Thread: Computer With Free Will And Imagination

The computer uses transitors which close and open allowing for only two
positions to use a binary code of 1's and 0's. The semiconductors that the
small transistors in the chips are made of will either conduct current or
not conduct current according to temperature. So, the millions of
transistors act like swithes which are either open or closed, to make a 1 or
0 for the binary code.
Let's consider these switches to be saying either yes or no. Comparing this
to human thought which has imagination and free will, it seems that human
thought also has maybe, and not just yes or no.
So, suppose a computer could be designed with transistor switches that say
yes, no or maybe. Most of the transistors would be the standard variety that
just say yes or no so the binary code can work in most areas of the computer
the way that it does now.
However, to give the computer free will and imagination, in the calculating
part of the computer certain key positions in the circuits could have these
yes, no or maybe swithces. The computer would excercise free will and
imagination at those points.
The computer would be no longer just a calculator but something beyond that.
How would you design a yes, no or maybe switch?
Well, possibilities could be:
If the switch is on, and you send it the signal to go off, then it either
goes off or stays on. Likewise if the switch is off and you send it the
signal to go on, it either goes on or stays off.
Another possibility is that the switch goes into a mode where it switches
back and forth from on to off, repeatedly.
These special maybe switches could also be set up so that they act like
regular on and off switches sometimes, and then sometimes they say maybe.
Perhaps a random signal generator could be used to help with the maybe
switch.
Experimenting could be done to see if this is feasible.
Now, a computer that thinks for itself, just like humans that think for
themselves, would probably sometimes make mistakes. However, the computer
that thinks for itself, having an imagination, might also see things
correctly in a totally new way, and this could be very beneficial because of
the large amounts of data that computers can handle in a short time.
It may also lead to terrible trouble with a rebellious computer that wants
to take over like Hal on the movie 2001 and collosus on the movie, Collosus the forbin project.
Any comments:

I do not think that this is possible with computer as we have them today, but I do think it may be possible in the future, especially if we succeed in implementing quantum computing. I think that intellegence, creativity and free will are inherent aspects of a well defined process called life which can be described mathematically and which has nothing what-so-ever to do with the medium in which the process takes place. It is a far from equillibrium non-linear process which exhibits self-organizing behavior. This is not a rare thing, but abounds in the universe in which we live. It has, however, never reached, anywhere else, the degree of, self-organization, sensitivity and independence from its envirionment, that we see in the chemical processes found on this planet that we call biological. Whether a similar level of sophistication can be reached in computer like machines is something that only a great deal of time can tell.

How about computer with complete wireless activity ?

Hmmmm

Yes No Maybe...

SO you think that's the way humans behave?

Remember that yes/no/maybe/ is not the action, it is a precursor if anything, 'Will I go on holiday next year?' Yes/No/Maybe. Now when next year comes I will make a whole series of decisions, NONE of them will [ultimately] be 'maybe' - Do I have the cash? yes/no - Am I fit enough to travel? yes/no eventually all the individual questions will be answered yes/no even if temporarily set at 'maybe'.

Now transistors with three states, we have them they are called 'tri-state' ON OFF [and in laymans terms] Invisible. You don't need them for what you are trying to say.

2 switches will give you a possibility of 4 states, off/off off/on on/off and on/on so - you can have two 'maybies' the first leaning to off the second leaning to on.

Free will? programming it? we need to understand a hell of a lot more about this before we can programme it. You seem to suggest that free will and random might some how be related, I think that's a dangerous assumption, I have the free will to jump off a tall building, I hope it's not a random decision, but based on judgement, eg, If cancer severely impeded my life and was terminal I might 'self terminate' it would not be a random decision.

There is really no such thing as random, it is a label for complex functions beyond our ability [or will] to predict, ie a meteor shower may appear random yet if we knew and plotted the paths of the individual mass's we would re-classify them. Random in a PC is actually 'psuedo random' if you use the random fucntion in programming without tying it to the timer then the program will always behave the same way, a dice program might produce the pattern 1 3 2 5 4 6 2 4 3 2 5 it will display this sequence every time the program is run, BUT if you seed the random fucntion with the 'timer ticks' then you will get apparently different results. Even with this if you reset the timer and start the program at a precisely specific time you will again get identical results.

IF you took all the atoms that make a bacteria and assembled them would you have a 'live free will' bacteria' - same with a computer, if you could mimc a complete brain, would it be 'alive' - some believe the difference is 'divine intervention' - but this is not the section for that debate, I acknowlede we do not yet know the answer.

There is another type of computer, which may be more 'like' the brain, it's called an analogue computer where instead of 'on/off' signals the signals on each wire can be any value between 'empty' and 'full' [again that's in laymans terms so no corrections pls]. We used to think that nuerones were like individual transistors, whereas now the thinking is more like each one is a 'super analogue' computer.

I hope this helps.

Hello!

