Faith in permanent death

[PolyHedral]

So that is the point. Turing test is extrapolated beyond its scope.

Setting up a series of benchmarks requires a premise. That premise is limited only to things that can be obeyed, simulated, calculated, or produced by a machine that implements ‘effective’ methods in Turing's original thesis.

Can human emotion be calculated?

If you can pass the Test, then the answer to that must be yes.

Even if it is proven, that will not prove that mimicry means understanding. Moreover, the machines are really translation of intelligence of programmers.

But I've already mentioned that computers, completely unthinking ones, can build and run other computers (i.e. Turing machines.) How is that anything to do with the programmer?

See above.

I don't understand. Who is the intelligence in the Chinese Room?

Because you through your cognition know that there exists such a machine that can mimic human actions and decide to use that machine.

I don't choose anything; I merely follow the instructions to build and run a machine. (Though if you believe that every Turing machine is intelligent, that's false. Almost all of them are not, actually.)

Simple. In all that you do the intelligence that we are endowed with but which we have not created plays the pivotal role. But ego does not acknowledge the gift.

I don't understand how intellect is involved in mindlessly following instructions.

 

[atanu]

I don't understand how intellect is involved in mindlessly following instructions.

Yes. That has been my point.

 

[PolyHedral]

Then please explain how it is, if that's what you want to say. If you're agreeing with me that it isn't, please say.

 

[atanu]

I don't understand how intellect is involved in mindlessly following instructions.

Yes. That has been my point.

Then please explain how it is, if that's what you want to say. If you're agreeing with me that it isn't, please say.

All through you ascribe intelligence to machines for being able to mindlessly follow instructions and now you turn against it?

Let us give it a rest and re-test the assumptions, please. Do we agree that there is no intelligence in mindlessly executing instructions over which there is no freedom? The conditions are such that instructions have to executed as soon as someone pushes a button.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, there is no intelligence utilized in following instructions.

 

[Copernicus]

This thread seems now to be well and thoroughly hijacked away from the question of the permanence of death. We are discussing a side issue that has to do with whether computers can be conscious or intelligent, even though Idav started a new thread on that subject.

You're right; there isn't any understanding in the Chinese Room Problem. The man doing the looking up does not understand Chinese; the table he is consulting doesn't understand Chinese, being just a table full of characters. What does, then? IMO, it is only the combination of both the man and the table that understand Chinese.

Also, the Chinese Room is theoretically capable of passing the Turing Test, which would involve the appearance of consciousness. Is the Room conscious or not? If not, how do you distinguish between me and the Room, as we both claim we are conscious?

I have always felt that Searle should have known better, but he has always been more of a philosopher than a linguist. The Chinese Room Problem assumes that human languages are transducible by mere substitutions of symbols. That may be true for formal languages such as computer languages, but human language is fundamentally different. Ambiguity in formal languages, for example, is locally resolvable. That is, you can disambiguate meaning from the information contained in the stream of symbols alone, independently of context. Human languages require contextual disambiguation--shared understandings of the world--and there may, in fact, be no direct translation from one language to another. That is because what language does is not just convey information. It triggers knowledge and inferences between speakers that may be culturally determined. Hence, words in one language cannot be transduced into another until the associative structures that underly them exist in the sending and receiving minds. To put it in the words of one of my mentors (Charles Fillmore): "Language is word-guided mental telepathy."

 

[blackout]

Don't people generally have "faith" in things they WANT, or hope, to be so/come to pass?

Like, who has "faith" that their cancer will go terminal and they will die?
People "have faith" that they will BEAT their cancer.
just an example.

People generally "have faith" that they will live on beyond death,
precisely because they do not want to die.
I doubt there are many people who cling to 'faith' in permanent death
(or even death at the hand of their disease)
in the way that people cling to faith in everlasting life.

I personally hope for the latter.... only under certain conditions.
Under other certain conditions, I would opt for nothingness,
though I have 'faith' in none of these things.
Only preferences and hopes.

 

[idav]

This thread seems now to be well and thoroughly hijacked away from the question of the permanence of death. We are discussing a side issue that has to do with whether computers can be conscious or intelligent, even though Idav started a new thread on that subject.

