Do singularity people consider this possibility?

[Blaupanzer]

blau

"I'm rubber and you're glue" isn't much of a response.

You are right. My point was that you often write on subjects you don't know well, just as I do. You admitted that in the next post. It happens that I do know computer architectures and software development very well, and was having difficulty following one of your points until you said, "No ****, no one does." Then, I could see your point was that part of the criteria is very insubstantial. I included the LOL as weapons development and the two subjects above are items I know well and you "don't know" attack is sort of lost in space on these.

[Lorizael]

Can we be certain we'll move beyond that? We might be able to perfectly replicate a human brain, but to do better would require us to know how it is that a human brain works (i.e., completely different from any computer ever built), and improve upon it. Can we actually improve upon it?

We've already improved upon the human brain. There are people that are smarter than other people, and we have a pretty good idea of what to do to raise smart kids and what to do to raise dumb kids.

I don't mean just processing speed; you could improve that forever and the robo-brain would just come to the same damned conclusions a human brain would, only faster.

There may be certain conclusions we've yet to (or can't) come to because of a limited lifespan. Given an exponentially faster computer of equal intelligence, it will come to conclusions we haven't.

[Elok]

This is tricky for me to think about, but the problem I see is, how do you make a computer learn like a human does? Is it possible?

1) yes, because the human brain is just a really wet, squishy computer

Can you back this up, as more than an analogy?

2) yes, we have developed learning AIs that individually mimic certain types of human learning

What types of learning? Can those types of learning be generalized?

3) probably yes, because there's no reason to believe we can't

I believe that, at this point in the discussion, Poly tradition requires me to mumble something about burden of proof. Then you say "prove we can't," and I say "prove we can" until such time as the thread reaches 500 posts or someone gets banned.

[KrazyHorse]

My point was that you often write on subjects you don't know well, just as I do.

The difference is that I don't pretend to expertise when I don't have it

[Elok]

Should I just bite the bullet at this point and admit I don't have a head for compsci any more than I have a head for math?

[KrazyHorse]

Can you back this up, as more than an analogy?

????

Again, unless you claim some sort of spiritual (non-physical) input then this is self-evident.

[KrazyHorse]

Elok, this is not compsci. This is filosofizing about compsci.

[Elok]

Well, if you define "computer" to mean "anything that processes information," yes. But by that definition, what isn't?

[Elok]

Elok, this is not compsci. This is filosofizing about compsci.

****, I'd have left the thread ages ago if I'd known I was committing filosofy. That's just masturbation without the orgasm.

[Lorizael]

Well, if you define "computer" to mean "anything that processes information," yes. But by that definition, what isn't?

That's kind of the point. What real difference is there between a giant clump of atoms assembled over time and a giant clump of atoms assembled quickly by a giant clump of atoms assembled over time?

[Blaupanzer]

Precisely!

[Kuciwalker]

Can you back this up, as more than an analogy?

Yes, but it involves going into an irrelevant tangent in physics.

What types of learning? Can those types of learning be generalized?

I don't know and I don't know; I'm not a specialist in AI.

I believe that, at this point in the discussion, Poly tradition requires me to mumble something about burden of proof. Then you say "prove we can't," and I say "prove we can" until such time as the thread reaches 500 posts or someone gets banned.

That was inductive, not deductive reasoning; there's no "proof" in it because I'm stating that something is probably true.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, if you define "computer" to mean "anything that processes information," yes. But by that definition, what isn't?

general-purpose computer = anything that can execute an algorithm

algorithm = sequence of elementary instructions on manipulating very small pieces of data

[Jon Miller]

There are many assumptions made for this, but they are all pretty usual ones for many scientists, like that of reductionism and materialism.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

'struth