What is mind and where did it come from?

[GaryTaylor]

Good thing we addressed this, computer worship wouldn’t have been far off.

Physicist Stephen Hawking and Tesla/SpaceX founder Elon Musk have both recently warned that our sci-fi nightmares about artificial intelligence could actually come true in our lifetimes.

They will no longer need you and there is no moral ethical, which is a “BIG” issue, of course correction could be made possible by our intelligent strong governments and social structures to enhance users of this intelligence by moderating them.

Mind you this is string theory Stephen with no God and a eternal universe and artificial intelligence taking over while we depend on politics to handle the morality as always.

“If you want to study the social and political history of modern nations, study hell.” - Thomas Merton

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We already know Linus Feser.

But there are many far better critiques of Turing’s paper than Feser, who doesn’t even realize Turing is trying for a probabilistic outcome rather than a water-tight argument.

That’s exactly my point. Sixty year’s after the paper was published they still argue. Whether Turing is right or wrong, he started a debate which Feser has not added to.

You’ve referred to “educated classes” before, as if there is some cadre of authority figures we must bow before and worship. Who are these people? On what basis do you exclude Turing from their ranks? Are you a member of these “educated classes”? Do they have a secret handshake or something?

I’m just going by Feser’s analysis. He said Turning was not interested in the opinions of educated people, but of those who may not have thought about the subject. In that way he was excluding the opinions of a certain set of people. And that seems strange.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

After a thinker dies, people ordinarily are interested in getting access to private notes that were not intended for publication, but that disclose trains of thoughts. Such private notes might includes notes written in the margins of books owned by the thinker. However, the actions involved in creating such private notes play no role in the Turing test. So focusing purely on the actions of thinkers is not enough to give us the Turing test.

The Turing test is about acting as in dramatic performance rather than acting as in action. Whatever goal an actual human thinker was pursuing while alive, the goal of the Turing test is not to pursue that goal, but to instead to pursue the goal of appearing to be a thinker.

I would not judge Turing the thinker based on his invention of the “Turing test.” An idea might have zero value, but that does not necessarily tell us anything about the thinker who thought of the idea. There are a lot of dead ends. That some dead ends have captured the imagination of the general public tells us more about the general public than about the thinker.

There are things none of us know for certain. We cannot even say for certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow. It may go supernova overnight. Unlikely but no one can say for sure.

Turing’s game is not intended as a certain test of ability to think. If we update it, and say we are conversing over the internet on a message board with someone who claims to be human, but they’re on the other side of the world, how could we know for certain they are not a machine?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog

 

[GaryTaylor]

In that way he was excluding the opinions of a certain set of people. And that seems strange.

Linus2nd

Strange to me too with opinions, consider how many educated people believe none of this equivalence. Now consider how many have moral ethical issues and the overall existing issues in the moral ethics realm with computers.

I would say that reduces the statistic number who would make this equivalence with any merit to a low statistical number. And the educated intelligence would seem questionable at best with this group. But yes we could then take “them” man and female and test human against human for intelligence. And you can best believe the statistical probability will be further reduced also with the intelligence pool.

Seems to be so.

You notice that moral ethical aspect is always overlooked?

 

[inocente]

I’m just going by Feser’s analysis. He said Turning was not interested in the opinions of educated people, but of those who may not have thought about the subject. In that way he was excluding the opinions of a certain set of people. And that seems strange.

Then why not read Turing’s paper rather than just a review - Turing only uses the word “educated” when talking of future opinions.

The paper (OCR) - csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

The original (note, from a recognized journal of philosophy, not just a blog) - mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/LIX/236/433.extract

Debate - plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then why not read Turing’s paper rather than just a review - Turing only uses the word “educated” when talking of future opinions.

The paper (OCR) - csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

The original (note, from a recognized journal of philosophy, not just a blog) - mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/LIX/236/433.extract

Debate - plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/

The topic is not high on my priority list. I only brought it up because of another thread which took place in 2013 and I thought those on that thread might be interested in Feser’s treatment. And glory be, all the skeptics suddenly jump out of the wood work. A truly amazing phenomenon. No topic is safe in some quarters except doubt, disbelief, and relativism.

Linus2nd

 

[GaryTaylor]

how could we know for certain they are not a machine?

For certain you would know with the moral ethical, virtues, love, there is none, lacks empathy, love, compassion, the ability to dissent and change the mind and so forth, it has no intellect, it performs programmed secondary intentions, unlike loving caring humans.