I think you made a mistake reasoning the issue. The mistake was there are no real switches in
a computer cause it works electrically electronically. A original switch is something you could
switch on or off yourself. Its even something you will notice as to be on or off, recognize to be
working or not. Its strictly a mechanical component where as it was on you realize you made the
switch working by providing some uninterrupted track for the electric current to flow along on. This
is why the light bulb was than on, or, interrupting this track, off.

With transistors the actual modus of operation of those components is not so clear can not be
got as with the historical switch, I mean. On has an idea about how it works but can not stand
beside switching on or of, hear the sound it make see it functioning, in fact.

The other issue was the flow of the electric current allows you the answer yes or no, meaning, I
could ask is there a current flowing now (kind of adjusting a tv antenna )? You would answer yes
or now, depending on if a signal was on or off indeed.

This is a main point cause the answer to this question will never be 0 or 1, but always yes or no.

With the military it might be positive confirmation or negative but thats it. 0 or 1 was used to
save space but doesn't say whats happens actually.

I think it follows, knowing the binary was previously to analog and digital, where I was told or
had the perception the binary system was a result of analog gauges and digital displays, the
option to display several different pixels stems from the time it takes for the electric current to
get to several exits which all have got the same entry point. The longest way takes longest. Than,
additionally there are interruptions where it is also important if on some points was current at all
at this moment or, the time it takes for the electricity to get to the next exit is variable cause one
could make it to deny the current one or more outlets in between., so to speak. This is
historically kind of mingled. Some was yet done by the hardware some will be done in the future
by the electricity or what ever it than will be being called.

The aspect of the software, where it is to differ in something what is saved on computers in
general, and what is software which programs them (the computer{s } ).

Historically you have to put some ink on paper, putt some paint on canvases to make visible
what you want to inform others about in different ways. Interesting was I think specially with
documents, others do read and understand in fact was you have written on the paper. An other
aspect was, everyone writing in this traditional way does some research on the paper, the ink, the
pen and so on as well as on the brushes the canvas and so forth. there is a special sound with
doing so.

Resulting from space travel today, providing us with tremendous information (although the US flag
is still hanging wrong sided in NASA's flight control, however that can be ) and linked to what
resulted and still is resulting from the research done while writing traditionally, insight must origin
we do se things cause they are spacial not because the sending off light or reflecting light in
some way. That there was sufficient light was a precondition to see something. Thats why we
talk about a stereoscopic vision which you are tested for as applying for a drivers license, for
example.

With computer screens the vision you have must be resulting even from this foreground -
background relation known traditionally no longer being of a research interest here. The resolution
in single pixels was so tiny and so not to observe for itself and as a whole.

Therefore I think the programming of computers has to get the volume expansion (interesting
translation here as well ) of the other components of computer which there where the hardware as
well as the electricity making (the flow of it ) the single computer yet a network. Programming
itself should be organized as if you had several documents laying atop of one another on a desk
able to 'communicate' to one another through the paper, through the different documents, making
several to distinguish levels if you want. These levels need to have connections of course. I forgot
about this first time I wrote to this issue some other place.

One could put some links to a search field. If the links had their destinations in different programs
like in an HTML document and the Adobe Reader for example the simultaneous start of the 'search
for the link' can be regarded as several levels being started while pushing Enter. Interestingly, the
links may be changed complete or just the destination into them?

This was good for bookmarks I could imagine where you would save a project (I don't like the word
much ) realized in different programs, in just one single bookmark.

The more level programming than will first allow a programming with the electricity, the flowing of it
and will set folks in position, to, for the first time, evaluate the electricity as a component of
computers, which I think it was.


Steve

Steve,

Three times I tried to read and make sense of your post, could you summarise what you are trying to say?

Let me correct you on a couple of things, the operation of transistors is understood 100% right down as far as quantum physics allows.

There are switches in computers, that is they allow or prevent the flow of a signal from one circuit to another by the use of a 'gating' signal, gating signals can be used to control a single signal or a whole 'buss wide' set.

Hello Megabrain!

But you would agree a switch was something you could stand beside and see it working,
switching on and off a circuit or whatsoever. A switch is rather something I have to use
manually because it was not a relays.

A transistor is firstly not operated manually the way switches are and they are not
observed as the are operating, doing whatever they were made for.

This is simply what I say. I made the experience it was of a difference craftily if you
have the mechanical bedstop as it was with switches indeed or even not as with transistors.

Transistors even lead and functioning cause of or in an other relation to the flow of electricity
than switches (traditional ) ones do, cause they do only provide a temporary track like
connection for the electricity to flow and are not operated by the electricity self. An other
sample or difference was a switch would even work as the current was off. The light bulb
would not glow of course but the switch would work while a transistor would not and not
have to, wouldn't it?

