AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

Good point, a neural network could form naturally when lightning hits a beach.

Just like a pocketwatch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank-you. It was just some ponderings.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100015.htm

Looks like this took more than a lightening bolt on a beach

Looks interesting

Add to Thought Bubble - Anyone like to speculate how Artificial Intelligence might feel once it understands it not have Mum and Dad like biological stuff, but has a factory where it was created?

Would it worship its assemblers and the conveyer belt?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'd have to ask the robot that...If you can create one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I understand it Read Only Memory (R.O.M.) is required for the computer to operate and is PERMANENTLY in the computer's memory (hence READ ONLY.) R.A.M. is Random Access Memory and can be written to, or read from, unless it is saved to the hard drive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nowadays computers have a lot of sorts of memory.

FLASH - did what ROMs used to do but are updatable. Used for both executables and file system storage.
SRAM - static RAM; rarely used. Can be battery backed
DRAM - dynamic RAM. Cheaper than SRAM - but more power hungry and hard to retain info by battery backup.
NVRAM/EEPROM - persistent storage for variables and settings

 

And

RAM BAM THANK YOU MAM

which never remembers her name

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Several here (not Frogger and a few maybe) like pushing the nonsensical woo that a brian can only compare values.

Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums). If the woo you people are projecting actually had a factual basis, what makes you think it is replicab;e with what we know today?

A brain restructures itself constantly. These new routes could be based upon drugs (not counting out some here), foods, damage, etc.

When does a computer decide to rewire based upon lack of nutrition?

If a person goes for a run the brain receives different chemicals than when not running.

When does a computer decide to add something akin to dopamine?

Inputs are varied. Perhaps the reason people can create is because our memories are fallible. What one person sees as green, another person could view as brown (colorblind). So perhaps even our failures and shortcomings add to our creative abilities.

How dumb does a computer need to be to emulate a human?

I'm not religious but what if these holographic principles did exist inside all aspects of us and we could access universal data. I am not suggesting we can, but I am suggesting there may be aspects 0f the psyche we are not even aware of yet. I am suggesting here may be aspects of brain funtion we do not even know as of yet.

How come children are more creative than adults? How do you emulate that?

Yes.. Some of you people have made it clear that you think the human brain can only compare, compare, compare. Yet not all the ways we compare have likely even been discussed.

How do you emulate a cholesterol build up or blood clot that inspires a masterpiece? I think traveling and misfortune make a person nicer and well rounded. How would you emulate such in a computer that can only compare, compare, compare?

Even if it were possible in the distant future (not suggesting your woo is true). You would need trillions of lines of code without any of them rewriting errors or miscalculations. If such a computer said today was the day to bomb Iran... and that is the absolute best solution. Could a person TRUST it? How would you know for sure it was smarter than Billvon?

Why would any company invest trillions of dollars into a brain facsimile? If you are using your calculator to figure out how much tip a waitress deserves you would not want it contemplating Wigner's Friend. All existing computer software is practical. The amount of effort to make a truly creative (not just wishing they are like many here) computer is not even known, and if it became possible (not possible though). No one would spend the money to invent it.

Algorithms can shorten computer game comparisons such as in chess. I said that many posts ago. A computer only looks at every possible move and chooses based upon points and strategy algorythms. If time is restrained then a computers comparisons could be thwarted by computational speed/power.
It would then choosed based upon comparing.

Yes.. yes, yes yes.

You lot can keep uttering your conspiracy theory over and over and over.

None of you have suggested a computer can do anything other than compare (maybe randi did/unclear). You only suggest that a brain can only function that way also.

Which by all NORMAL accounts is woo.

I understand your PlayStation bad guys are scary and seem clever (I also can repeat the same answer again and again). I get that Skynet made some sleep a little less sound. Those are fictional. It means they are not real.

However it is unsubstantiated fictional woo. With extraordinary claims comes the need for at least a tiny, tiny bit of evidence.

Do you have any tiny bits of evidence to link?

I was going to ignore this and other threads, but wow. I thought science was evidence based. Clearly not here.

So Spidergoat.. It is evident computers only COMPARE! You suggest brains do the same. That is YOUR bogus claim. What proof do you offer except your "feelings"? Sadly not science.

 

No one here is pushing that. Nor can a computer only "compare values."

Yep. And a neural network restructures itself constantly as it's trained.

When it does not hit its training targets.

And when a neural network is running it is constantly updating itself.

You are confusing what neurons do with what the brain does - just as you are confusing what a logic gate does with what a computer does.