There is no comparison, there is no moral ethical equal in comparison of a machine and human being that I can see in this area.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp3s1c1a7.htm&ei=pwziVN30OoHMgwS5uIOoDg&usg=AFQjCNExYwbfP3xwDhITBX3y_hoB3zIWKA

The argument of what “may” happen in the future is just as contested by many very intelligent people like Hawkins. Its a cancelled out point.

 

[PseuTonym]

There are things none of us know for certain. We cannot even say for certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow. It may go supernova overnight. Unlikely but no one can say for sure.

Turing’s game is not intended as a certain test of ability to think.

Your message is loud and clear. Unfortunately, I cannot see anything in what I wrote, that you quoted, that objected to the Turing test on the grounds of mere possibility of imperfection, in the sense that in some cases the test might give a false positive or false negative.

In fact, you can review what I was responding to that you wrote and see exactly what provoked my response to you:

“Feser completely misses the point of Turing’s paper.” …]
“Turing tries to avoid all of that by considering purely the acts of thinkers.”

Again, my point is that the Turing test does not merely restrict attention to actions. It sets up a situation that excludes from consideration many actions. What remain are specifically those actions that are acts, in the sense of dramatic performances.

 

[inocente]

The topic is not high on my priority list. I only brought it up because of another thread which took place in 2013 and I thought those on that thread might be interested in Feser’s treatment. And glory be, all the skeptics suddenly jump out of the wood work. A truly amazing phenomenon. No topic is safe in some quarters except doubt, disbelief, and relativism.

So you’re wasting my time discussing something you can’t even be bothered to read.

I didn’t post yesterday as it was the first anniversary of my wife’s funeral. Then I come back today to find you have likened me to a doubting, disbelieving worm, apparently simply because my faith doesn’t involve bowing before your trinity of Feser, Aristotle and Thomas.

I’m a Christian, I’m required to be skeptical of false idols, it’s right there in the first commandment.

The local priest is saying a Mass for my wife next Sunday, and he would split his sides if I told him about your attempts to badger other Christians into your private beliefs. Try to remember that Feser, Aristotle and Thomas are not holy prophets. Try to remember that Christians belong to Christ, not to you.

Imho you’ll learn much more by (re-)reading the NT than your diet of fast-food blogs.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. - Rom 14

 

[inocente]

For certain you would know with the moral ethical, virtues, love, there is none, lacks empathy, love, compassion, the ability to dissent and change the mind and so forth, it has no intellect, it performs programmed secondary intentions, unlike loving caring humans.

There is no comparison, there is no moral ethical equal in comparison of a machine and human being that I can see in this area.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp3s1c1a7.htm&ei=pwziVN30OoHMgwS5uIOoDg&usg=AFQjCNExYwbfP3xwDhITBX3y_hoB3zIWKA

The argument of what “may” happen in the future is just as contested by many very intelligent people like Hawkins. Its a cancelled out point.

If by “Hawkins” you mean Stephen Hawking, then he is on record as saying he believes future machines will be able to think:

*'Prof Hawking says the primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far have already proved very useful, but he fears the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.

“It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate,” he said.

“Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.”’ - bbc.com/news/technology-30290540*

Well, I suppose hyperbole sells both books and blogs.

Still, your prediction that Turing’s imitation game can distinguish between humans and machines “for certain” is a vote for the Turing Test, isn’t it?

PS: Your habit of linking a google search is dangerous. Clicking the search above happens to end up at vatican.va, but could just as easily have ended up at a porn or hate site. There’s no way to know in advance, since it just says “Redirect Notice” which could go anywhere. As an aid to others, could you please instead copy the url from the address bar of the page you want to link, in this case vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm Thanks.

 

[inocente]

Your message is loud and clear. Unfortunately, I cannot see anything in what I wrote, that you quoted, that objected to the Turing test on the grounds of mere possibility of imperfection, in the sense that in some cases the test might give a false positive or false negative.

In fact, you can review what I was responding to that you wrote and see exactly what provoked my response to you:

“Feser completely misses the point of Turing’s paper.” …]
“Turing tries to avoid all of that by considering purely the acts of thinkers.”

Again, my point is that the Turing test does not merely restrict attention to actions. It sets up a situation that excludes from consideration many actions. What remain are specifically those actions that are acts, in the sense of dramatic performances.

Yes. Agreed. The hypothesis is that if it acts like a duck then it’s a duck and if it acts like a thinker then it’s a thinker. An a posteriori argument, knowledge from experience.

You can instead argue a priori that thinking machines will always be impossible, much as Feser might argue that aircraft can’t fly because they don’t possess a “flying nature”, their substance is not “flying substance”. Feser can argue it right up to the point where the undercarriage leaves the ground, and then he finds that his watertight logic is, not to overdo the metaphor, groundless.