The section with the hardware electricity mingling is might not to be got today cause I think
it will be a developing result if the programming has come so far to make an own identity
and was a technology in fact meaning running simultaneously in several levels. And here
the feel and the especially the sound that would be left was not to understand these days
in fact.

Let me say, I don't want to harm anyone in ways like you have got no idea this is all about
and so forth. I as well know that the sight I do have onto computers might be a bit not
science like, but the still missing knowledge about the flow of the electricity lets me make
this statement that way. The cognition of what computers are, what they are consisting
of was not complete today I mean.

So to say, a computer was a computer first if being switched on and running. As long as
being off one can not really determine what it was. Its the same box of course, but if all
was put in and so on one does not know as long as it was still not up and running.

The future of computing lies in the network everyone will agree, but getting the network
first as an external one that's being to late.

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Hello Megabrain!

But you would agree a switch was something you could stand beside and see it working,
switching on and off a circuit or whatsoever. A switch is rather something I have to use
manually because it was not a relays.

A transistor is firstly not operated manually the way switches are and they are not
observed as the are operating, doing whatever they were made for.

This is simply what I say. I made the experience it was of a difference craftily if you
have the mechanical bedstop as it was with switches indeed or even not as with transistors.

Transistors even lead and functioning cause of or in an other relation to the flow of electricity
than switches (traditional ) ones do, cause they do only provide a temporary track like
connection for the electricity to flow and are not operated by the electricity self. An other
sample or difference was a switch would even work as the current was off. The light bulb
would not glow of course but the switch would work while a transistor would not and not
have to, wouldn't it?

The section with the hardware electricity mingling is might not to be got today cause I think
it will be a developing result if the programming has come so far to make an own identity
and was a technology in fact meaning running simultaneously in several levels. And here
the feel and the especially the sound that would be left was not to understand these days
in fact.

Let me say, I don't want to harm anyone in ways like you have got no idea this is all about
and so forth. I as well know that the sight I do have onto computers might be a bit not
science like, but the still missing knowledge about the flow of the electricity lets me make
this statement that way. The cognition of what computers are, what they are consisting
of was not complete today I mean.

So to say, a computer was a computer first if being switched on and running. As long as
being off one can not really determine what it was. Its the same box of course, but if all
was put in and so on one does not know as long as it was still not up and running.

The future of computing lies in the network everyone will agree, but getting the network
first as an external one that's being to late.

Steve

If you have access to a scanning electron microscope you can indeed see transistors working, apart from seeing this I offer only 45 years of involvment with computers having presonally designed one of the earliest home computers from scratch, (it was not mass produced though) Apart from this I had a significant hand in the early development of raid technology at IBM. I'll put it to you this way, you may operate a switch and see two pieces of copper come together, you may even see a light come on but you do not see the electricity flowing.

Let me define a computer for you, it was a definition agreed by many at IBM in early days, with a unique style of Physicists humor...

"A computer is an electronic, logic driven, binary coded, rule following idiot"

It is constructed from 'gates', an entire computer can be constructed from 'nor' or 'nand' gates Each gate comprises a circuit of a few transistors and other components.

We are constructed from a few components, Electrons, Nuetrons and protons.

Ok, than this way. As you but will agree the possibilities of electricity moving the plates you
observed has more opportunities than moving one plate towards an other one until they
do have contact. One characteristic was it can be adjusted to some value that is flexible
like dimming a light. Its not just about on or off. And linked to this conclusion, electrical
characteristics would be of fortune to be utilized trough computer networks to come and
electricity was mainly a result of the developing hardware and made software programming
first possible and was therefore a field good for research as with the help of computers?

This was all.

One thing I want to add. The transport of data through the computer was accomplished by
the electric current. Better knowing how this was done physically was as well of tremendous
advances transporting data via wireless networks or conventional antennas to regions well
beyond we judge as being far today in real time back and forth and would allow immediate
action and reaction to occurrences to save the one or another live as the flag hangs right
sided.

An other issue indicating here goes something unknown on was the missing memory space
after a while the computer was on. The physical memory was still there and the computer
shows there was memory at disposal. But, running programs will fail, one will get an error
message. Where was this coming from?

If you haven't hard drive space left that was clear, but to increase memory will not have
the same effect than to install a bigger hard drive.

An other issue I forgot is being to reduce the heat set of from cpu's. Probably the one most
urgent.

So you could sit on the computer doing something and without leaving the place grasp a
clear thought.

Even here to know a little more about electricity than known today was essential.

Let me say again I don't deny what was accomplished. I do but feel there was much work left.

Steve

Sorry chum, you post's make no sense to me.

On off on off.... never heard?

Steve

I must say, I can't quite follow what steve is trying to say, so I'll leave well enough alone.

As for the actual issue of the post, for computers with imagination, I'm not sure that would even be a desirable trait in a computer. Intelligence and imagination are very different.

