452 réponses à ce sujet

[UpDownLeftRight]

Shandepared wrote...
Quite important, I think.

Why? The end result is still the same. Simulating "life", "counsciousness". Many programs. Lack of free will. A machine is a machine. Why do you think that the brain matters?

[Kaiser Shepard]

Because it's something he has that they don't, thus something that makes him feel better than them.

[Inverness Moon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Because it's something he has that they don't, thus something that makes him feel better than them.

The simple answer here.

For some people it's white skin, for others it's a penis, and for others it's an organic brain.

I suggest to anyone who is interested in theories on how the mind works, check out this book, The Society of Mind.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 01:49 .

[wulf3n]

Well it's a hard topic to debate, as neither side is right or wrong...yet. Until we truly understand how the brain works, we can't say with any certainty that it's functions can be replicated by anything other than a brain.

[Inverness Moon]

wiggles89 wrote...

I don't think the view is intrinsically prejudiced. Shand thinks that an organic brain is required for consciousness. Or something like that, I generally don't bother reading his posts. I don't agree with him, but it isn't like he's the only person in the world that thinks that. There are people much smarter than us who are proponents of that theory.

I disagree with that for the simple reason that if you understood how the brain works you could design a program to do what it does. Imho, you're a product of what your brain does, not how it does it. Even how it does it could be simulate. It's very simple to me, imho.

wulf3n wrote...

Well it's a hard topic to debate, as neither side is right or wrong...yet. Until we truly understand how the brain works, we can't say with any certainty that it's functions can be replicated by anything other than a brain.

That doesn't make sense to me. How would you not be able to simulate its functions if you knew how it worked? People use computers for simulating various aspects of our universe all the time (Folding@Home).

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 01:56 .

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

There is no logical reason for the geth to construct shrines at which they worship - and yet they do.

That could easily be an attempt to appease Sovereign, a "god" that is verifiably more advanced than they are and has offered them something very tangible.

Preposterous.

Appeasement and worship means nothing between machines. They do not think that way.

Supplication would be in the form of useful data or service, not meaningless kneeling at useless altars consuming light energy.

[Nightwriter]

wiggles89 wrote...

I don't think the view is intrinsically prejudiced. Shand thinks that an organic brain is required for consciousness. Or something like that, I generally don't bother reading his posts. I don't agree with him, but it isn't like he's the only person in the world that thinks that. There are people much smarter than us who are proponents of that theory.

The view isn't intrinsically prejudiced. Shand is.

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
That doesn't make sense to me. How would you not be able to simulate its functions if you knew how it worked? People use computers for simulating various aspects of our universe all the time (Folding@Home).

Well a computer does work differently than a brain. my argument was that a computer (as we know them) may be physically incapable of replicating brain functions. but we can't say either way until we understand how the brain does what it does.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:03 .

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
That doesn't make sense to me. How would you not be able to simulate its functions if you knew how it worked? People use computers for simulating various aspects of our universe all the time (Folding@Home).

Well a computer does work differently than a brain. my argument was that a computer (as we know them) may be physically incapable of replicating brain functions. but we can't say either way until we understand how the brain does what it does.

How would it be impossible for a computer to replicate brain functions? As long as the computer is of sufficient capability I don't see how it is not possible. Please explain it to me.

[Nightwriter]

wiggles89 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

wiggles89 wrote...

I don't think the view is intrinsically prejudiced. Shand thinks that an organic brain is required for consciousness. Or something like that, I generally don't bother reading his posts. I don't agree with him, but it isn't like he's the only person in the world that thinks that. There are people much smarter than us who are proponents of that theory.

The view isn't intrinsically prejudiced. Shand is.

Thankyou for seeing what I did there.

At your service, monsieur.

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
How would it be impossible for a computer to replicate brain functions? As long as the computer is of sufficient capability I don't see how it is not possible. Please explain it to me.

that's impossible to answer until the functions of the brain are understood. There are things computers cant do.

[Nightwriter]

I found the Chinese room experiment very interesting.

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

There are things computers cant do.

Like what?

Something relevant to what we're talking about.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:41 .

[wulf3n]

receive analog information.

edit: i've probably said that wrong. but what i mean is, computers store information digitally, therefore can't interpret analog information like a brain does.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:44 .

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

receive analog information.

edit: i've probably said that wrong. but what i mean is, computers store information digitally, therefore can't interpret analog information like a brain does.

Analog information can be simulated on a computer. So I disagree with the significance of that.

Edit: We have digital cameras and things do we not? It's not impossible to translate that into something directly stimulating the nerves of the brain in certain ways, whether that is an organic or digital brain.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:50 .