The neural network equivalent is "stuck in a local minima."

That's what you are getting wrong. No one is writing that code. Computers, specifically NPU's, write their own code nowadays.

Probably not. If Trump said bomb Iran, and that it was the best solution, would anyone trust him? Probably not.

Because they think it will make them tens of trillions. Pretty simple.

Logic gates, the things that computers are composed of, can only turn on or off. But a computer made up of billions of gates can recognize human faces and compose music.
Neurons, the things that brains are composed of, can only fire or not. But a brain made up of trillions of neurons can compose symphonies, write Macbeth and design a Falcon 9.

 

I'm suggesting that your notion that brains do something more than computation is unproven. And all computation can be broken down into binary language, a choice between a one or a zero. Primitive forms of brains have been replicated with computers. I have no particular woo theory, I'm simply asking you to question the theory you proposed, which is that there is some fundamental difference between machine and biological learning. That difference has yet to be discovered. Errors are common in programming as well as self-programming neural networks. There are methods of making calculations more tolerant of errors. You can also eliminate a portion of an artificial neural network and it will still be partially effective (hologrammatic). Emotions are the result of neurotransmitters, which alter perceptions and responses in a physical way, literally transmitting information to a greater or lesser degree. If you don't think a number could do the job instead, you would have to show how an emotion doesn't represent information. Emotional intelligence is another form of intelligence, and there is no indication that it can't be treated like any other subject to be learned, like pattern recognition. Children can be more creative since they have fewer learned responses and thus make more random connections between ideas. Maturity means useless brain connections die and useful connections are reinforced. This is precisely how an artificial neural network works. They are not merely programmed, they are taught. Programming is just the first step. We already know that brains are made of networks of tiny decision making units which only collectively, on the basis of what they are connected to, think. A working model of a portion of mouse brain has already been simulated, based on a scan of a real mouse brain. Again, you are the one making a claim, and you have the burden of proof. You started the thread, it's not my responsibility to prove you wrong, you have to prove you are right.

 

Try not to do so in my laptop, gets to messy

Also try to keep dust out as not likely to inspire laptop to produce masterpiece

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Jmaes R,

I had said
Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums).

You replied,

You love Strawman. That is conflating an argument with a known fallacy and then regurgitating known facts to appear clever.

Of course our brains have developed over millions of years. However; It has seemed from comments elsewhere that Sciforums members seem to endorse the religious dogma versions of History. There is absolutely no evidence (science) that suggests Pyramids were ever used for tombs. NONE! Yet due to Judaic and Christian DOGMA. Many do not even consider that notions that earlier civilizations may have existed.

That is fine if you wish to rely on "Gut feelings" over what can be seen and viewed.

I also made it clear the above statement was written purposefully not to offend those who accept the religious dogma.

I thought that might be made clear by the line "not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums"

Instead... I must now write an entire essay explaining that too you AGAIN.

I realize some here may be English second language so I am not judging, but it's frustrating to constantly have STRAWMAN gibberish tossed around so prevalently.

A brain restructures itself constantly.
In part, but that's not much different to a computer storing new data or programs in memory.

I said,
How do you emulate a cholesterol build up or blood clot that inspires a masterpiece?
You said,

Nope: Strawman. That is conflating an argument with a known fallacy and then regurgitating known facts to appear clever.

I was suggesting (and continued further down my answer that perhaps our imperfections help lend itself to our creativity)

I think traveling and misfortune make a person nicer and well rounded. How would you emulate such in a computer that can only compare, compare, compare?
When a person becomes more well rounded due to travel, why is that, do you think? More data, perhaps? More experience? Are you saying those things are impossible to obtain if you're a computer?

I said,
Even if it were possible in the distant future (not suggesting your woo is true). You would need trillions of lines of code without any of them rewriting errors or miscalculations.

EXACTLY MY POINT: Our DNA has evolved for MILLIONS of years (duh). Suggesting mankind even has the remote possibility of some day making computers as fallible as part of what could be a creative process seems far fetched. Junk DNA is probably not included in that as we don't seem to use it, but we do have errors in input/memory.

If such a computer said today was the day to bomb Iran... and that is the absolute best solution. Could a person TRUST it? How would you know for sure it was smarter than Billvon?

No. STRAWMAN. That is conflating an argument with a known fallacy and then regurgitating known facts to appear clever.

My point was that such an intelligent machine (If you deem brains equal to computers) would not be entirely written without bias. Even the programmer who designed the computer program that designed the computer program that designed the computer program (see billvon) could write in lines of code that favored "China" as an example. How could any such program be without programmed bias was my point.

