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.
Indeed. I think we can all understand the doubts about actually being able to produce anything that we would consider a conscious and intelligent computer or robot. But to call it impossible after the number of times the supposedly 'impossible' has turned up, quite apart from the astonishing development of AI, shows denial rather than rationality.
But that isn't really the argument anyway. Since all the results of observation and research seems to fit in with intelligence, consciousness and awareness being a product of the mind, what evidence can support some alternative explanation? I think we all know, because we would have heard it by now, otherwise.
There are NO observations or research showing consciousness and awareness being a product of the mind. None. So why do you keep saying it?
As for AI being possible -- the fact that it does not exist means you do not know if it is possible or not. You have no reason to think it's possible, except that it would support your materialist theory.
AI becoming real in the future is a materialist myth. So is the idea of completely understanding the brain.
There are NO observations or research showing consciousness and awareness being a product of the mind. None. So why do you keep saying it?
As for AI being possible -- the fact that it does not exist means you do not know if it is possible or not. You have no reason to think it's possible, except that it would support your materialist theory.
AI becoming real in the future is a materialist myth. So is the idea of completely understanding the brain.
I am sure that there are as i have read the research. I'd suggest looking but we try to avoid science discussions. There mere fact that was mentioned that brain damage affects consciousness should be supportive evidence.
I sometimes watch video wargames. Really quite amazing especially the LoR -based ones. And sometimes they play the computer as a gamer. It is called AI. They observe that it is a clumsy strategist but it is there.
I know you'll say that it is a machine mimicking the actions of human reasoning. That's what AI is.
We all know that plants and animals have been bred with artificial selection. That is completely different from the idea that all species were created by chance and natural selection.
And breeders have never created a new more complex species, by the way.
All species were created by mutations in DNA, which are not due strictly to chance (see the link) but are a result of processes which require no divine intervention by a supernatural power.
"So to be clear: the evidence shows that chance plays a primary role in mutations, and there would be no natural selection without chance. But it is not random chance. It is loaded chance, with multiple constraints, multi-point biases, numerous clustering effects, and skewed distributions."
There is no evidence at all that it does. And there are many reasons to think that it doesn't.
You have already been shown the evidence that it does. You just choose to ignore it.
Please provide the reasons to think that it doesn't. You have been asked to do so several times. Continued refusal just confirms that there are no such "reasons".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There are NO observations or research showing consciousness and awareness being a product of the mind. None. So why do you keep saying it?
As for AI being possible -- the fact that it does not exist means you do not know if it is possible or not. You have no reason to think it's possible, except that it would support your materialist theory.
AI becoming real in the future is a materialist myth. So is the idea of completely understanding the brain.
"The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought."
As you have already been told, AI is a reality. You keep ignoring the fact that the "A" stands for artificial.
There will always be something new to learn about the brain. That does not mean no one understands it at all. You personally do not understand anything about it apparently. There are scientists who understand a great deal about it.
I keep waiting and looking and hoping for an answer to this, but have not seen. Forget computers and AI, just answer this question: Why do you think/say/argue that the human brain does not generate consciousness and intelligence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
There is no evidence at all that it does. And there are many reasons to think that it doesn't.
But you are completely unable to articulate even one of these reasons. Maybe there aren’t many as you claim? Maybe there aren’t any at all?
There is no evidence at all that it does. And there are many reasons to think that it doesn't.
You are ducking the question, once again, so I will answer.
YOU are evidence, for starters. Or are you suggesting that the intelligence that allows you to sit here and read and understand and formulate thoughts and respond to complex ideas.... and the awareness that you are doing so... are coming from somewhere outside your brain? If so, where might that be?
Call me simple minded (no pun intended), but that much seems self-evident.
You are ducking the question, once again, so I will answer.
YOU are evidence, for starters. Or are you suggesting that the intelligence that allows you to sit here and read and understand and formulate thoughts and respond to complex ideas.... and the awareness that you are doing so... are coming from somewhere outside your brain? If so, where might that be?
Call me simple minded (no pun intended), but that much seems self-evident.
There is also the fact that brain surgery can be done with the patient awake and electrodes used to stimulate specific areas of the brain, during which the patient can tell the surgeon what experiences the stimulation elicits.
You can model things with logic circuits. Computers are made out of logic circuits. Neurons are like complex logic circuits.
You think that understanding some low level aspect of a natural system means you understand the organization of the higher levels.
Did you miss the point deliberately? We can model aspects of consciousness using computers. So that is evidence our consciousness is also a product of our hardware. Except it is difficult to model 10 to 20 billion neurons on a computer due to the exponential memory requirement on a system that processes information in a serial way (unlike our brains).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Neuroscientists admit they don't understand much about how the brain works. If they did, something would have passed the Turing test. Nothing did, and nothing will.
Neuroscientists admit they understand more about how the brain works than you what you pretend they know. Because you do not bother to read any of the papers that have been written in the last 70 years. And how do you know nothing will pass a Turing test? Do you know nothing about chatterbots? Or PARRY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
You think the mechanical, programmed, decision making performed by computers is intelligence. If it were, there would be intelligent computers, with common sense, by now. There aren't.
Once again, they are not programmed, only their architecture is. The actual knowledge is learned by the program itself. I first did this over 20 years ago.
But well done for setting the goal so far away so that you can avoid the fact we have intelligent computers sans 'common sense'.
And, by the way, any "intelligence" computers have came from the engineers and programmers who created them.
BPN + data = intelligence.
BPN = no intelligence.
You ignorance of this refutes your position, not ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
According to atheist/materialists, the intelligence generated by human brains was not programmed. It happened by chance and natural selection.
Very little can be created by selecting from randomly generated changes. If random changes and natural selection were such a powerful creative force, its amazing creativity would have been simulated by now. And please don't mention genetic algorithms.
Why, because genetic algorithms refutes your position? And do you really think we can replicate 5 billion years on a global scale in a laboratory over night? Or were you deliberately straw manning? Again.
just admit that your god did it through evolution. It would make your argument a little more sound.
why are you resistant to a god working exactly as it has shown you by evolution? In effect, you are ignoring what this god of yours is showing you.
That IS what he is arguing. Or rather asserting. Except he is providing no evidence for this, he is only attacking the science that shows no god is required.
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.
