Where Is Heaven?

[Will Due]

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That doesn't make any sense though. 

If a machine can be creative, and feel regret, why is that not thinking? 

Thoughts are fine, but what does the evidence say? That's what fine tunes thought into fact. 

An explanation does not have to be highly technical, just factual. 

The only thing this comment reminds me of is this famous quote. 

Enjoy. 

 

Lol. That's why Einstein's a genius and I'm not. But to be honest, 6 year olds I do ok with. It's the 21 and older crowd where I can't seem to make any head way. Oh well.

 

Quote

If a machine can be creative, and feel regret, why is that not thinking? 

 

First of all, from my standpoint and I have extensive experience with programming computers, the way it appears to me is that there is no proof that a computer can be creative, let alone feel regret, which is an emotional response only humans can make.

Getting to it, if a machine or a computer can think, well, that even goes further down the line away from what has been proven true about a computer, to my knowledge anyway.

I'll give you this about machines though being able to be creative or feel regret, or to think. Right now, it's only something that's been forecasted, not achieved. Do you agree?

I know there are arguments to the contrary, like how a computer painted a unique picture, but based on my experience with writing code, as far as I'm concerned, no one has invented a machine that can do anything other than what it has been programmed to do, and I'm quite certain no one ever will.

Could I be wrong? I guess. 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your contradicting yourself here, and only illustrating what XenoFish stated. Love is a chemical reaction that we give special meaning to, and apart from you protesting against the chemical aspect, that's what your describing here. 

No contradiction. You just aren't getting it   LOVE is not a chemical attraction. That is lust or desire or a physical attraction or the chemicals released  when a human looks into a baby's  big eyes, which evolved for just ha t purpose. 

Those things exist in most animals. But humans have a special quality conferred by our self aware intelligence. We can LOVE ie build physical constructs in our neural networks which are love which  bind us tie us and shape us for life  A parent might bind with a child because of the chemicals released a t birth and soon after, but it loves its child for life because it learns to, and builds neural patterns of love in its mind that bind it for life 

We can love an idea or an ideal, love a character in a book or movie , etc And love people without any release of any chemicals  Human love is an intellectual construct which conditions our mind's neural pathways . 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No you won't, we will both be dust by then. 

Hence the smiley; but one of us will be proven right, and the other wrong, by then. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Lol. That's why Einstein's a genius and I'm not. But to be honest, 6 year olds I do ok with. It's the 21 and older crowd where I can't seem to make any head way. Oh well.

I hope your not proselytising children. That'd be bad mkay. Children are impressionable, they don't tend to require proof, they have faith that their elders are totally honest. It's an easier crowd to please. 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

First of all, from my standpoint and I have extensive experience with programming computers, the way it appears to me is that there is no proof that a computer can be creative, let alone feel regret, which is an emotional response only humans can make.

If a computer could map and duplicate all our synaptic and neural connections, we could have our consciousness transfered at death to a machine 

Its just a very extensive program. 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

Getting to it, if a machine or a computer can think, well, that even goes further down the line away from what has been proven true about a computer, to my knowledge anyway.

What's your knowledge consist of though? You say you have extensive programming knowledge but is that in current development or some time ago? 10 years ago I was a UNIX wiz myself, but today's programs would take me a few months to catch up on. 

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

I'll give you this about machines though being able to be creative or feel regret, or to think. Right now, it's only something that's been forecasted, not achieved. Do you agree?

I know there are arguments to the contrary, like how a computer painted a unique picture, but based on my experience with writing code, as far as I'm concerned, no one has invented a machine that can do anything other than what it has been programmed to do, and I'm quite certain no one ever will.

Could I be wrong? I guess. 

From what I read, we don't have fully functioning artificial intelligence yet, but in the same breath, we are not far from it. IBMs program chef Watson creates recipes that people have never heard of, apparently cherries and mushrooms is one discovery of this program that is very successful yet few people would put those together, it strikes me some computers are already thinking for themselves in a rudimentary fashion, so why would that not develop into full blown intelligence? The Turing test is only going to get harder, which is why some have proposed the lovely end test, where the human element is removed and the computer itself exhibits traits to be recognised as intelligence.