Intelligence is a simple(depending on situation) learning process of: "This works, remember it"; "This doesn't work, remember it.", at least as far as what we can understand from our own minds and those of animals.

Imagination is an expression of our subconscious; of our fears and desires; those things we enjoy and those we do not. This should not be confused with creativity.

We are as of yet unsure what constitutes creativity. It is, "the ability to reach a correct assumption without exploring every possible answer", to put it one way. It is definately not random. There are no maybes, there are just "yes", "no", and "still working on that, get back to me later".

Computers are much closer to being creative than you may think. There is a chance(getting into suppositions now) that our minds do actually think through every possible choice and select the best one, at a below conscious level. If that is true, then what we need is not a computer that has some elusive form of precognition based on rng's, but a computer that can process and organize options at a much faster rate. And one that can compare similarities in its current situation with those it has faced before and apply the logic that worked in the prior situation to this one as well.

Isn't that the same thing we do? We learn how to learn. At first we use pure trial and error to get down the basics, (touch the stove, pain, remember: don't touch the stove.) Then when we use those basic knowledges as building blocks for everything else. We stack those blocks neater, and we stack them higher, but there still the same components.

We use logic to reach all are decisions, although sometimes the wiring goes bad and the logic centers start returning the wrong messages, or the nerves get messed up, and the message is lost in interpretation. But the brain is still only trying to use all its stored memory to predict one new event, any computer can already do that. They just can't do it as fast, and things don't get lost or mixed up without a cause that we can't pinpoint. So, we see a difference and think they need to be changed. They don't need to be changed to be smarter, just improved and expanded, a lot.

I broadly agree, I think you contradict yourself with the "there is no maybe" since you then indicate "still working on that, get back to me later" at which one could argue the answer is unknown at the point of asking and therefore may be considered 'maybe'. Anyway a mute point,

INtelligence yes the ability to learn is a possible criterion, as for the stove, we all burnt our fingers yet we learn more, an animal may then be afraid to ever approach the stove but we are not, we delve deeper, "does it smell like it's hot?" has it just been used and many other criteria modify our 'do not touch' we watch mum use it when it's hot...

Computers mimic intelligence, A programmer will decide the actions whilst constructing the program, the computer mimics the programmer, so far we have [thankfully] not given computers 'free will'.

We could therefore construct [theoretically] a programme to mimic our behaviour in any [known] circumstance. Computers can 'learn' their environment by exploring, another example of mimcry. What we do which a computer cannot yet do is face a new environment which has some danger and react to either control the situation or plan an escape.

THis means we have the ability to face an infinite variety of situations and think out a strategy to survive, we may not actually survive but would have a higher chance than most creatures and way more than a PC.

Suppose you are in a situation where the room you are in is on fire, the fire is in front of the door which opens away from you and is slightly ajar
there is no other way of escape.

Most animals would back away from the fire, you or I would almost certainly run towards the fire - probably leap through it, crash into the door which would fly open and escape. To programme a computer to react to an infinite number of situations would require an infinite capacity, by the time the PC had found the right strategy it would probably be too late.


I thought I posted the following definition of a computer but it may have been lost in the recent outage..

A computer is an electronic, logic driven, binary-coded, rule-following idiot.
It has NO intelligence, it can be made to appear intelligent, yet even a spider takes off if I threaten to 'squash it'.....

Originally Posted by Megabrain

A computer is an electronic, logic driven, binary-coded, rule-following idiot.
It has NO intelligence, it can be made to appear intelligent, yet even a spider takes off if I threaten to 'squash it'.....

Really? What, may I ask, is your definition of "intelligence", that you say a computer has none whatsoever?

(please note I am not speaking of the ordinary computers such as the one you used to post a reply, but the current limits of advancement in the research of all computers; sorry I forgot to mention that earlier)

Well I see no intelligent computers, I see only computers mimicking intelligence, that of the programmers, IT's called AI that is Artificial intelligence, whatever computers have, it is not real intelligence.

You never answered my question. What do you consider to be "real" intelligence, if not the ability to learn?

Hello!

I would like to add my view on that if I'm allowed. I do think computer and computer systems are not
intelligent as well. I don't see even where they do act as if they where and why they should do so. All
they do was of advance for the user in some way. Computers for the first time give you the ability like
being the transmitter and the receiver of some data electronically. You see almost immediately what
you were just typing. Its like sending a radio transmission and receiving the same transmission right
at the moment it was being sent.

Thats being like you got a confirmation this you just did has been functioning right away. In radio
stations you as a single person don't have that. You might get feedback from listeners calling in. But,
whether they really have heard you were saying, or indeed where listening to the music you put on the
record table or if they just got the telephone number somewhere from giving you a call for fun almost
all the time to you was remaining a secret.

The interesting thing was compared to typewriters, computers are operating electronically. Typewriters
have mechanic built in you can expose by just removing the cover. Exposing the cover allows you
directly to understand how they work. There was no transport of data like in computers going on,
electronically. So everything of the modus operandi is visible and you can see how it will work later on.

