed of faith than 
>>>>>>>fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I very much disagree. It's composed of thought and observation. A
>>>>>> toaster has emotions. Ask yourself what emotions are, and you'll reach
>>>>>> the same conclusion I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't I get a say in this?
>>>>>
>>>>>Toasters may have emotions but it'd take a technological shaman to find
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>> Not if you look at emotions analytically and ask what they are, rather
>>>> than approaching them from a subjective level -- I /feel/ this way,
>>>> I'm flesh and blood, the toaster isn't, so I have something magical
>>>> that the toaster doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> One way of looking at it is the Turing approach. Two teletypes, one
>>>> with a man behind it, one a computer. If the computer reacts the same
>>>> way as the man when you ask it whether it loves its daughter or insult
>>>> its mother, you can't distinguish them.
>>>
>>>
>>>I remember the old Eliza program (I even had the code), as well as a 
>>>number
>>>of others could be written in short order that could fool someone for a
>>>short time into thinking there was someone on the other side.  That's
>>>simulated intelligence, not real intelligence, and there is a huige
>>>difference.  Extending that emotions
>>>
>>>Computers can't attribute meaning to anything.  The number 32 might be a
>>>constant relating to the freezing point of water in Farenheit, the highest
>>>index in an array of values, the red component in a color of s single 
>>>pixel
>>>displayed on a monitor, or the space between the words "Artificial
>>>Intelligence."  The computer doesn't "know" or "care."  Instructions,
>>>data...no meaning, just context.
>>
>> That's not quite true -- a computer can be programmed to understand
>> context. More to the point, we now know how to make a neural net,
>> which allows a computer to develop its own contextual understanding in
>> the same way the brain does. So what we're dealing with now is
>> practical quantitative limits and R&D. Computers just aren't fast
>> enough yet to equal the processing power of the human brain. That will
>> change with time.
>
>No, a computer can be programmed to recognize context.  That's a *very* 
>different thing than understanding context.
>
>The computer doesn't "know" that the result that comes out of it's 
>programming has any meaning.

>Some of the examples (facial recognition, etc), while not trivial, are 
>largely taking an existing sample and comparing critical points (distance 
>between the eyes, length of nose, etc) and allowing for variations because 
>of differing angles of the comparison image.  That's not intelligence.
>
>The example in which the program came up with a third sentence from the 
>previous two might be more interesting, but I'd have to know information 
>before drawing any real conclusions.  I could image such a program making 
>some wildly inconsistent sentences too.. but if the program actually 
>understood the context, it would either "know" the subsequent sentence was 
>incorrect or th elogic by which it actually was correct could be discerned. 
>If the app were functioning at this level, it would be well known now rather 
>than being years away.
>
>I infer from the fact that they're still working omn it to mean they're 
>modifying it to do a better job at  simulated intelligence rather that 
>actual intelligence in an artificial construct.

"Level," I think, is the key here. The neural network is the stuff of
thought: we just have more of it than today's computers. So the
difference is, essentially, quantitative rather than qualitative, just
as it was in the case of our own evolution (last I heard, the
intelligence of a microprocessor was about equal to that of an
insect).

I say "essentially" because we're clearly pretty far from reproducing
a complete array of specialized brain structures, including those that
allow sophisticated self-awareness (even a simple computer can and
generally does have a model that reflects some aspects of its current
state, so it does have self-awareness to some extent).

As to simulated intelligence, I'm not sure that there's as broad a
difference between it and the real thing as one might at first
suspect. See Turing . . .

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
                                      
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)