Philosophers, What's Wrong with This

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hee_Zen said:
. The proof is mathematical and as such not subject to arguments.
Click to expand...
How do you figure a mathematical proof is infallible? First off, mathematical applications are only as good as the (name removed by moderator)uts, i.e. premises. If A + B = C, you still can have a whole lot of argument what “A” is. Furthermore, as mathematics is merely a logical application, and logic itself cannot prove logic is correct, how can you just say for certain that there can be no argument. Wow! In fact, I think I just demonstrated that there is ALWAYS a rational argument using reason itself, how ironic. Using logic to disprove logic is fun.
 
Poussin said:
How do you figure a mathematical proof is infallible? First off, mathematical applications are only as good as the (name removed by moderator)uts, i.e. premises. If A + B = C, you still can have a whole lot of argument what “A” is. Furthermore, as mathematics is merely a logical application, and logic itself cannot prove logic is correct, how can you just say for certain that there can be no argument. Wow! In fact, I think I just demonstrated that there is ALWAYS a rational argument using reason itself, how ironic. Using logic to disprove logic is fun.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
BrassAnkles said:
These still aren’t self-replicating machines.
Click to expand...
You took less than two minutes to respond, so you must be an exceptionally fast reader.

Sounds like 101 years ago you would confidently proclaim that a powered flying machine is impossible, and six months ago that a machine landing on a comet is impossible. For no sound reason other than it hadn’t been done yet, so it must be impossible, says you.

Why do you think self-replicating machines are logically impossible? Why do you think they’re necessary anyway, why couldn’t machines just make other machines?
 
Stuff like quality assurance has to be done by human beings because human beings use the equipment ultimately, even in fully automated environments.
Where people try to do this in computing or communication, it is for very limited purposes.
The very real phenomenon is how we can become a slave to things, whether it is our jobs, our possessions and the very machinery that is supposed to make life easier.
That is where we are taken over by machines. That is the reality on which those fears are founded.
 
inocente said:
You took less than two minutes to respond, so you must be an exceptionally fast reader.

Sounds like 101 years ago you would confidently proclaim that a powered flying machine is impossible, and six months ago that a machine landing on a comet is impossible. For no sound reason other than it hadn’t been done yet, so it must be impossible, says you.

Why do you think self-replicating machines are logically impossible? Why do you think they’re necessary anyway, why couldn’t machines just make other machines?
Click to expand...
I have pointed out the reasons. I am a graduate engineer and have done computer programming. AI isn’t happening either.
 
BrassAnkles said:
No, I am a graduate engineer and have done computer programming.
Click to expand...
Please warn people before making these kind of posts. Coffee spewed all over the keyboard. Is claiming qualifications another sign of dementia? You seem to be a bit of an expert.
 
cerad3 said:
Please warn people before making these kind of posts. Coffee spewed all over the keyboard. Is claiming qualifications another sign of dementia? You seem to be a bit of an expert.
Click to expand...
Don’t believe me then, believe the facts.
 
BrassAnkles said:
I have pointed out the reasons. I am a graduate engineer and have done computer programming. AI isn’t happening either.
Click to expand...
These days every school leaver has probably done some programming.

One of your reasons why you believe it can’t happen was you think machines can’t learn and evolve by themselves. I linked two summary articles which prove you wrong, but you responded so fast I don’t see how you could possibly have read them.

Another of your concerns was power, as if power = fossil fuel. Out here in the mountains, the internet transponders and even the road signals are powered by batteries charged by dinky little solar panels. Not exactly difficult, I can buy all the parts in the hardware store.

I’ve never met an engineer with a can’t-do approach, who sees only problems where others see only solutions. When other engineers say why not, he says no sirree bob. 😃
 
inocente said:
These days every school leaver has probably done some programming.

One of your reasons why you believe it can’t happen was you think machines can’t learn and evolve by themselves. I linked two summary articles which prove you wrong, but you responded so fast I don’t see how you could possibly have read them.