What appears to be a watertight a priori argument is always hostage to reality. God doesn’t play by Feser’s rules.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If by “Hawkins” you mean Stephen Hawking, then he is on record as saying he believes future machines will be able to think:

*'Prof Hawking says the primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far have already proved very useful, but he fears the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.

“It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate,” he said.

“Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.”’ - bbc.com/news/technology-30290540*

Well, I suppose hyperbole sells both books and blogs.

Still, your prediction that Turing’s imitation game can distinguish between humans and machines “for certain” is a vote for the Turing Test, isn’t it?

PS: Your habit of linking a google search is dangerous. Clicking the search above happens to end up at vatican.va, but could just as easily have ended up at a porn or hate site. There’s no way to know in advance, since it just says “Redirect Notice” which could go anywhere. As an aid to others, could you please instead copy the url from the address bar of the page you want to link, in this case vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm Thanks.

What Stephen Hawking believes about the future is irrelevant to the conversation. Theres opposing views thats why I posted them [in response]. There’s no reason to believe a fairy tale future about computers…NONE! Nothing indicates that. [thats the point]

Did you become the grammer-posting police since we last talked? What does that have to do with anything?

Still, your prediction that Turing’s imitation game can distinguish between humans and machines “for certain” is a vote for the Turing Test, isn’t it?

Is it, show me how

But thanks, I went to a funeral yesterday. Which has nothing to do with this right? How important was it to spell Hawking right for you? You see how these conversations go when you abort the topic and make them personal? How about we can the side bar and stick to the topic. What your thoughts on that? And whenever someone spells a word wrong send them a PM. You’ll lose interest quickly.

Computers - morality-love and so forth, you have “NO RESPONSE”?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes. Agreed. The hypothesis is that if it acts like a duck then it’s a duck and if it acts like a thinker then it’s a thinker. An a posteriori argument, knowledge from experience.

And your argument falls apart exactly at this point and pointed out several times.

Repeating this doesn’t make your argument any better.

Computers - morality-love and so forth, you have “NO RESPONSE”?

BTW when was the last time anyone spoke to a computer on the phone and thought it was a thinker? That answer we already know “never”.

 

[Bahman]

How you make a thinking machine if you don’t know how to allow it to have a single experience?

 

[GaryTaylor]

How you make a thinking machine if you don’t know how to allow it to have a single experience?

You don’t to date. Really no different than training a parrot to speak. I never heard one relate or respond about cognitive senses. One question on the comparison equivalence here ends the debate? I guess thats a reluctant yes. Should be no secret why we go from there to assumption and speculation about the future. Perhaps one day Computers will desire their own state and drop democracy and vote in a dictator and wage world war. Really no reason to believe anything else with cognitive issues. Wait, wait, we “assume” they will evolve in what is obvious they do not have in this comparison. They will learn to love and feel and bring world peace to earth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you’re wasting my time discussing something you can’t even be bothered to read.

I didn’t post yesterday as it was the first anniversary of my wife’s funeral. Then I come back today to find you have likened me to a doubting, disbelieving worm, apparently simply because my faith doesn’t involve bowing before your trinity of Feser, Aristotle and Thomas.

I’m a Christian, I’m required to be skeptical of false idols, it’s right there in the first commandment.

The local priest is saying a Mass for my wife next Sunday, and he would split his sides if I told him about your attempts to badger other Christians into your private beliefs. Try to remember that Feser, Aristotle and Thomas are not holy prophets. Try to remember that Christians belong to Christ, not to you.

Imho you’ll learn much more by (re-)reading the NT than your diet of fast-food blogs.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. - Rom 14

First my condolences on the anniversary of your wife’s passing. May she rest in peace, Amen.

I can’t believe your reaction above was caused by my comment that, " The topic is not high on my priority list. I only brought it up because of another thread which took place in 2013 and I thought those on that thread might be interested in Feser’s treatment. And glory be, all the skeptics suddenly jump out of the wood work. A truly amazing phenomenon. No topic is safe in some quarters except doubt, disbelief, and relativism. "

I have a high regard for Feser, Aristotle, Aquinas but they are no more idols than your favorite authors might be. Besides, I also have a high regard for Gilson, Henri Renard, Klubertanz, Maritain, Mortimer Adler, unt so weiter.

And are there not many skeptics on these forums? How is it bullying to acknowledge that?

Peace
Linus2nd

 

[PseuTonym]

Yes. Agreed. The hypothesis is that if it acts like a duck then it’s a duck and if it acts like a thinker then it’s a thinker. An a posteriori argument, knowledge from experience.