There is a little bit of a link but this is what I think. You have people arguing that humans don't have a soul, whatever that is supposed to mean. If that is true then a machine should easily be able to have concsiousness without a soul but this is indeed off topic. People arguing that we do have sort of soul or whatever may very well believe that true consiousness is not possible and therefore AI is not possible. I think it gets off topic like that because since we don't have the answers to everything our brain does it is easier to compare it to a machine which really is beside the point. We have already demonstrated that indeed "afterlife" for a machine is possible when the data is transferable same as if we are ever able to transfer our personality and memories.

 

[Acim]

Don't people generally have "faith" in things they WANT, or hope, to be so/come to pass?

Like, who has "faith" that their cancer will go terminal and they will die?
People "have faith" that they will BEAT their cancer.
just an example.

People generally "have faith" that they will live on beyond death,
precisely because they do not want to die.
I doubt there are many people who cling to 'faith' in permanent death
(or even death at the hand of their disease)
in the way that people cling to faith in everlasting life.

I personally hope for the latter.... only under certain conditions.
Under other certain conditions, I would opt for nothingness,
though I have 'faith' in none of these things.
Only preferences and hopes.

Faith and hope are entirely different. Entirely.

Faith is like a scuba diving.
Hope is like tightrope walking.

Now, you don't think scuba diving and tightrope walking are the same, do you?

But you might have a preference for one over the other. Or at least I hope you do. In fact, I have faith that you do.

Btw, I believe some people (could be the majority) actually want to die.

For all we know, it is the greatest joy beings on this planet will ever experience.

 

[Falvlun]

Afterlife for whom? For the ego consciousness, which is emergent and which is linked to body? Or for the causal consciousness (the bundle of desires and wishes along with memory), which is the seed of the body-mind? Or for the homogeneous undifferentiated consciousness, whereupon the causal consciousness subsists?

It is not required for science to understand the layering of consciousness upon consciousness. But the spiritual purpose is different. Knowledge of oneself is the prime requirement for happiness. 'Know Thyself' is a prescription in all religions.

Afterlife for me specifically, and people in general. Even if we did have evidence for the existence of those three layers of conciousness, we still don't have evidence that they persist after death.

I do not know what spiritual purpose is gained by the assumption that a part of me will persist after I die. I would think that the urgency death brings would actually compel people to get everything in order now, rather than putting it off for some future life.

While knowledge of oneself is an admirable goal, I also believe that acknowledging that some things are unknown and unknowable is an extremely healthy excerise.

 

[atanu]

Afterlife for me specifically, ----.

What do you exactly mean by 'me'?

 

[atanu]

I have always felt that Searle should have known better, but he has always been more of a philosopher than a linguist. The Chinese Room Problem assumes that human languages are transducible by mere substitutions of symbols. ."

What you are saying is actually Searle's point that meaningless mimicry of Chinese is possible both by a man (who does not understand Chinese) or a computer, but that does not prove that the mimic understands. Those who criticise Searle do so taking refuge in Solipsism.

I do think that you do not understand the basic premise of Church-Turing thesis either. Some materialists have applied it indiscriminately to prove their point that every kind of intelligence is replicable by a machine. Whereas, the thesis, is limited only to things that can be obeyed, simulated, calculated, or produced by a machine that implements ‘effective’ methods in Turing's original thesis.

I do not wish to continue on this, since I do not wish to de-rail the thread. But I will point out that your definitive assertions about intelligence emanating from non-intelligent matter is not a proven fact and those assertions have entailed detailed discussions.

 

[Copernicus]

What you are saying is actually Searle's point that meaningless mimicry of Chinese is possible both by a man (who does not understand Chinese) or a computer, but that does not prove that the mimic understands. Those who criticise Searle do so taking refuge in Solipsism.