An other issue I'd like to address was the immobility of computer and computer systems. I feel they
are often quite quick compared to human beings, but the immobility where I think mobility for a human
being is of a endeavor compared to be immobile. Its not kind of stress or exhausting to be mobile but
one has to have got resources to move around freely in gravity. This was something computers can
not do as for today. Not human like at least. Therefore I distinguish here and would like to link
intelligence rather to, how to say, computing devices which are mobile or same as computing devices
built into freely moving kind of terminators or later on Lt. Commander Data.

As long as they are immobile its not even to think on for computers to be intelligent. Today people
often will link technical mobility to rather machineries than to the much more recent craft of programming
computers. Computer specialists self may be in doubt cause this has never been done.

As for my understanding I see in fact a systematic in computer systems which I can just link to
information seen and can compare to whats going on in nature. Therefore the programming at the moment
computers computer is not to get really as what was going on I think I knew this previously somewhere
from called live. I would go so far to call computers as to say they are being alive, making a structure
of live which, as a structure, does not need gravity to stay alive and hence differing from all live known
so far. I would not suppose them to be thinking or to be intelligent yet, and I don't think that the terms
artificial and intelligence can ever have been put in the same string making 'artificial intelligence'.
Intelligence take so much effort it can't be artificial I think.

Steve

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

You never answered my question. What do you consider to be "real" intelligence, if not the ability to learn?

To add: Intelligence is the ability to learn, and USE what you have learned properly.

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

You never answered my question. What do you consider to be "real" intelligence, if not the ability to learn?

It's a damn difficult thing to define that's for sure, whatever definition you put up somebody else will shhot down, no this is not a cop out, it's essentially like time, we all know what it is but defining it is difficult .

Well to my mind it is essentially this,

The amount or measure of ability of a conscious being to continually manipulate it's environment to a premeditated advantage from any starting position.

Where envorinment is 'all things around you'

I would not confine it to just 'the ability to learn' it is more than that.

In response to both megabrain and steve(think I understood you, but I can't be too sure):

Do your comments mean you believe a paralized person to be incapable of intelligence? Steve, you said:

As long as they are immobile its not even to think on for computers to be intelligent.

Not to be insulting, but some of the things you say are very strange. You keep refering to computers as some mystical objects that are nothing like typwriters and are difficult to understand. How much do you actually know about computer technology? Because I don't find it very difficult to understand, and neither do millions of other individuals worldwide. (again, not trying to be rude, just trying to understand your viewpoint).
Megabrain:

It's a damn difficult thing to define that's for sure, whatever definition you put up somebody else will shhot down, no this is not a cop out, it's essentially like time, we all know what it is but defining it is difficult .

Well to my mind it is essentially this,

The amount or measure of ability of a conscious being to continually manipulate it's environment to a premeditated advantage from any starting position.

Where envorinment is 'all things around you'

I would not confine it to just 'the ability to learn' it is more than that.

Actually I see time simply as change, and the ratios of speed differing between separate changes, not a strange fabric or dimension, but that's for a different discussion.

Back to the point of the paralytic. A person incapable of moving anything below their neck for example would certainly mean they probably could not survive in any situation that presented hazard to their health without some form of outside help. So would you term them as void of intelligence simply because they were in some accident? They can certainly still solve puzzles. If someone else was in a situation where they needed help the paralytic could solve the situation for them and tell them the solution, so the intelligence is there regardless of the ability to employ it directly.

As I said however you define it somebody else will shoot it down - to prove it you put a definition, not from wiki but from you personally and I'll show you what I mean. Do remember though I said essentially that means not a complete or definitive definition.

Hello blazer 2000x!

Thanks for you reply.

Yes, I do not think a paralyzed perzon was not capable to be intelligent. A paralyzed person
was not the normal condition which the person seen from everything the person has got (I'm
very cautious ). Has got mean a paralyzed person was related to their actual appearance the
same human being as everyone else. With human beings there was a brain given having a
related to their body seize a minimal and maximal volume. A person can not have an brain
which was to small for the actual body. The person could not stay alive. As the brain was to
big however it would not match to the scull other cause but same result, the person could not
stay alive.

So, thin the complete being the appearance and sharing processes in several connected
organs make a person mobile. This premises a paralyzed person has got as well. There was
some other illness paralyzing the perzon which not is meaning a paralyzed perzon could not
be capable to be intelligent. I meant rather the premises which are given to be mobile. As you
are capable to be mobile yourself basically I would say you can be intelligent first.

Intelligence as I think even was separating man and woman as I think woman are not capable
to be intelligent.