Why would any company invest trillions of dollars into a brain facsimile?

You're confusing what is called "AI" with actual intelligence.. like Skynet.. OOOH!

If you are using your calculator to figure out how much tip a waitress deserves you would not want it contemplating Wigner's Friend.​

Well then you would need to wait a long time for your calculator to do your taxes. (seriously?).

All existing computer software is practical.​

Unsure if that is strawman or attempt at humor. Are you suggesting software that helps people relax or have fun is not practical? Huh?

The amount of effort to make a truly creative (not just wishing they are like many here) computer is not even known, and if it became possible (not possible though). No one would spend the money to invent it.​

NO. It is your woo. Not mine. I only said a computer can do nothing but compare compare compare... then point at a switch and then compare compare compare. You can twist words until the cows come home. Not that you would ever strawman (cough*).

Some of you here are suggesting a brain is only capable of comparing one thing at a time. I just asked for a tiny bit of proof.

If you are suggesting such proof exists then you could demonstrate it with... you know... facts and such...

Don't just say it is already here. That is a childs argument for such ridiculous nonsense.

Algorithms can shorten computer game comparisons such as in chess. I said that many posts ago. A computer only looks at every possible move and chooses based upon points and strategy algorythms.​

WOW! Nope - Strawman! You are personifying computers again also. I have said a few things here that need to be followed to conclusions.

I have said computers can do nothing but compare and turn lights on and off. An idiot they may assume I am suggesting all a computer can do is switch a bedroom light on and off. I was trying to dumb down computer operations to non-programmers. If a timer runs on a computer it is because the "switch" is adding a value to the variable so eventually it reaches the "time" set by the programmer. Switches can include subroutines (further comparing and pointing)

I was my high school and college chess champion. I have not played in years now but could give anyone here a good go. Chess is a game of points and a simplified way of understanding good openings is how the center of the board is controlled. Pieces and squares have values.

I said numerous times the computer bases moves upon "points and strategy"... OOOOH! LOOK!... I said that exact same thing in my above quote.

When I said, "A computer only looks at every possible move and chooses based upon points and strategy algorythms."
What I really meant to say was "A computer only looks at every possible move and chooses based upon points and strategy algorythms".

Can you see the difference? There is none. I stand by what I have said.

The computer plans as many possible moves ahead as is allowed by computational power and time. Things you seem to like me repeating over and over and over and over and over.

So if I am seeming a little snarky it is because you lot are making me type essay answers to "explain as if to a child" ("Galaxy Quest" quote).

I had said,
If time is restrained then a computers comparisons could be thwarted by computational speed/power.​

Oh! Did you read that AFTER commenting the above nonsense you spewed when you stated

Now you are suggesting a computer CAN compare every possible move at the start of a chess game. Maybe one day.

As every move progresses less choices exist.. at least on topic of chess.

You lot can keep uttering your conspiracy theory over and over and over.​

Okay.. I will explain it again and again and again.

You are postulating (among others here) that a human brain is only capable of computer functions. You have reversed my suggestion that a computer can only compare with the argument that our brains can only do the same.

As I said, That is a fun conspiracy notion and would make a good book perhaps, but there is no evidence that suggests a human brain is only capable of comparing values (OVER AND OVER sometimes).

None of you have suggested a computer can do anything other than compare (maybe randi did/unclear).​

Too bad. I liked James Randi.

With extraordinary claims comes the need for at least a tiny, tiny bit of evidence.

None exists. There is no evidence your woo is correct. Why would I search for evidence trying to confirm your false claims?

You cannot prove a negative (that may require more explaining than I'm willing to do here).

YOU are suggesting a human brain is merely a device that can only compare. I am of the ntion that braisn are more than just devices that can compare and point.

Your woo, your claim, your responsibility for evidence.

(continued below)

​

 

(continued from above post)

Strawman/semantics. Calling something AI does not mean it actually has an intelligence quotient. I HAVE A GOOGLE HOME IN EACH ROOM. I suggested everyone get them in "Life hacks" here on sciforums. They are good for timers, shopping lists, lights, playing background white noises (I like rain and waves), and more. I bought dozens as Christmas presents and more on boxing day ($40 each)

I even have it coupled with speakers and spotify premium. I can literally sing (poorly) a line from any song and it will play it for me if I forget the name. It is superior to any jukebox. I have every possible song a shout away. Only problem is its hard of hearing sometimes and you find yourself yelling.