My criticism of Searle was that his "thought experiment" relied on a false conception of human language. It was a mischaracterization of how translation from one human language to another actually works. What is being communicated really is thoughts and concepts, not just the information conveyed by what the symbols directly encode. The symbols only trigger or invoke conceptual images, but they fail to do that unless those concepts and images pre-exist in both the mind of the sender and the mind of the receiver. Direct translation is impossible when they do not, and the translator needs to find innovative analogies for conveying the information. That is, true intelligence is needed to translate effectively. Machine translation programs are notorious for their inability to translate non-literal language. In the AI field, we call that characteristic of such programs "brittleness". The Chinese room scenario assumes a scalable robustness in the process where none is to be found.

I do think that you do not understand the basic premise of Church-Turing thesis either. Some materialists have applied it indiscriminately to prove their point that every kind of intelligence is replicable by a machine. Whereas, the thesis, is limited only to things that can be obeyed, simulated, calculated, or produced by a machine that implements ‘effective’ methods in Turing's original thesis.

I don't think that you understand the Church-Turing thesis, or you would not have become confused about its relationship to intelligence. It is about computability, not intelligence. At this time, there is no reason to believe that intelligent behavior is not computable. Nor is there reason to believe that what is computable cannot be computed by a Turing machine. The Turing Test is about intelligence, not computability.

I do not wish to continue on this, since I do not wish to de-rail the thread. But I will point out that your definitive assertions about intelligence emanating from non-intelligent matter is not a proven fact and those assertions have entailed detailed discussions.

I think that you have continually misconstrued and mischaracterized my "definitive assertions" in the past, and I suspect that that pattern will continue.

 

[atanu]

My criticism of Searle was that his "thought experiment" relied on a false conception of human language. It was a mischaracterization of how translation from one human language to another actually works. What is being communicated really is thoughts and concepts, not just the information conveyed by what the symbols directly encode.

Searle does nothing of that. You are assuming those things in AI.

I don't think that you understand the Church-Turing thesis, or you would not have become confused about its relationship to intelligence. It is about computability, not intelligence.

Hehe.

You are saying this? Our interactions have always been on this subject. All our discussions have been about Artificial INTELLIGENCE and not about mere computabilty. Are you being honest and truthful?

But I am happy that now you state something to which I agree fully: It is about computability, not intelligence.

 

[Copernicus]

Searle does nothing of that. You are assuming those things in AI.

You didn't understand my point, but it isn't worth pursuing here.

You are saying this? Our interactions have always been on this subject. All our discussions have been about Artificial INTELLIGENCE and not about mere computabilty. Are you being honest and truthful?

But I am happy that now you state something to which I agree fully: It is about computability, not intelligence.

Let me try this again. The Church-Turing Thesis was not an attempt to explain intelligence or anything about intelligence. It was just the hypothesis that a computer could carry out any algorithmic calculation. So, I won't question your honesty, as you have questioned mine, but I will question your competence to understand what the Church-Turing thesis was about and its relevance to this discussion. You are in over your head when it comes to things associated with the name "Turing". Best to move on.

 

[atanu]

You didn't understand my point, but it isn't worth pursuing here.

I become happy.

Let me try this again. The Church-Turing Thesis was not an attempt to explain intelligence or anything about intelligence.

I pointed it out.

 

[PolyHedral]

The Church-Turing Thesis was not an attempt to explain intelligence or anything about intelligence.

Well, validating the Thesis would explain one thing about intelligence; it'd demonstrate that AI is possible on any machine equivalent to a TM.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, validating the Thesis would explain one thing about intelligence; it'd demonstrate that AI is possible on any machine equivalent to a TM.

Right, but that conclusion only follows if AI is itself algorithmic in nature. That is a reasonable conjecture, but the Church-Turing Thesis tells us nothing direct about the nature of AI per se.

 

[PolyHedral]

Right, but that conclusion only follows if AI is itself algorithmic in nature. That is a reasonable conjecture, but the Church-Turing Thesis tells us nothing direct about the nature of AI per se.

Considering the universe itself is algorithmic in nature as far as anyone has suggested, then wouldn't it?

 

[Willamena]

Considering the universe itself is algorithmic in nature as far as anyone has suggested, then wouldn't it?

As far as "anyone has suggested," an algorithm is a procedure of steps towards a solution.

How does that describe the "nature" of the universe?