First of all, these are two brilliant people faced with an uncertain question about an unclear topic. To have any meaningful conversation for any longer than 30 mins is a feat in and of itself. Bravo to everyone involved for their time and energy!

Since this is the internets, I will of course give my opinion. AI was something I wrote much about in college. First, I stared like the man on our left. I was a technologist, I believed in the power of computing and simulation. Facts were only things that were verifiable and proven through rigorous trial and error. In an effort to discover the truths of the universe. I had the utmost zeal for technology solving all the worlds problems, and that it could realize any possible challenge. After years of study and introduction to many different areas and ways of thinking, I had a, what I consider, more realistic understanding about technology and philosophy. With that said, lets get some meat!

Let us go over some of the things they mentioned. First, the Chinese room argument.
This is a thought experiment where a man goes into a room. It is locked and only has a small slot for access. In the room with the man is a typewriter and book of Chinese. The man does not speak Chinese, but the book has explanations of how to respond to certain symbol sets. It does not offer translated meaning or things of this nature. It is simply if you see "This" then type "That". It is pure syntax, no meaning is applied.

Now, a second man comes to the slot of the room. He inserts a sentence into the slot and waits. The man inside the box looks at the paper, looks at this guide and begins to churn out his output. He slides the output through the slot and the second man receives it. He reads it and it appears that the response is from something that knows Chinese. Something that understood what he said and replied. However, this is not what happen. The person inside knows nothing of how to speak that language, he was only responding syntactically to other syntax. This is not intelligence, rather, more definitely, this is not understanding.

Much to my disappointment I became aware of this thought experiment. Because currently, this is how ALL software is realized. The hardware is essentially dumb, it does nothing except what the software tells it to do. This means at best, a computer in its current form can never have understanding. So at best, this conversation has to be about new, different computers that doesn't work on the same syntactical model that we have today.

The counter to this was that humans can be understood in the same way a computer can, were as the hardware is just doing what the brain is telling it to. That we are just state machines with brains being the software and the body being the dumb hardware. This would imply that humans also do not have understanding. However, we do, and that is where the problem is.

Now, we must be clear on what understanding means before we move further. Understanding is hard to flesh out briefly, but I will try. Experiencing the color blue is more than just experiencing a certain wavelength a light. It has a context that goes beyond just the facts of it, you experience blueness! Blue has a real experienced value. You have done more than just become aware of it, you have experience of it. More over, you can actually think back upon the experience itself, it is more than just a wavelength to you, not only is it blue, but you have an experience of blue to reflect on with all sorts of other things relating to it.

The man in the room had no understanding of Chinese. It was gibberish to him. He can only do what he was told in his special language.

The next is a typical fallacy that I have used from time to time without realizing it. It is easy to do and it is made in this presentation. Appeal To complexity in a slightly modified form. That, we don't understand how human consciousness as the brain is complex. And, in fact, it is in that complexity that the emergent property of consciousness comes from. This of course is not necessarily true or untrue, but he is stating this as a fact of consciousness in computing being a possibility because of this.

Let us use another example. Let us say that we have broadcasting towers all over the USA. They are broadcasting all sorts of different programs to all sorts of different people. It is a complex web of towers and receivers but it all seems to work out ok. So, are we to conclude that radio towers are conscious? Of course not, but that is what are are doing with the human experience of consciousness. Lets look at that quickly.

When you experience something, you experience every one of your scenes simultaneously. You remember the sounds, the tastes, the sights...it is all there. However, your brain never really has a point in which all points connect. Your consciousness is something that seems to violate the laws of physics, that things are happening in different locations in space at different times, but for your consciousness, at the same time. This isn't something that is reducible to brain states, and not something that is physically possible in computer technology as we know it. It doesn't matter if it is parallel or not, if things don't touch but are somehow related this is mystifying; and as a result, unreproducible. Perhaps consciousnesses is reducible to one point in the brain we haven't found, but so far, there is no such thing.

