Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well of course. Doing something to the brain will affect consciousness. And doing something to the body will affect consciousness. That doesn't mean the brain, or the body, creates consciousness.
You have NO evidence that the brain creates consciousness.
How to refute yourself in 2 paragraphs. We have evidence (p1) and we have no evidence (p2). You are funny, a 'linguist' who does not understand what words mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
The brain is mostly not understood (yes, some areas have been mapped, but there is no real understanding). If neuroscientists understood how the brain works, it would be possible to make artificial brains. It is not. Not even close. Not even far.
I build very simple models of the brain based on how neurons work. This work that you claim everyone else is ignorant of has been known since the 60's. It is your god of the gaps fallacy that has no evidence for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Any neuroscientist who is honest and in touch with reality will admit this.
And they do, in the science papers you are ignorant of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Decades ago, neuroscience and artificial intelligence researchers did not see the brain as unfathomably complex, did not think creating a conscious intelligent machine would be far off or impossible. Now they know better.
And still we have Google translate, BPNs, DeepMind, machines that beat chess masters, all aspects you claim do not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
It is an old myth that science has demonstrated that the brain creates consciousness. Everyone who keeps up with the research knows it is not true.
As I said, your ignorance and the overwhelming need to invent things means we can ignore your repeated assertions.
Creating computer programs to mimic human thought and reactions is NOT Artificial Intelligence and certainly NOT Artificial Consciousness. It is just mimicry of human intelligence.
One, you have just argued AI as defined is not AI; and two, I never said we have artificial consciousness. I said we are modelling aspects of it. Your redefinition and misrepresentation is simply ignoring that we can achieve the same results without the need for a universe with a brain.
Computers can do certain things better than we can -- they are much better than we are at fast calculations. This can give the illusion of intelligence. But computers have no real intelligence at all. All the intelligence that any computer seems to have was laid out in complete detail by programmers.
No. I create the architecture, the architecture learns for itself. My first example was in high school. The late Minsky demonstrated this back in the 60's, before I was even born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
In spite of all the recent advances in hardware and distributed processing, etc., computers did not get any closer to passing the Turing test, for one thing.
Tests. There are more than one. Some were passed in the 70's. ELIZA, PARRY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There are many reasons for thinking that real AI is impossible. And only one reason for thinking it is possible -- materialist philosophy says that it must be possible.
And 70 years of science you are ignorant of. But please refute Turing's initial paper.
One reason it's impossible, for example: The brains does not generate consciousness and intelligence.
So where does it come from then? And how does it work? So far we have nothing from you other than assertions. You pretend the science does not exist but provide no evidence for an alternative. Even when you try, you present evidence that refutes your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Therefore, an artificial brain would not generate consciousness and intelligence.
Back Propagation Neural networks. I can build you one if you want. It would only be a small artificial brain due to the problem that computers work in serial whereas our brain does parallel processing.
Do not tell me what it is for, I do not need to know as the machine will learn from the data you input. I just need to know the inputs and the expected data for the training run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Materialists assume the brain generates consciousness and intelligence, so they assume an artificial brain would also. But oops, there are no artificial brains. There will be soon? When?
I can create you an artificial brain with one neuron that will predict if it is going to rain tomorrow with an accuracy of 60%.
I build very simple models of the brain based on how neurons work. This work that you claim everyone else is ignorant of has been known since the 60's. It is your god of the gaps fallacy that has no evidence for it.
So where does it come from then? And how does it work? So far we have nothing from you other than assertions. You pretend the science does not exist but provide no evidence for an alternative. Even when you try, you present evidence that refutes your position.
Back Propagation Neural networks. I can build you one if you want. It would only be a small artificial brain due to the problem that computers work in serial whereas our brain does parallel processing.
Do not tell me what it is for, I do not need to know as the machine will learn from the data you input. I just need to know the inputs and the expected data for the training run.
I can create you an artificial brain with one neuron that will predict if it is going to rain tomorrow with an accuracy of 60%.
That is not a brain, and it's hard to believe you don't know that.
And I create intelligent systems that learn by modelling neurons. Systems that can predict what else you will buy at the supermarket when you buy beer, for example. Modelling aspects of consciousness using AI.
Or are you going to dismiss this as mere coincidence? Or mimicry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
That is not a brain, and it's hard to believe you don't know that.
It is funny watching you argue I do not know something I clearly do. Or do you, a linguist , not understand 'artificial' means?
Or were you referring to the Back Propagation Neural network? If so, please stop pretending to know what you are talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, not understand 'artificial' means?