As for how much I do know about computer technologies, I would say I do know so much and
code myself forward as I'm sure statements I have read about computers are authored by
men who are sure themselves about they are writing about. I'm closed to the developing
process and have got the impression as it was often the case not only with computers, and
this I think was important cause computers at the end are a share of what has been done
and do symbolizing surely in some way the begin of a new era, but there are a lot of
questions still left.

So I think I have a personal approach to the whole issue which but therefore in computer
science all the sciences and crafts ever being done are found again was not bad. Everyone
should have this personal sight so nothing which was an opportunity for further development
was left away at times this wouldn't work either.

Steve

Intelligence as I think even was separating man and woman as I think woman are not capable
to be intelligent.

I realize what I'm about to say has nothing to do with science, but please tell me you did not just say women are incapable of intelligence or I am going to have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about and are wasting mine and everyone else's time.(I'm not a woman but that has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.) Was it supposed to be a joke? It's very hard to tell with your grammer. Are you using a translator?

In a real responce to MegaBrain:
I did define intelligence. I said it was the ability to learn. Jeremy said it should be the ability to learn and use the learned information, and that brought up a point, so I will revise my definition. Intelligence is:

The ability to learn and relate or employ gained information.
___________________EDIT________________________
I never looked up the difinition for intelligence, it has always been my view of the term.

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

Intelligence as I think even was separating man and woman as I think woman are not capable
to be intelligent.

I realize what I'm about to say has nothing to do with science, but please tell me you did not just say women are incapable of intelligence or I am going to have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about and are wasting mine and everyone else's time.(I'm not a woman but that has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.) Was it supposed to be a joke? It's very hard to tell with your grammer. Are you using a translator?

In a real responce to MegaBrain:
I did define intelligence. I said it was the ability to learn. Jeremy said it should be the ability to learn and use the learned information, and that brought up a point, so I will revise my definition. Intelligence is:

The ability to learn and relate or employ gained information.
___________________EDIT________________________
I never looked up the difinition for intelligence, it has always been my view of the term.

In which case any organic or inorganic species with a brain may be considered intelligent, a spider [as I think I previously said] gains information from the vibration of it's web, and employs that knowledge to feed itself. If you widen 'intelligent' to mean all organisms with a brain, the word 'intelligent' becomes meaningless, unless considered in degrees.

As I said, any definition invites a challenge.

Hence the very careful wording of my attempted definition, which of course does not suggest invalid people are less than intelligent.

SO I'll adapt it:-

The amount or measure of ability of a conscious being to continually manipulate it's environment to a premeditated advantage from any starting position, or consider such through the power of reasoning, logic and recall.

Would you be happy with that?

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

Intelligence as I think even was separating man and woman as I think woman are not capable
to be intelligent.

I realize what I'm about to say has nothing to do with science, but please tell me you did not just say women are incapable of intelligence or I am going to have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about and are wasting mine and everyone else's time.(I'm not a woman but that has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.) Was it supposed to be a joke? It's very hard to tell with your grammer. Are you using a translator?

In a real responce to MegaBrain:
I did define intelligence. I said it was the ability to learn. Jeremy said it should be the ability to learn and use the learned information, and that brought up a point, so I will revise my definition. Intelligence is:

The ability to learn and relate or employ gained information.
___________________EDIT________________________
I never looked up the difinition for intelligence, it has always been my view of the term.

Hello!

I go even further and say there are the mankind on earth and the evil. Mankind are just men and boys.

It's not just about intelligence. To think the situation was being so will help you stay healthy, you'll see.

Even knowing this was of advance to develop computer systems and to survive this development
as human mankind. You know, it's always good to have an emergency button. But you have to make
sure to reach on in a case of an emergency. I think for lot's of men who are older this was not being so
so much of a news's now.

Steve

Originally Posted by Megabrain

In which case any organic or inorganic species with a brain may be considered intelligent, a spider [as I think I previously said] gains information from the vibration of it's web, and employs that knowledge to feed itself. If you widen 'intelligent' to mean all organisms with a brain, the word 'intelligent' becomes meaningless, unless considered in degrees.

As I said, any definition invites a challenge.

Hence the very careful wording of my attempted definition, which of course does not suggest invalid people are less than intelligent.

SO I'll adapt it:-

The amount or measure of ability of a conscious being to continually manipulate it's environment to a premeditated advantage from any starting position, or consider such through the power of reasoning, logic and recall.

Would you be happy with that?

I think it could be summarized, but it's much better.

On another note, I do think spiders are intelligent. Just because they cannot assimilate as much data as us, and lack the means to use that data that we posses, does not mean they are unintelligent. Intelligence simply comes in varying levels, but brains have the same basic processes that allow there user to survive or attempt at the least.

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

I go even further and say there are the mankind on earth and the evil. Mankind are just men and boys.

I don't even know what to say. Your insolence and ignorance are astounding. Prejudice has no place in science.

It may be that spiders, are simply pre-programmed, in the way human babies are preprogrammed to suckle. Do you think a spider could learn from experience?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

It may be that spiders, are simply pre-programmed, in the way human babies are preprogrammed to suckle. Do you think a spider could learn from experience?