I have already gone on way to long, and I could go on for about 20 more pages. I still have my thesis on it laying around here somewhere. I LOVE THIS TOPIC, but my studies have lead me to believe that creating an ACTUAL intelligence isn't possible with current digital technology. Let me remind everyone that digital computing hasn't changed since basically Leibniz , and that was in the 1600s. In other words, AI, or Computers with Consciousness is NOT possible with state machine logic.

I would like to point out one more fallacy the pro-AI guy was (and let me be clear, I love the idea of AI too, so I am pro as well! But I just think it is impossible) that simulations of of brain states is simulacrum, not experience. Simulacrum difference from actual experience because it begs the question, is this thing ACTUALLY experiencing anything other than a brain state. For instance, the color blue is not necessarily equal to any particular brain state. Brain states alone do not sufficiently explain human consciousnesses, to assume that a proper modeling of them is anything other than just another simulacrum is without cause. In short, a simulacrum does not an experience make. (The people in the painting aren't experiencing a wonderful day)

Neolibs have a crippling flaw - or blindness. They do not understand that MOST people are perfectly capable of solving thier own problems, and that the few people that can't solve their own problems are easily cared for by small, private voluntary charitable organizations. Showing people how they can address their own needs by their own initiative, gumption, and grit is not 'uncaring'. It is the epitome of charity.

The neolib argument is that people who try to teach people how to help themselves are heartless, cruel, indifferent bastards simply because they don't support huge @$$ government programs. It's tripe. I'm not a Republican, but I'll defend any party from BS propoganda like this sort of bilge. It's biased, leading, and illogical poppycock and anyone who beleives this gibberish is in fetters to their own prejudice.

The true measure of how successful you are at helping people is NOT the number of people who are enrolled in a government plan. The true measure of how successful you are at helping people is the day you can SHUT DOWN the government program because no one needs it.

What the hell is a reverse racist ?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3A+reverse+racist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yeah.....exactly, its a bullshit made up word.
If it had come from someone other than the hate-spewing fear monger limbaugh, id of thought it had some positive connotation.

A racist is bad...so a reverse racist must be good, right ?

Shit dont make sense. Its just gibberish.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals equate anything that doesn't agree with their communistic worldview with anarchy, like if you oppose expanding a government program that has already been proven a failure, you must secretly be "for" genocide or something.



Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to quantummushroom, for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particularly glad these lovely children were here to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish - it expressed a courage little seen in this day in age.

Science? Really? The results of the brain scans are mildly interesting, but hardly surprising whether you believe in "Speaking in tongues" or not. When you speak a familiar and real language, your language centers are active. When you speak gibberish (or "tongues"), your language centers are not active. Who would have expected that? Why didn't they do a study of an atheist speaking gibberish for comparison? What in the world is this supposed to prove? ABC is stretching to the breaking point here.

Also have to add that I honestly felt embarrassed watching these people. It's so foolish looking, it's like you caught someone picking their nose in public or something.

Aww, him nom-noms hims lettuce real good.

[Sorry, cute things reduce me to gibberish. I think it's my vagina or something.]

>> ^rottenseed:
You can't just vomit buzz words and phrases that don't have any meaning and then pretend like it's a cohesive idea. What the fuck did any of that gibberish mean?


Sure you can...you can even run a campaign for national office based on vomiting meaningless buzz words. You might even win depending on the year. And even if you lose, you can still use them to try to undermine the winner.

You can't just vomit buzz words and phrases that don't have any meaning and then pretend like it's a cohesive idea. What the fuck did any of that gibberish mean?

Looks like spam even though it's written in some crazy gibberish language. According to an online translator the description means:

"HorsePower am a markedsføringssystem as am awfully liked facts system as most big domestic markedsførere making use of for å accomplish better accomplishments , a good deal of better accomplishments. Video."