This does not mean I would credit it with intelligence as you do. I can make a program teach and ask questions. It does not make the program as smart as a real teacher and it requires not intelligence at all (that would be impossible).I was going to ignore this and other threads, but wow. I thought science was evidence based. Clearly not here.

Yes. My Opening post made it clear. Any computer programmer knows that every practical line of computer code.. in every computer language.. is only a comparison line of code or a pointing line of code (aka wswitch). Even algorithms are constructed of ONLY those two types of code.

That is obvious to any who make programs. Less obvious to those who think computers playing chess have a brain.

No. I have stated obvious science. There are only TWO types of code. Comparing using "if/then" (and I showed I knew at least some PHP prior to the basic comments that will again pop up below) and pointing "then" statements. Billvon made a joke on first page about notation type of code as a third alternative, but that is only to remind the programmer what the subroutines are for (still funny). If you wish to think computers can do anything except compare (even used to create algorithms/comparing algorithms) then that is just non acceptance of truth.

I could not find another type of code because they do not exist. Every computer program is a collection of "If/then/else" statements in any language.

Nothing more.

Nothing more.

Nothing more.

The argument has now become that human brains can only compare values using something akin to if/then/else statements. That would be YOUR claims. Not mine. So YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR SUCH WOO IF THAT IS YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY!

I expect more strawman, and ad hominem about using BASIC (B is for Beginner) as a method of demonstration to non-programmers. That is because if I say thinks like "Elseif" you might assume I'm talking about a great aunt living in California.

So.. Your extraordinary claims are the claims without a shred of evidence. Not mine.

 

Because their neural pathways are fresher and not as ingrained.
Over time, the more they learn things those pathways become stronger, thus alternative paths become less frequent.
Imagine water flowing down a surface.
With children the surface is relatively smooth, so the water flows all over the place.
With adults the surface is more grooved along certain paths, and so the water flows down those paths.

 

You have already used up your 2 haystacks worth

Find another expression

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you lot start using intelligence in your debates and stop suggesting I am saying stuff I obviously have not in order to misconstrue, then sure.

Perhaps the meaning of strawman is not known here but I have spent more postings arguing against what people claim I have suggested than anything factual.

Re-read my last two postings and tell me which one of those strawman arguments is not 100% truth. Just one.

Look up "strawman" before you do though as obviously you cannot recognize it.

I understand people trying to suggest the argument is different than it is. Especially when youre spouting nonsensical gibberish.

I stated "straw-man" against that poster in my last two postings at least 3-4 times.. Each one was factually true. As I said. Learn what straw-man arguments are (even though I included the definition numerous times).

Just one instance in my last two comments above. If James R wishes to suggest I think mankind is only a few thousand years old because of illiteracy. That is not my doing.

Should I not respond when people suggest I think mankind is only a few thousand years old?

HERE IS HIS QUOTE AFTER MY OWN!

I HAD SAID.....
Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums).

He replied,
Try millions. (What are you? A young-earth Creationist?)

If you are too stupid to see that I clearly was ridiculing the notion of creationism then you lack what I would describe as "LITERACY".

I even included the words "NOT TO OFFEND THE RELIGIOUS DOGMA PREVALENT ON SCIFORUMS" in that sentence. Someone who understood WORDS.. might actually see that.

So... You can imply I am stating the exact opposite of what I say here all you like. That seems to be what most discussions here seem to revolve around. Misconstruing, obfuscation, etc.

Repeatedly. I think many of you seem to lack collective brain cells.

So.. you suggest it would be better to just let others make stuff up and spew whatever nonsense they desire?

That does not mean it is not strawman. Look up the definition and then whine.

Show me where I have used the word "strawman" incorrectly and I shall EXPLAIN it to you AS IF TO A CHILD!

 

You seem to have a misconception about what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is not an argument you are losing, or one you don't like. A strawman argument is an argument where you fabricate an opponent's claim to argue against that, since you cannot argue against his original claim.

For example:

P1: Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums).
P2: Try millions. (What are you? A young-earth Creationist?)

That is not a strawman. It is a direct reply by P2 to an erroneous claim made by P1.

Another example:

P1: Of course our brains have developed over millions of years. However; It has seemed from comments elsewhere that Sciforums members seem to endorse the religious dogma versions of History. There is absolutely no evidence (science) that suggests Pyramids were ever used for tombs. NONE!