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Analog information can be simulated on a computer. So I disagree with the significance of that.

Edit: We have digital cameras and things do we not? It's not impossible to translate that into something directly stimulating the nerves of the brain in certain ways, whether that is an organic or digital brain.

But its a digital representation of analog data (also inferior), not analog itself. who's to say the ability to store analog data isn't the key to sentience? until we understand how the brain works we can't say.

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
Analog information can be simulated on a computer. So I disagree with the significance of that.

Edit: We have digital cameras and things do we not? It's not impossible to translate that into something directly stimulating the nerves of the brain in certain ways, whether that is an organic or digital brain.

But its a digital representation of analog data (also inferior), not analog itself. who's to say the ability to store analog data isn't the key to sentience? until we understand how the brain works we can't say.

The inferiority of the digital representation depends on the power of the computer in which it is being simulated. A computer of sufficient capability could represent analog signals with as much precision as we are able to perceive. 

The brain gets all its data through the five senses in which information is transmitted to the brain through electrochemical impulses. You stick in your translation software at these points and you'll have working senses for your digital brain.

I think you're forgetting that our perception of analog signals is limited by the capabilities of our sensory organs and nervous systems. You only need to understand those capabilities and be able to simulate them.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 03:04 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Does it really matter how something works as long as the end result is the same? To use a simple analogy, if you can 'solve' five times five through simple association, would it matter if I did the same through simply adding five each time?



Sure, if a 'contest' between two humans the second one would seem slower, but if the second person is a synthetic, that weakness would easily be compensated. If it is able to determine that the answer should be 25 in the same amount of time, albeit through a different method, who is to say that it isn't sapient?



"If you have the arrogance of a god and can kill like a god, who’s to say you are not a god?"



In the end it all comes done to semantics.

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
The inferiority of the digital representation depends on the power of the computer in which it is being simulated. A computer of sufficient capability could represent analog signals with as much precision as we are able to perceive. 

True, but we're not really talking about perception. We're talking about the brains internal functions, that we know very little about. We do not know how complex these functions are, or if they can be replicated in digital format, no matter how close a computer can get.

Inverness Moon wrote...
The brain gets all its data through the five senses in which information is transmitted to the brain through electrochemical impulses. You stick in your translation software at these points and you'll have working senses for your digital brain.

But those impulses aren't the same as computer signals. A computer signal is either 1 or 0 (conceptually) i may be wrong but i don't think that's same as signals sent to the brain.

Inverness Moon wrote...
I think you're forgetting that our perception of analog signals is limited by the capabilities of our sensory organs and nervous systems. You only need to understand those capabilities and be able to simulate them.

But i'm not talking about perception, i'm talking about internal reasoning for lack of a better word.

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
The inferiority of the digital representation depends on the power of the computer in which it is being simulated. A computer of sufficient capability could represent analog signals with as much precision as we are able to perceive. 

True, but we're not really talking about perception. We're talking about the brains internal functions, that we know very little about. We do not know how complex these functions are, or if they can be replicated in digital format, no matter how close a computer can get.

If we can simulate the behavior and atoms and molecules on a computer, I don't see how you could say that we couldn't simulate the brain that is made up of those things.

Edit: It would be much easier to simulate brain cells and their interaction rather than atoms.

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
The brain gets all its data through the five senses in which information is transmitted to the brain through electrochemical impulses. You stick in your translation software at these points and you'll have working senses for your digital brain.

But those impulses aren't the same as computer signals. A computer signal is either 1 or 0 (conceptually) i may be wrong but i don't think that's same as signals sent to the brain.

The signals sent to the brain are electrochemical impulses.

"nerve impulse: the electrical discharge that travels along a nerve fiber."

Either one is happening or it isn't; on or off; binary.

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
I think you're forgetting that our perception of analog signals is limited by the capabilities of our sensory organs and nervous systems. You only need to understand those capabilities and be able to simulate them.

But i'm not talking about perception, i'm talking about internal reasoning for lack of a better word.

You're not going to be doing any internal reasoning unless you have senses to perceive the world you and get data with which to reason.

If a brain were to be deprived of all senses from the moment of its creation, it would not do anything beyond the instinctual (pre-programmed).

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 03:43 .

[Mr.Caine]

Shandepared wrote...
You're forgetting about the hardware.

Doesn't Legion say this line in Mass Effect? Something like "You organics are hardware and software. We Geth are just software"?
After reading through this thread Shandepared, I'm starting to understand your postion here. And I'm going to play through ME1 and ME2 to get a better understanding...  (Ah the joy's of freetime)