Well, it's shown that mice can certainly learn from experience. I assume if there was some way we could make a spider try to solve a maze then we'd know for sure, but I can't think of any kind of experiment. Spiders just aren't the most responsive of animals. They don't like jumping through hoops, and there's very little you can do to force them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Sorry this seems to be off topic but don't you think this sentence borrowed from the Declaration of Independence was science?

As a result of this document human mankind was still alive. The underlined section specifically I mean.

Steve

"Men" refers to human kind. And yes, that is off topic. If you want to argue your unfounded beliefs that women are inferior, go somewhere besides the computer science thread. In fact, somewhere besides a forum dedicated to science would be best.

According to science, a woman's brain is actually more intelligent than a man's, since there are a lot more nerve connections between the two hemispheres. (There is a chemical that floods a male brain at birth that disrupts nerve passages between the two halves of there brain and makes it harder for them to communicate, the chemical is not present in a female brain.) That is science. What you are saying is simply outdated prejudice.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

It may be that spiders, are simply pre-programmed, in the way human babies are preprogrammed to suckle. Do you think a spider could learn from experience?

Actually, I have had spiders build webs on my lamp numerous times. Usually, the fan or something else ended up destroying it. The spider *did* learn, and adopt a different style of web building after a few weeks of repetition. Unfortunately the change in web building was soon interrupted by my impulsive (and gladly no longer here) sister.

There is also the possibility it would have happened anyway, spiders tend to re-build their webs at regular intervals, since they lose the 'stickiness' I understand they actually consume the greater part of the older web and 'recycle' it.

So I think you'd need to repeat the experiment many times to be sure it was not a 'fluke'.

My dear friend. I think this was not science but A. Einstein searching for some clue at best supposable scenario.
He, later on allowed the true vacuum to exist which was very kind of course and I found out first after I had put
my definition to my laptop. Further, you stretched 'men' pretty far. Too far I mean cause 'mankind' was put
separately in the further course of the document.

The subsequent President Jefferson was probably waiting for some strategists to come along.

Then, I don't have said about women that you have tried to put into my mouth. Woman do play an other roll in
our society. To be intelligent was surly not one of that.

Thank's
Steve

Steve,

Unless you have any constructive and comprehensible contributions to make to this thread I shall delete any and all further nonsensical posts from you. I have been unable to find any contribution you have made which has been understood by anybody.

I'm sorry again. I have edited my post again. As you have answered. Please forgive me.

As I said, I do think any, as the programming of computers was pretty much new,
approach to the issue was a good one and not to dismiss.

Steve

Originally Posted by Megabrain

There is also the possibility it would have happened anyway, spiders tend to re-build their webs at regular intervals, since they lose the 'stickiness' I understand they actually consume the greater part of the older web and 'recycle' it.

So I think you'd need to repeat the experiment many times to be sure it was not a 'fluke'.

Well, regardless of whether the spider actually learned, you have to admit that animals being capable of learning is a well-known fact. We train pets to use litter boxes. We train dogs to sit and stay on verbal command. We train parrots to speak and even count and name objects, that seems pretty intelligent to me.

Yes, as I said intelligence is by degrees, when you get down to the spider we do not know [as far as I am aware] whether they have the ability to learn, or whether their actions are no more than 'pre-programmed' responses. Cat's of course are considered 'intelligent' many have learned to jump up, and swing on a door handle and open a door without training.

Even pigeons can be trained to peck a button to release food.

So to get back on topic,

How much free will and imagination do you want to give a computer, as a spider, mouse, cat or human?

How much do you think they have now?

The computer was the result of the intelligent man. That's for sure. So, was their a real ChOIce?

There is but no real interface but just one direction. It all goes in and what comes out was an
other person providing. The organization of the network was done externally. Computer and
computer networks will never get that. As an example, as you had cameras put to a room and
you record the tone, the computer will, for itself, never know the data belongs to the tone. It will
also never know there where data recorded in that room. I mean it will not comprehend the room
as being externally of the computer (network ). Human mankind does see the separation of
these. Thus, I do not think they do learn at all.

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

The computer was the result of the intelligent man. That's for sure. So, was their a real ChOIce?

A choice about what?

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

There is but no real interface but just one direction. It all goes in and what comes out was an
other person providing. The organization of the network was done externally. Computer and
computer networks will never get that. As an example, as you had cameras put to a room and
you record the tone, the computer will, for itself, never know the data belongs to the tone. It will
also never know there where data recorded in that room. I mean it will not comprehend the room
as being externally of the computer (network ). Human mankind does see the separation of
these. Thus, I do not think they do learn at all.

I'm not sure what you mean about all the tone stuff, but to say something is unintelligent because of sensory limitations is illogical. It can be intelligent with whatever resources it does have. The average PC can remember and recall, but the basic OS cannot learn. It's different with certain programs.