The first part of that statement is a reply. The second part is a strawman argument. P1 could not continue the discussion about how human brains developed over "hundreds of year." So P1 instead introduced a new topic completely unrelated to the discussion - a claim that the pyramids were used for tombs, despite no one else in the thread mentioning this. P1 did this so he could argue about something he was more comfortable with.

That is a strawman.

Sure. Just as a white supremacist could favor "white."

You have just demonstrated another way in which human intelligence and machine intelligence are similar.

This is another strawman. No one here has argued that AI is "like Skynet" other than you.

Another way in which humans and AI are similar.

 

Just as building a mind in children, build a self learning curious AI and give it access to the internet for 12 years. Then ask it a question and see the response.

The problem is that when we speak of AI, we mean an "uneducated" (blank) AI.
Therefore, give the AI an education before you ask it to perform any kind of intelligent task.
We do it with humans, we must do it with AI.

 

Your defense of the way this forum acts is sad. You are certainly part of the bandwagon and I wonder how any of you actually get any discussions done.

However. If you were aware of the full context. You would know that many here including James R have suggested they agree with religious doctrine concerning the history of mankind.

When I stated "Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums)." I was being facetious and I even qualified that statement in the SAME SENTENCE by saying "not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums". IN THE SAME BLOODY SENTENCE.

James R has demonstrated he subscribes to the religious beliefs taught when it comes to the dogmatic history of Egypt in another section of this forum.

Had I said "Millions of Years" it might have upset his and others religious dogmatic views of history. From what I have witnessed there is not much intelligence on this forum overall.

So when James R turned around and made my joke (Facetiousness) as a solid claim. That is suggesting my views are 100% opposite of truth and what I know.

When he said, "Try millions. (What are you? A young-earth Creationist?)" he is suggesting my argument is 100% reversed from sanity.

In discussion; if you create a false narrative simply to refute it afterwards. You are building a straw argument.

The words "What are you? A young-earth Creationist?", not only imply I might be a "young earth-creationist" but is also ad hominem (look it up) at the same time.

Again, you have demonstarted to me yet again the problems people here with grasp of simple English and knowledge of topics like "Straw man Arguments". You shpould learn what these are if you wish to discuss topics like this, especially on this forum as that seems to be the main go to from everyone.

You seem to support and encourage it. You wrote an entire posting refuting that James R gave a straw man argument.

"Try millions. (What are you? A young-earth Creationist?"... is a false narrative 100% opposed to my stance. As are many statements people use on sciforums. I have had others imply elsewhere that I square flat solid lid could lift up on one corner as if suddenly the laws of physics could change and one part of a rectangular lid could lift up like it was made of rubber or paper.

Even this is wasted effort as I doubt you will agree with anything I say even though it would be obvious to a child.

You say "That is not a strawman. It is a direct reply by P2 to an erroneous claim made by P1."

So you also are claiming that when I said "Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums) you and Randi are too "thick" to grasp I was being facetious.

I will judge your entire intelligence and personality traits based upon how you answer this question.

QUESTION: When I said "Brains have evolved over hundreds and hundreds of years (not to offend the religious dogma prevalent on sciforums)" can you honestly say you were clueless I was being facetious?.

How you answer would have me view you as
a) Not a dick
b) ______

Perhaps you truly did not grasp my statement as facetious. Perhaps you were also unaware that I have argued profusely against mankinds 5000 year old history dogma and yet many here cling to the beliefs that pyramids are just tombs solely because their mommies and priests have told them such. James R participated in that discussion.

BTW! It is not fallacious either if you wish to get technical. Our brains have evolved over 100's of years is also a truth. I imagine the brains of every child is evolving from their parents to at least a slight degree although perhaps an argument could be made for de-evolving.. still part of the process. Still truth.
If I say a full glass is half full. I am right technically. Isnt that the game here on sciforums.. get technical and straw man about every word used. I feel sorry for anyone not first language English.

Also: The skynet part of topic has been in conversation since the Opening post. It is the entire topic here.

I suggest it is impossible for a computer to reach that level of intelligence (skynet is from a scary movie - to some). You suggest computers can reach that level of intelligence by simply suggesting brains are equal to computers in every way. My main argument is that computers can only compare and point (multiplications of (this was an unnecessary qualifier also because some here will suggest comparing over and over and over and over is not simply comparing and pointing IN ANY LANGUAGE.. see how long and winded my qualifying statements need to be for each bloody sentence here in sciforums.. a place that should have people with above average intellect..)).

Your main refutation (I don't need to hear it again) has been that brains can only compare and point also (see above qualification) yet you would rather obfuscate than actually link evidence of such woo.