Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:04 PM
23 online now:
dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,996 Year: 5,033/19,786 Month: 1,155/873 Week: 51/460 Day: 51/91 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Questions for ID believers
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 yet responded

  
mopsveldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 50 (17535)
09-16-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rationalist
09-15-2002 7:54 AM


Hold on there a bit, what computers can do today doesn't even start to compare to what our brain can do.

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.
Do complicated calculations of the external environment and body movement and it's effect, for instance to catch a ball.
Learn to understand a complicated language system made up of visual and audio inputs without any help from the outside.
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.
Store the complete account of what you sensed, thought and felt during your whole life.
Feel and show and try to control emotions based on memory and present experience.
And to top it all off, all of this can happen at the same time and usually at least a number of them does.

We can't even make a computer conscious of it's own existence, so don't act like we have found a way of bettering the awesome design we see in the way God has created us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rationalist, posted 09-15-2002 7:54 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 09-16-2002 12:40 PM mopsveldmuis has not yet responded
 Message 21 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 8:30 PM mopsveldmuis has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 50 (17536)
09-16-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mopsveldmuis
09-16-2002 12:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
Hold on there a bit, what computers can do today doesn't even start to compare to what our brain can do.

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.
Do complicated calculations of the external environment and body movement and it's effect, for instance to catch a ball.
Learn to understand a complicated language system made up of visual and audio inputs without any help from the outside.
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.
Store the complete account of what you sensed, thought and felt during your whole life.
Feel and show and try to control emotions based on memory and present experience.
And to top it all off, all of this can happen at the same time and usually at least a number of them does.

We can't even make a computer conscious of it's own existence, so don't act like we have found a way of bettering the awesome design we see in the way God has created us.


*************************************************************++

Yup..the human brain can do all those amazing things and yet there are still creationists.....some brains have a long way to go


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-16-2002 12:33 PM mopsveldmuis has not yet responded

  
mopsveldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 50 (17538)
09-16-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rationalist
09-15-2002 7:49 AM


God, by definition is uncreated and infinite in power and intelligence. Since He has created us and everything we see around us, it makes no sense to try and define Him in terms of matter or energy.

A computer program requires a programmer to exist, but you won't find the programmer anywhere in the program, just like you won't find an engineer in the electronic device he designed or a cook in the food that he prepared. In the same way it is totally illogical to look for the Creator in His creation.

All information we see in this world ultimately comes from Him, because there is no other possible way for it to have come into existence. Not from mutations or from natural selection, because in both cases information is lost and not gained.

Where then could the information code we find in DNA have come form? Only one place and that is the Almighty God who has created each and every one of us and when we are done with our journey here on earth, we will see Him and then it will be too late to start to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rationalist, posted 09-15-2002 7:49 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 4:12 AM mopsveldmuis has responded

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 50 (17550)
09-16-2002 8:00 PM


god is a bad coder though, a bad, lazy coder.

he doesn't rewrite code from scratch, like john carmack. He reuses code in all of his creations, even when its inefficient. Lots of copy/paste in his work. Lots of bugs too.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 8:37 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 50 (17553)
09-16-2002 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mopsveldmuis
09-16-2002 12:33 PM


Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

Hold on there a bit, what computers can do today doesn't even start to compare to what our brain can do.

But computers have only been around for a half a century and look just how far they've come in comparison. What took our brains millions of years to evolve has only took them decades. The evolution of the computer is many factors higher than with our organic brains. I can remember seeing an experiment over 10 years ago about using a computer on a cart which had been programned to navigate an obstacle cource in a parking lot. It took just about forever just to compute its course around a single object. Recently I had seen the same sort of experiment with the computer in a van on a test course where it navigated it in real time.

Plus, many AI experts now realize that you don't start with human level intelligence, but with lower forms of life and work your way up learning just a brain actually functions along the way. They have had much success with robots using insect level intelligence instead. They also realize that if you want a human level intelligence you have to grow it gradually instead of starting at the top.

