|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,409 Year: 3,666/9,624 Month: 537/974 Week: 150/276 Day: 24/23 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions for ID believers | |||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: Answer: None. Logically, if you assume that all complex things require even more complex intelligence, you end up with an infinite spiral of intelligence which never ends. If God was required to make us, then an even more powerful and intelligent God was required to make him, and so on. And if you simply assume that no intelligence was required to make God, then it is equally reasonable to assume that no intelligence was required to make human beings either. Since we know specifically a process by which complex objects can be formed through natural processes over time (mutation plus natural selection), this makes the second hypothesis that much more convincing. [This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: This is almost certainly true. The physical elements of silicon computer chips (transitors) cycle at nearly ten million times the speed of the average neuron. They are also smaller and consume less power. The brain had to evolve given what it had.. cells. Cells have the potential to transmit chemical messengers, as well as generate electrical potential. Given what was available, evolution made do. The key difference between the power of the human mind and the computer is in its wiring though. A computer is wired with about 32 or 64 parallel pathways for computation.. while the brain is wired in neurons seven layers deep, with an average of between 1000 to 10,000 connections for each neuron. This wiring makes it possible for the mind to do in parallel what is very difficult for a computer to do serially. But the fact is that most of the connections between neurons are deactivated, having been trained early on in development. Of those that are active, entire arrays of active connections are often functionally redundant, and even entire arrays of neurons are functionally redundant. So much of the brains connective capacity is used not to do computation, but as potential wiring used during development to wire the brain up. (Note: the myth that we only use 10% of our brians is just that, a myth. You can see the result of having all of the wiring of the brain activated in an epileptic seizure..) I suppose it's nice to have all this extra wiring capacity when neurons die, or we suffer head trauma, or we do a lot of drinking, but if we didn't need to go through the process of mental development in childhood, we could probably dispense with a large percentage of the mass of our brains. [This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: Are you so sure? Do you know the physical capabilities of our brains, of modern computers?
quote: Computers are capable of doing this.
quote: Robots have been trained to catch balls.
quote: Computers have been taught to do this to a remarkable degree.
quote: Computers tend to store information better than humans. Humans only perceive their storage to be error free, it isn't. Computers are also faster than humans in querying for information in large data stores.
quote: The human mind does not do this. Can you remember precisely what you were doing on November 3rd 1987?
quote: Computers do this about as well as humans. Emotions are trivial to produce in software. What makes our emotional experiences different is the other complex sets of behaviors it affects, not their existence in and of themselves.
quote: Computers are great at doing things simultaneously.
quote: This is practically the easiest thing to do with a computer, make its own state a part of its perceptual space. Again, as with emotions, it's not the self perception that is difficult, but the REST of the large scale awareness and cognitive functions that we consider human. In any case, the problem is really not the hardware. A beowulf cluster running a number of high end P4's in parallel would probably be adequate computing power to run an emulated version of our minds. If we used high level emulation, forgoing precise biochemical representations, we might be able to get the non sensory related portions of our mind to run on an ordinary PC, or perhaps a PC available in the near future (5, 10, maybe 20Ghz). The real differences is in the software. A human mind is a large scale distributed neural network, and AI software running on computers has typically consisted of classical serial algorithmic software. Distributed networks work dramatically differently than traditional software. However, this does not mean that emulating large scale distributed networks on a PC is impractical. Serial processors running at high clockrates are more than capable of simulating vastly slower parallel networks running at very low firing rates (neurons for instance). The numbers of neurons and synapses that can be simulated are far smaller than those in the human brain, but the human brain is highly redundant, and it may not be necessary to simulate them all. The neural processes that make up a persons personality, his attitudes, even his spiritual sense are located in specific areas of the brain, and these areas have been mapped. Other portions of the brain such as the visual and auditory centers are being mapped and reverse engineered in detail, and computer simulations of these structures are being used to duplicate their functions. Neuroscientists are a long way from reverse engineering the brain to the point where we can simulate higher level concsiousness, but there seems to be no fundamental roadblock to doing so in the reasonably near future (i.e. the next 50 years).
quote: The design of our minds is inherently flawed. We've evolved to make invalid causal inferences, to respond to environmental stress with xenophobia and hate, to randomly believe in a variety of nonsense based on little or no evidence. We can not truly understand abstract mathematics, or theories such as quantum mechanics or relativity. We find it extremely difficult to learn and remember new information, languages, knowledge. Or memory is imperfect, and we progressively lose what we know imperceptibly as it is overwritten with new impressions. There are a wide variety of problems with our current mental architecture. These can and probably will be corrected eventually.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: We can make computers evolve and design themselves if we make them work just like natural biological evolution. These systems are called genetic or evolutionary systems. Your comment about humans creating computers is an obvious non-sequitur. The point is we can make things that, once we set them going, evolve on their own without outside intelligent design.
quote: WRONG. The evolutionary system the builders set up to immitate nature (genes plus mutations plus selection) are adding new information to the previous design. The designers job is simply to make sure it immitates natures evolution as closely as possible.
quote: Wrong. Evolutionary systems always cause information to increase, especially specified information. Why is it that creationists don't know this? It's not very difficult to understand.
quote: It is generated in response to the environment via natural selection.. just as with natural biological evolution. Information does not obey any sort of conservation law. It is spontaneously created through the permutations of physical states, and can be destroyed by changing those physical states. Specified information is that information who's phenotypic effects lead directly or indirectly to maintain the functioning of a feedback loop. An example of such a system is a living organism or a communications link. Any information which maintains the system in equilibrium and does not disrupt the feedback loop is "specified", and any other information is unspecified. When considering a communciations link, communication is established in a loop (acknowlegement is sometimes immediate, sometimes delayed), in which information that makes up part of the information loop is delivered and understood. If the message is garbled or nonsensical, the send-acknowledge loop is disrupted, and the system does not function (you hang up the phone). The same goes for biological organisms. The information culled by evolution is that which serves to maintain the basic feedback loop of the living system. The message is culled from the possible set of all messages through the process of selection. All messages of the stochastic set of possible messages are sent, and those that continue the feedback loop are retained. On a larger scale, information systems themselves are memetically evolving. The possible set of messages on an information system such as a computer network, phone system, or even direct conversation have a survival quotient. Those communications which are easy to successfully transmit, and have a great likelyhood of being retransmitted to others, survive. Those that do not transmit well, or are likely to not be retransmitted die. The communication of this specified information forms a larger scale set of circulating networks, where large numbers of people pass on the information to others in an endlessly repeating cycles. What we end up with is... well.. things like democracy, evolution, rock music, and even Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
It occurs to me that a chain letter is precisely the sort of meme that is most likely to succeed. It ensures its own survival by: being easy to copy, exploiting both the fear and greed of the individuals recieving the letter to motivate them to repeat the message, and exploiting the communications medium for easy duplication (especially email).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024