The point is that, although they are just memory machines parroting what is told to them, even that requires some rudimentary intelligence.
But once we develop computers whose memory banks resemble human brain neural network, they may start thinking for themselves. Ultimately in the end, whatever nature can create, man can create. Conversely, think of all the people on this planet who just parrot what is told them, without thinking or having any understanding about it. Did your "God" programme them badly? --- "jr_esq" <jr_esq@..> wrote: > > Jason, > > AI in computers are only mimicking the real consciousness > of human beings. Computer intelligence will only be as > good as the human programmers who created it. For > example, it is a fact that an IBM computer was able to > beat Kasparov in a chess championship setting. But it was > programmed to calculate possibilities in chess moves by > brute force. The real consciousness comes from the humans > who programmed the computer. > > IMO, this will hold true for any other developments in AI > in the future. In the end, computers will only be silicon > chips (even quantum chips) pretending to have human > consciousness. > > > > --- "s3raphita" <s3raphita@...> wrote: > > > > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being > > to show that consciousness can't be reduced to > > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend* > > they believe). Searle is right about that. > > > > --- "bobpriced" <bobpriced@...> wrote: > > Did you mean to say that the advocates of AI are lying* > about what they believe? If so, I thought your comment was > interesting since *pretending* is the only way a computer > program will ever pass The Turing Test (is it possible the > programs are advocating for themselves); Eugene > Goostman---to date, the computer program with the most > successful attempt at The Turing Test (29%)---got as far > as it did by *pretending* to be a 13 year-old Ukrainian > male who spoke English as a second language (rumours that > Share is related to Eugene are completely unfounded). > > > > What he wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness > > being irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of > > the Cosmos must come down to some element more essential > > than what is being explained. That game can't go on for > > ever otherwise you have an infinite regress. > > > > Something has (or somethings have) to be basic and > > consciousness [better "awareness"] being that thing (or > > one of those things) it follows immediately that > > Darwinian Theory which postulates that consciousness is > > a late development in evolutionary history is clearly > > wrong. Q.E.D. > > > > --- "bobpriced" <bobpriced@...> wrote: > > If the use of adornment could be construed as an attempt > to *pretend* to be something other than what we are, and > if adornment is an important indicator used by > archeologists to identify Homo sapiens (it takes human > consciousness to understand we can influence the > perception of others), when studying the fossils of > hominids, is there still hope that computers will learn to > lie better and eventually pass The Turing Test? > > > --- Jason <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > Computers today are savants with the intelligence of a > > spider or a cockroach. 20 years in the future, they > > will have the intelligence and the intuition of a two > > year old. > > > > There are many facets of intelligence. Memory power and > > computing power are only one aspect of intelligence. > > > > LQ - This is logic quotient. These people are good in > > maths. logical steps for solutions. > > > > CQ - Corelation Quotient. The ability to corelate > > diverse factors and see how they fit. > > > > MQ - Memory quotient. Ability to recall information is a > > type of intelligence and plays a role in survival. > > > > TQ - Tribulation quotient. the ability to deal with > > stressfull and chaotic envionment. > > > > EQ - Emotional quotient. The ability to handle emotions > > and compartment them. Empathy the ability to put in > > other's shoes and see their POV is a type of > > intelligence. > > > > > --- "bobpriced" <bobpriced@...> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g > > >