Certain search engines and the like can observe your tendencies and look for patterns in them. It can then remember those patterns and use them to help you find what you're really looking for more easily. This makes the search engine more popular and hence it will "survive" longer. Doesn't that fit the so far given definitions of itelligence?

Hello!

The choice to comprehend the world as an animal when you are human. There was no choice
I mean. Could be I got this wrong.

When a child starts to speak for the first time it got folks telling each other via language. The child
is some way will get audio as if it was belonging to some image. The computer will not manufacture
the connection between audio and video. It has got listed some devices recording audio and video.
Thats it.

The whole separation between there was a traditional nature and computer networks was not to make
by the computer. It does not have any idea there was a world outside of itself. Outside the computer
network. This will not change. The one learning by doing was not the computer self but the person
who was doing the programming.

The ability or first to have a chance to be intelligent comes as you can move freely in gravity. This
was my opinion. You have to have enough mental capacity to hear gravity and to move within.

As a human being usually your ever was used to. One ever has been mobile, able to move freely.

Computers can't, they are immobile. Got it?

Steve

I think I'm finally beginning to understand one aspect of your argument, although even now I can't be sure.

First of all you're saying computers cannot be intelligent because they can't move. I already countered this earlier and so I'll just move on to the next item.

You seem [again, I'm not completely sure what you mean] to think that because computers sensory input is limited they are incapable of intelligence; and that because they are created, they did not have a choice in being made and therefore are not intelligent.

Having a choice in whether or not you were made is no basis for intelligence, as no one can ever have that choice. Not the computer, not a pet cat, not you.

As for sensory limitations, they can always be enhanced and no doubt will be as time progresses. It is only a matter of time before we have computers that can track where they are (onstar computers in cars are a good example) and computers that can see (forrays into AI have already crossed this front, computers can tell the difference between human beings and locations) and hear (we already have voice recognition and use it in a great deal of products). Overall there are no mainstream products which possess all these capabilities simply because they are worthless in a machine that would cost a small fortune to produce, but they're there.

All of the 5 senses of man can be 'mimicked by' technology, all can have their data passed to computer for analysis, all to varying degrees, all improving with time, as Blazer correctly points out.

Computers [I maintain] can thus far only 'mimic' intelligence - there are primitive systems in development which can simulate 'learning from scratch'.

As time progress's these will improve, Nasa is heavily involved in such research for remote planetary operational rovers, where the communications delay is so great that exploration is tediously long at present. Rovers have other senses that we do not possess, such as a 'sense' of magnetic/electric field strength, xray/infrared vision and it's 'normal' senses are far more accurate than ours.

We do not make 'androids' as there is simply no need 'robots' are made for specific purposes and are merely 'slaves' [in the electronic sense].

Before we can build free will computers we need to fully understand the 'mechanics' of our own free will, until such time as that happens things will stay as they are.

If any of you are programmers out there, let me pose you a question, suppose you have a 6 axis robot with a vision recognition system and a 5 digit end effector [hand] and a large box of miscellaneous leggo bricks [kids plastic interlocking construction parts]

You can get it to build a cathedral or space plane - that's easy. You can even give it a list of every known item and let it pick one using a psuedo random function. - But how would you program it to do what a child does with leggo? - that is trial and error the child will see that a random construction almost always resembles some object and will 'morph it into that object.

A human has the ability to respond to an infinite number of situations - a robot can only respond to a pre-programmed set.

Clearly there's something wrong here, we do not 'learn' each of an infinite number of situations before we can respond, some 'instinct' guides us, for the computer however we can't yet give it 'instinct' we can give it 'free will' in the sense it can choose a 'random' path.

There are other things, a computer cannot 'like' or 'dislike', or comment on a work of art it has never seen before - it's these finer points to my mind that distinguish real from artificial intelligence.

Well those are my thoughts, having worked closely with computers for over 40 years now. PLease don't take this as some form of expression of 'seniority' - your views are as valid as mine, [some of which may be outdated].

Hello!

We have different opinions what it means to be intelligent. I do think intelligence for human men was the
ability to go to space and to survive this trip by meeting according preparations.

Our discrepancy results of the different views we have, you will agree, of what it means to be intelligent.

Steve

I still think that the result of making self-aware ("intelligent") machines will be battlestar galactica, minus any survivors. :?

Well, computers do as much as they can with what they're given. We do the same. To any 'higher being' I suppose, we might be considered unintelligent. It is illogical to assume we are at the height of the varying degrees of intelligence in the universe. We've certainly progressed and gained more knowledge if not necessarily intelligence, so why can't computers? I assure you no one's going to stop looking for AI until we can actually see a computer do all the things AIs have been able to do in movies. Whether or not we will ever find it is another story, but that will not stop anybody from trying.