Your problem is that you believe we started at the top. The evidence says otherwise.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-16-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-16-2002 12:33 PM mopsveldmuis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 9:01 AM nos482 has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 22 of 50 (17571)
09-17-2002 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mopsveldmuis
09-16-2002 12:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
God, by definition is uncreated and infinite in power and intelligence. Since He has created us and everything we see around us, it makes no sense to try and define Him in terms of matter or energy.

I guess you are now going to provide evidence and a testable hypothesis for this?...."it makes no sense to try and define Him in terms of matter or energy"..it also makes no sense to believe in him.

A computer program requires a programmer to exist, but you won't find the programmer anywhere in the program, just like you won't find an engineer in the electronic device he designed or a cook in the food that he prepared. In the same way it is totally illogical to look for the Creator in His creation.

Hmmm except when I boot up my computer and get the big Microsoft logo....maybe Bill Gates is god.

All information we see in this world ultimately comes from Him, because there is no other possible way for it to have come into existence. Not from mutations or from natural selection, because in both cases information is lost and not gained.

Just because you can't understand anything about the natural world does not mean the rest of us are as limited. Please provide all the citations or data that natural selection and mutations lead to information loss.

Where then could the information code we find in DNA have come form? Only one place and that is the Almighty God who has created each and every one of us and when we are done with our journey here on earth, we will see Him and then it will be too late to start to believe.


Or it came from Puff the Magic Dragon or the Tooth Fairy's sister...you can't disprove that either


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-16-2002 12:50 PM mopsveldmuis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 9:12 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
mopsveldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 50 (17581)
09-17-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by monkenstick
09-16-2002 8:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
he doesn't rewrite code from scratch, like john carmack. He reuses code in all of his creations

Molecular biology shows us today that similar structures in different creatures are specified by different genes. Before you embarrass yourself again, take a look at this site:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-114.htm

quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
Lots of bugs too.

What bugs are you talking about? What we see as bugs today, might have been necessary a thousand years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by monkenstick, posted 09-16-2002 8:00 PM monkenstick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 8:44 AM mopsveldmuis has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 24 of 50 (17582)
09-17-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 8:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
he doesn't rewrite code from scratch, like john carmack. He reuses code in all of his creations

Molecular biology shows us today that similar structures in different creatures are specified by different genes. Before you embarrass yourself again, take a look at this site:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-114.htm

quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
Lots of bugs too.

What bugs are you talking about? What we see as bugs today, might have been necessary a thousand years ago.


******************************************************

If you are going to try to support your claims with anything from the ICR you might as well try to prove Elvis is alive using a Dunkin Donuts advertisement...LOL!!! ICR..give me a break...LOL!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 8:37 AM mopsveldmuis has not yet responded

  
mopsveldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 50 (17583)
09-17-2002 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by nos482
09-16-2002 8:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
But computers have only been around for a half a century and look just how far they've come in comparison. What took our brains millions of years to evolve has only took them decades. The evolution of the computer is many factors higher than with our organic brains.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Plus, many AI experts now realize that you don't start with human level intelligence, but with lower forms of life and work your way up learning just a brain actually functions along the way. They have had much success with robots using insect level intelligence instead. They also realize that if you want a human level intelligence you have to grow it gradually instead of starting at the top.

This is still humans designing the robots. As the AI level increases, they are continuously adding information to the previous designs. Mutations and natural selection on the other hand are both cases where information is lost. If intelligence had to start simple, like you just said, where did the information input come from?

quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Your problem is that you believe we started at the top. The evidence says otherwise.

Evidence or theory? Most attempts to prove evolution just brought into the light more problems for anybody that wanted to believe in it. And because people are afraid to admit the reality that we have to give account to God when we leave this earth, they will keep on believing the myth of evolution blindly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nos482, posted 09-16-2002 8:30 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 9:11 AM mopsveldmuis has not yet responded
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 09-17-2002 9:29 AM mopsveldmuis has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 26 of 50 (17584)
09-17-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 9:01 AM


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.
********************************************************

that is one reason they are a bad analogy...also that they are not self replicating systems.

