Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,409 Year: 3,666/9,624 Month: 537/974 Week: 150/276 Day: 24/23 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions for ID believers
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 50 (17444)
09-15-2002 7:49 AM


quote:
Every part of the human body is far more complicated than all human technology put together. If it took intelligence for those technologies to exist, how much more did it take intelligence for humans to exist?
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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-16-2002 12:50 PM Rationalist has not replied

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 50 (17445)
09-15-2002 7:54 AM


quote:
Do you imply that there is a more simple design for the brain that will also give you the same functionality and reliability and at the same time be just as compact and light-weight?
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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-16-2002 12:33 PM Rationalist has not replied

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 50 (17592)
09-17-2002 10:52 AM


quote:
Hold on there a bit, what computers can do today doesn't even start to compare to what our brain can do.
Are you so sure? Do you know the physical capabilities of our brains, of modern computers?
quote:
A person's brain has to: Receive, process and store thousands of light, sound, smell and touch signals coming from all over the body in realtime.
Computers are capable of doing this.
quote:
Do complicated calculations of the external environment and body movement and it's effect, for instance to catch a ball.
Robots have been trained to catch balls.
quote:
Learn to understand a complicated language system made up of visual and audio inputs without any help from the outside.
Computers have been taught to do this to a remarkable degree.
quote:
Take data from a vast storage capacity, process it and make decisions based on a combination of that and what is percieved by your senses.
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:
Store the complete account of what you sensed, thought and felt during your whole life.
The human mind does not do this.
Can you remember precisely what you were doing on November 3rd 1987?
quote:
Feel and show and try to control emotions based on memory and present experience.
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:
And to top it all off, all of this can happen at the same time and usually at least a number of them does.
Computers are great at doing things simultaneously.
quote:
We can't even make a computer conscious of it's own existence..
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:
..so don't act like we have found a way of bettering the awesome design we see in the way God has created us.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nos482, posted 09-17-2002 11:18 AM Rationalist has not replied
 Message 47 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-18-2002 1:15 PM Rationalist has not replied

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 50 (17598)
09-17-2002 11:27 AM


quote:
You are terribly confused if you think computers are evolving themselves. Without human design and manufacture them, you wouldn't even be able to find a transistor on this planet. It's not evolution, but technological advance.
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:
This is still humans designing the robots. As the AI level increases, they are continuously adding information to the previous designs.
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:
Mutations and natural selection on the other hand are both cases where information is lost.
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:
If intelligence had to start simple, like you just said, where did the information input come from?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-18-2002 8:53 AM Rationalist has not replied

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 50 (17600)
09-17-2002 11:31 AM


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).

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024