We imagine that some future ideas will enable people to design a machine that thinks. Or maybe a machine is somehow created by people, but there is no detailed description of its design that can be extracted without risking serious and permanent disruption of the thinking function. In the absence of a definition of “machine”, it might be more appropriate to speak of some future physical entity. That it is rather abstract, but I can imagine it.

We can imagine some essential task that is difficult, dangerous, or expensive. Perhaps a good idea might reduce the difficulty, the danger, or the expense. Perhaps the entity can think of a good idea that could help in that manner. Or perhaps the entity can solve some academic problem, such as by making a contribution to number theory.

However, genuine thinking does not necessarily produce any particular result that can be recognized as valuable. In situations where one cannot afford to be dogmatic, one needs to actually pursue a train of thought and see where it leads, and there may be unlimited numbers of dead ends. In that kind of situation, there might be a collaborative effort by many thinkers, and I would not want to devote time to interacting with a person who is not actually thinking, and is only pretending to think. Nor would I want to devote time to interacting with a machine that has been selected for its success in giving the impression of thinking.

We are talking about a physical machine, but we have not agreed upon the meaning of the word “machine.”

Right in this thread, what I thought was not reasonably open to dispute …

“If you are interested in biology, then you need to distinguish between living and non-living.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12753329&postcount=32

… was casually dismissed as incorrect.

In the absence of that distinction, somebody’s “machine” could contain – as an essential component – a human being.

What appears to be a watertight argument is always hostage to reality.

With this, I agree.

 

[inocente]

What Stephen Hawking believes about the future is irrelevant to the conversation. Theres opposing views thats why I posted them [in response]. There’s no reason to believe a fairy tale future about computers…NONE! Nothing indicates that. [thats the point]

Errr… you said “The argument of what “may” happen in the future is just as contested by many very intelligent people like Hawkins [stet]” and I quoted Hawking to show he does not contest it.

*Did you become the grammer-posting police since we last talked? What does that have to do with anything? *

If you want people to follow the links you post then you could do us the common courtesy of letting us know where the link will take us, as every other poster on CAF does, rather than deliberately obscuring the target, as only you do.

*Is it, show me how

But thanks, I went to a funeral yesterday. Which has nothing to do with this right? How important was it to spell Hawking right for you? You see how these conversations go when you abort the topic and make them personal? How about we can the side bar and stick to the topic. What your thoughts on that? And whenever someone spells a word wrong send them a PM. You’ll lose interest quickly.*

I didn’t know if you meant Hawking or if you were referring to some other guy named Hawkins. I can’t read your mind. So sue me.

Computers - morality-love and so forth, you have “NO RESPONSE”?

I already responded with “Still, your prediction that Turing’s imitation game can distinguish between humans and machines “for certain” is a vote for the Turing Test, isn’t it?”

We don’t seem to be progressing here.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We don’t seem to be progressing here.

You seem to stuck on superfluous nonsense, I’m much to busy for that. Sorry.

Computers - morality-love and so forth, you have “NO RESPONSE”?

This is where I am at inocente, bottom line, just like on the other thread.

 

[inocente]

First my condolences on the anniversary of your wife’s passing. May she rest in peace, Amen.

Thank you.

I can’t believe your reaction above was caused by my comment that, " The topic is not high on my priority list. I only brought it up because of another thread which took place in 2013 and I thought those on that thread might be interested in Feser’s treatment. And glory be, all the skeptics suddenly jump out of the wood work. A truly amazing phenomenon. No topic is safe in some quarters except doubt, disbelief, and relativism. "

As the only posters opposing Feser are Bradski, blase6 and me, are you saying we are not the doubting worms you referred to? Which posters, then, were you calling worms?

You can either admit you see why I reacted that way, or you can name the specific posters you called worms, but you may want to take the fifth here bro.

I have a high regard for Feser, Aristotle, Aquinas but they are no more idols than your favorite authors might be. Besides, I also have a high regard for Gilson, Henri Renard, Klubertanz, Maritain, Mortimer Adler, unt so weiter.

And are there not many skeptics on these forums? How is it bullying to acknowledge that?

Not sure why you said bullying there.

You admitted you hadn’t read Turing’s paper but instead just took Feser’s word for it, then you called persons unknown, doubting, disbelieving worms for not taking Feser’s word for it. “No topic is safe in some quarters except doubt, disbelief, and relativism” you said. As if we’re irreligious for not acknowledging Feser as a prophet.

So rewind. Do you think the Apostle’s Creed should be amended to add “I believe in Aristotle’s metaphysics and Thomas’ philosophy”? If so, discuss. If not, then why not lay off calling others doubting, disbelieving worms for not accepting them as the word of God?