Another of your concerns was power, as if power = fossil fuel. Out here in the mountains, the internet transponders and even the road signals are powered by batteries charged by dinky little solar panels. Not exactly difficult, I can buy all the parts in the hardware store.

I’ve never met an engineer with a can’t-do approach, who sees only problems where others see only solutions. When other engineers say why not, he says no sirree bob. 😃
Click to expand...
Your articles don’t prove that machines can replicate nor much less think on their own. They can only do what they are programmed to do.
 
tskrobacz said:
Because the created cannot be equal to or greater then the creator.
Click to expand...
By that logic, since you can’t flap your wings and fly, you can’t create an aircraft that can fly. You can’t build a ship bigger than you either, because then it would be greater than you.

:whistle:
 
BrassAnkles said:
Your articles don’t prove that machines can replicate nor much less think on their own. They can only do what they are programmed to do.
Click to expand...
Constantly repeating your mantra won’t magically make it come true.
 
inocente said:
Constantly repeating your mantra won’t magically make it come true.
Click to expand...
Your links were of a computer game, computer program, preliminary research and wiki pages. None contain AI nor a self replicating machine.
 
BrassAnkles said:
With all due respect string theory has mathematical proofs as well. However, having mathematical proofs and duplicating that in reality are completely different topics altogether. Therefore stating that there is a mathematical proof to support the idea that we are closer to a universal constructor machine is false logic. In fact there has never been completed even one completely self sufficient “Self-replicating machine” for the reasons I have posted earlier.
Click to expand...
I am always amazed by the tenacity of ignoramuses who keep on arguing about topics, which are way over their head. What do you know about “cellular automata”? Nothing, I bet. Codd actually **constructed **the necessary elements to put together a universal computer, which can perform everything what a usual sequential computer can do, and is also able to replicate itself. This is not science fiction, it is actual construction. You can read his book here.

Of course to create a simple “AND-gate” requires many thousands of “cells”. He chose a very simple machine as the building block: each cell has only 8 states, and each cell interacts with its von Neumann neighborhood (the four cells directly attached to it on the four sides).That you have never heard of it is your problem. Instead of trying to argue, you could follow the links provided and educate yourself.

There is are some very good reasons, why this particular machine has not been actually built. One, it is of no importance. Anyone who reads the book can see for himself how it works. Two, it would require many millions of elements and there is no practical reason to build it. Three, there are much more interesting uses for the cellular architecture and those machines have been built. By the way, no one has ever manufactured a Turing machine either (one read-write head and huge - though not an infinitely long paper-strip), but that does not make the construction of computers impossible.
 
inocente said:
By that logic, since you can’t flap your wings and fly, you can’t create an aircraft that can fly. You can’t build a ship bigger than you either, because then it would be greater than you.

:whistle:
Click to expand...
First, I don’t have wings. Bigger is not greater. A machine that flies is also not greater.
 
cerad3 said:
Please define greater. Is your God a greater sinner than Hitler?
Click to expand...
Sin by definition is separation from God. It is not possible for the creator to be separate from or other than Himself…the great I Am, the first mover, the non-contingent.
 
tskrobacz said:
Bigger is not greater. A machine that flies is also not greater.
Click to expand...
And yet you decline to define what greater actually is. Very strange.

I would think you could easily and objectively show that a person is greater than an airplane (or computer).
 
tskrobacz said:
Sin by definition is separation from God. It is not possible for the creator to be separate from or other than Himself…the great I Am, the first mover, the non-contingent.
Click to expand...
So which one is the greater sinner and can we then use your answer to determine if God is greater than Hitler?
 
cerad3 said:
And yet you decline to define what greater actually is. Very strange.

I would think you could easily and objectively show that a person is greater than an airplane (or computer).
Click to expand...
Greater in the natural order. Clearly among all creatures humans are greater than an ant or a dog. We are the greatest of the known corporeal beings. There are also a multitude of incorporeal beings (we call them angels).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top