This is still humans designing the robots. As the AI level increases, they are continuously adding information to the previous designs. Mutations and natural selection on the other hand are both cases where information is lost. If intelligence had to start simple, like you just said, where did the information input come from?
************************************************

Please provide evidence in the form of peer review (not ICR crap) publications that support that all mutations and selection lead to information loss. The syncytin gene is an endogenous retrovirus gene that has taken over a critical function in placental development in humans. This is a mutation that has lead to information gain. Exon shuffling and gene duplications (i.e. genes for color vision) also can lead to information gain. You don't seem to know very much about the subject you are bashing.

Evidence or theory? Most attempts to prove evolution just brought into the light more problems for anybody that wanted to believe in it. And because people are afraid to admit the reality that we have to give account to God when we leave this earth, they will keep on believing the myth of evolution blindly.[/B][/QUOTE]

*************************************************************

You also don't seem to know anything about science if you think one "proves" a theory. Please provide peer reviewed citations or direct experimental evidence that refutes the principles of the theory of evolution. Also, state exactly what the theory of evolution purports.

Then you can move on to providing a testable hypothesis and experimental evidence for "And because people are afraid to admit the reality that we have to give account to God when we leave this earth"

It is you who clings to a myth blindly. At least most of us know the myth you cling to...however, you obviouly know nothing about evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 9:01 AM mopsveldmuis has not yet responded

  
mopsveldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 50 (17585)
09-17-2002 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mammuthus
09-17-2002 4:12 AM


God has shown Himself to us through His creation and through the Bible, but Puff and TF's sister are imaginary, but I think this is the wrong thread to go into that into too much detail. Many people who tried to disprove the Bible or the existence if Jesus Christ have turned to Christianity as a result. That's more than any fairy tale character can say.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 09-17-2002 4:12 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nos482, posted 09-17-2002 9:38 AM mopsveldmuis has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 50 (17586)
09-17-2002 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 9:01 AM


Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

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.

This alone proves that the human brain is a product of evolution.

This is still humans designing the robots. As the AI level increases, they are continuously adding information to the previous designs. Mutations and natural selection on the other hand are both cases where information is lost. If intelligence had to start simple, like you just said, where did the information input come from?

We're self-programming from experiences through our enivironment. Plus information isn't lost since we still retain many of our primative instincts. There is also the fact that most of our DNA is leftover from our evolutionary ancestors. We only use a fraction of it. This is why they were able to complete the Book of Man so early from the Human Geneome Project. They skipped over the "Junk" DNA.

Evidence or theory? Most attempts to prove evolution just brought into the light more problems for anybody that wanted to believe in it.

What problems?

And because people are afraid to admit the reality that we have to give account to God when we leave this earth, they will keep on believing the myth of evolution blindly.

Afraid? With your idea we are nothing more than puppets to the will of your god, that nothing we come up with is actually ours to call our own. We didn't earn our intelligence, it was handed to us at the say so of your god. That is a far more scary thought than what is actually the truth.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-17-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 9:01 AM mopsveldmuis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-18-2002 12:31 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 50 (17587)
09-17-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mopsveldmuis
09-17-2002 9:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
God has shown Himself to us through His creation and through the Bible, but Puff and TF's sister are imaginary, but I think this is the wrong thread to go into that into too much detail. Many people who tried to disprove the Bible or the existence if Jesus Christ have turned to Christianity as a result. That's more than any fairy tale character can say.

Now who is speaking of fairy tales. Christianity is stagnating. The fastest growing religion now is Islam.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-17-2002 9:12 AM mopsveldmuis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-18-2002 3:32 AM nos482 has responded
 Message 44 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-18-2002 12:33 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded
 Message 47 by mopsveldmuis, posted 09-18-2002 1:15 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019