Philosophy Now Forum

I'm asking to what extent they can think. It's already known that they play chess and Jeopardy (IBM's Watson). I also have a bot in my phone that I can talk to. What are the limits that a computer can be used for and how much brainpower can a computer have for thinking purposes? (the answer will depend on what is meant by thinking that I will leave openly undefined)

PhilX

Computers can't think abstract, it can learn basic concepts like what is a cat, but not do philosophy.

If it has a set of instructions it can master these instructions much better than a human, like driving a car. Humans are very forgetful and will slack on instructions.
The Google car only have crashed when a human driver, drove the car.

All computers are glorified Turing Machines. They are capable of receiving data, analyzing it according to a set of rules, and giving output according to this same set of rules.

The question really is: is "thinking" - what we persons do with our minds - more than what a computer does?

If so, this would need to be demonstrated.

The answer, I think, is "Yes. What persons do with their minds (which we call thinking) is much more than what a Turing Machine does." We don't just analyze data according to rules, we abstract data and make (or see) the connections between data. This abstraction enables us to understand metaphorical language, something that a Turing Machine could never do. It also enables us to understand humor, another thing a Turing Machine could never do.

We are also able to analyze and alter the rules themselves. Where Turing Machines have a set of rules that governs their interpretation of data, persons have the power of "naming". We not only experience that datum of the world but we classify it, interpret it, and name it. Thereby creating a framework of interpretation, or "rules", that governs our further interpretation of data. Turing Machines could never do this.

Persons are able to evaluate data. Not only do we receive the datum of the world but we aesthetically, morally, and practically evaluate what we see. We call things good, just, wicked, abominable. We call things beautiful, ugly, profound, stirring. We call things useful and useless. We evaluate the data that we take in. We feel a certain way about what we're experiencing. A Turing Machine could never make such evaluations. It could never feel such evaluations.

Persons are able to imagine and envision possibility. Turing Machines can analyze what exists. Persons are able to envision what could be and what should be. A Turing Machine will never be able to do this.

Yon Yalvin wrote:Persons are able to imagine and envision possibility. Turing Machines can analyze what exists. Persons are able to envision what could be and what should be. A Turing Machine will never be able to do this.

Rubbish.

SyNAPSE chip, introduced on August 7, 2014
http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitive-c ... html#fbid=

IBM built a new chip with a brain-inspired computer architecture powered by an unprecedented 1 million neurons and 256 million synapses. It is the largest chip IBM has ever built at 5.4 billion transistors, and has an on-chip network of 4,096 neurosynaptic cores. Yet, it only consumes 70mW during real-time operation

It's just a matter of time before the computers will have cognitive abilities like a 20y, the currently best try is a 13y.

HexHammer wrote:

Yon Yalvin wrote:Persons are able to imagine and envision possibility. Turing Machines can analyze what exists. Persons are able to envision what could be and what should be. A Turing Machine will never be able to do this.

Rubbish.

SyNAPSE chip, introduced on August 7, 2014
http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitive-c ... html#fbid=

IBM built a new chip with a brain-inspired computer architecture powered by an unprecedented 1 million neurons and 256 million synapses. It is the largest chip IBM has ever built at 5.4 billion transistors, and has an on-chip network of 4,096 neurosynaptic cores. Yet, it only consumes 70mW during real-time operation

It's just a matter of time before the computers will have cognitive abilities like a 20y, the currently best try is a 13y.

How does this chip enable a computer to envision the possible?

Yon Yalvin wrote:How does this chip enable a computer to envision the possible?

The same way that Google made a program understand the concept of a cat, the same way a computer can learn abstract concepts over time it will learn to see these concepts in conjunction.

HexHammer wrote:

Yon Yalvin wrote:How does this chip enable a computer to envision the possible?

The same way that Google made a program understand the concept of a cat, the same way a computer can learn abstract concepts over time it will learn to see these concepts in conjunction.

I see no evidence in your article or in your posts that would lead me to believe that a computer could envision the possible. I'm just hearing a hope that one day we'll get there.

Yon Yalvin wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Yon Yalvin wrote:How does this chip enable a computer to envision the possible?

The same way that Google made a program understand the concept of a cat, the same way a computer can learn abstract concepts over time it will learn to see these concepts in conjunction.

I see no evidence in your article or in your posts that would lead me to believe that a computer could envision the possible. I'm just hearing a hope that one day we'll get there.

Ask youself why the best try yet at turing tests has made it that we have pushed a computer to pass as a 13y? Do you really think that it will stop there for all eternity?

HexHammer wrote:Ask youself why the best try yet at turing tests has made it that we have pushed a computer to pass as a 13y? Do you really think that it will stop there for all eternity?

The basic argument is that computers can "think". This claim doesn't seem to be a major obstacle when it comes AI discussions. Hex, you are obviously on the side of the group that argues for an emergent approach to AI. In other words, given enough complexity IBM computers will start to show a thinking process similar to humans. Perhaps, even that of a 16 y.

You are pretty good company. This is the physicalists argument for consciousness. I am on board for the first part of the argument. However, I don't accept that a bit computer will ever have experience- a qubit computer? Well... I'm not so steadfast on this. Anyway, if your machine is incapable of experience then it will never be able to mimic the exact thinking process of a human.