As I said, the Computer has to have an algorithm. It cannot do anything without an algorithm and it cannot do something that algorithm doesn't say to do. It's Limited by it's algorithm. — ssu
In which case, as you can see, given infinite time we'll progress towards a limit -- wherever that happens to be -- but that limit will not be infinite. — Moliere
Again:What does it mean for an algorithm to tell a computer how to react? — Michael
Yet how the handle the data has to be in the algorithm. There surely can be feedback loops even in very simple computer programs, that in the old days were called cybernetic systems and there is a myriad of other ways how computers "learn" from the given data. Yet for that learning there has to be a specific algorithm.First of all, most computer programs are algorithms that process data, so it is not just an algorithm that you put in - it is algorithm plus data, and data can bring in potentially unlimited information. — SophistiCat
Neither have you my post.You haven’t addressed the substance of my post. — Michael
Or let's put this another way. Give me an example of a computer that doesn't follow an algorithm, instructions provided by a software or hardware program as said above. — ssu
I would say then that computers really can think, but I assume that I would be just confusing you.Why? What would that prove? — SophistiCat
You simply cannot argue that because there is cause and effect, because there is this "Black box" in between input and output the two everything is computable. — ssu
Fair enough. I'm not implying that there is any magic either, only that our current Turing Machines called computers have severe limitations in being accurate models on how we function. Of course in many ways they can model us, that's for sure.I’m saying that human brains are not in principle impossible to manufacture and that unless there really is some magic involved then if we reproduce the material and the behaviour then consciousness will result. We can then manipulate this artificial brain’s experiences by stimulating the relevant neurons, just as we can to a limited extent in real people already. — Michael
I wouldn't call it an irrelevant semantic matter as a computer does have a specific definition. Now, if you use the term AI, you aren't implying something specific on how the AI operates, but calling it a computer you do that, because (as I've said now many times) a computer has a definition. Just like in earlier historical times people just assumed humans to be just advanced mechanical devices.Whether or not you want to call this artificial brain a biological computer or its experiences a simulation is an irrelevant semantic matter — Michael
I'm not sure where the neuroscientists fall on this on average, but I would guess they're a bit more reserved about making such assumptions. — Marchesk
Ok. Assume a computer that you give a program to run. The computer follows first the program, yet later you find it running a totally different program, which wasn't at all described in the first program to be done. — ssu
With the way the algorithm instructs them to do.Yes, that's what evolutionary algorithms do: they modify part of their own code — SophistiCat
With the way the algorithm instructs them to do.
Notice the part "which wasn't at all described in the first program to be done". That part you see means that it's not following the instructions, it's not modifying it's code how it was instructed to do. — ssu
No. I'm just explaining the limitations of computation and using algorithms.I am still trying to understand where (if anywhere) you are leading with these requirements for programs that spring into existence fully formed out of the blue. — SophistiCat
Again no. Look, if I were to say that not everything is purely mechanical and can be modelled to work as clock-work, would that mean that I'm implying that there are miracles?Are you trying to say that consciousness is a miracle? — SophistiCat
Look, if I were to say that not everything is purely mechanical and can be modelled to work as clock-work, would that mean that I'm implying that there are miracles? — ssu
Yet we know that the reality cannot be at all times accurately modelled with the idea of a clock-work mechanical universe. Quantum Physics and relativity do have their merits in making better models of reality.Depends on how one defines miracles. If we assume the popular Humean view of miracles as violations of the laws of nature - which already implies that nature mostly behaves in law-like ("mechanical") fashion - then yes, that is what you are implying. — SophistiCat
Sure, we get that "syntax error" from time to time. But it's not intentional (or who knows, perhaps it's a clever marketing scheme that computers stop working after enough time).Only an idealised computer will follow its instructions and only those instructions.
A real computer will respond to input data according to its physical characteristics which may not follow the specified instructions (algorithms) perfectly. There can be problems with the hardware, problems with the software , intrinsic logical problems such as stack overflow all of which conspire to produce output that is not intended by the programmer. — A Seagull
Yet we know that the reality cannot be at all times accurately modelled with the idea of a clock-work mechanical universe. — ssu
Give a computer a Hex code of 000000, have it add FF, and the result is 0000FF. This is the hex code for blue, and it tells the computer to turn on the blue lamps that each make up part of a pixel.
Only in our scenario that biological computer isn't told to turn on a blue light but to activate the parts of its "brain" that are responsible for bringing about a blue colour experience. — Michael
So how is it that neural firing would "look blue"? How is this little trick achieved? — apokrisis
Love it. A computer can be programmed to operate a light switch. Therefore a conscious computer is possible. [Hands wave furiously.] — apokrisis
We don't know how, but we know it happens in us. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.