*ban

sweet.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Banning is punitive, instead - here's a method for deactivating your own account permanently:

1. In the login section of your profile, change your email address to something nonsensical
2. type some nonsense into notepad or anything else that will accept text
3. Paste the gibberish into the password and confirm fields of the login section of your profile
4. Logout

Sorry we don't have an easier one button approach for this. We will put this on the list of potential features to add for 4.0

Cheers





In reply to this comment by MINK:
i am not threatening you with destruction, i'll just post a self link or something. i was trying to leave quietly, without "theatrics" like a deliberate self link or a "fuck you" thread... i thought it would be quieter if i ask you to ban me.

the reason i want to be banned is because if i "just leave" then i can still come back, and i don't want to, because that will just piss you off, which i don't want to do. I have "quit" twice already and it didn't work. You're a sucker for trollbait, i'm a sucker for retards. if you ban me then both our lives will improve.

So, seeing as you don't offer an account cancellation and self blocking feature, i am asking you to do it by hand, to do us all a favour. it's win win.




In reply to this comment by dag:
I will not ban you and please don't threaten me with doing harm to the community.

If you're unhappy with the Sift and you feel that you've exhausted all your efforts to engage the community. Just. fucking. leave. No need to break the furniture for a dramatic exit.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
dude just ban me, or i will force you to ban me. let's do this the easy way, eh?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Please don't go on a flameout downvote spree - but if you feel the need - may I suggest taking a breather from the Sift.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Banning is punitive, instead - here's a method for deactivating your own account permanently:

1. In the login section of your profile, change your email address to something nonsensical
2. type some nonsense into notepad or anything else that will accept text
3. Paste the gibberish into the password and confirm fields of the login section of your profile
4. Logout

Sorry we don't have an easier one button approach for this. We will put this on the list of potential features to add for 4.0

Cheers





In reply to this comment by MINK:
i am not threatening you with destruction, i'll just post a self link or something. i was trying to leave quietly, without "theatrics" like a deliberate self link or a "fuck you" thread... i thought it would be quieter if i ask you to ban me.

the reason i want to be banned is because if i "just leave" then i can still come back, and i don't want to, because that will just piss you off, which i don't want to do. I have "quit" twice already and it didn't work. You're a sucker for trollbait, i'm a sucker for retards. if you ban me then both our lives will improve.

So, seeing as you don't offer an account cancellation and self blocking feature, i am asking you to do it by hand, to do us all a favour. it's win win.




In reply to this comment by dag:
I will not ban you and please don't threaten me with doing harm to the community.

If you're unhappy with the Sift and you feel that you've exhausted all your efforts to engage the community. Just. fucking. leave. No need to break the furniture for a dramatic exit.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
dude just ban me, or i will force you to ban me. let's do this the easy way, eh?

In reply to this comment by dag:
Please don't go on a flameout downvote spree - but if you feel the need - may I suggest taking a breather from the Sift.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
so ban me. or do i have to go on a flameout downvote spree?

In reply to this comment by dag:
MINK-

I read Jonny's post - asked for a clarification in the thread and continued to monitor the discussion when I could.

Sift Talk posts are not "letters to Dag" they're for discussion and consideration by the community.

You're right, personal insults do get a response from me - like many people I'm a sucker for troll bait.

Don't bother apologising again.

>> ^thinker247:
The onus is on you to explain why he's not funny, because you issued a statement about said belief. If you said it, you should be able to validate your reasoning. If not, you're just spouting gibberish.
I have no reason to explain anything, because I never said he was funny.
Your turn, Mr. Bond.


Then explain to me why you don't find him unfunny.

There is no onus for anyone to explain why they find something funny or not, but the crux of what i said appears to have gone about 3 miles over your head. There is no way to explain the whats whys and wherefores of why something is or isn't funny. That's one of the few wonders of humans.

I'm gonna pass on this conversation, you often have good and interesting things to say thinker, but you've chosen the wrong time and the wrong subject; you're proving nothing, you're contributing nothing, and you're certainly not swaying my way of thinking - i set out to be insulting and arrogant to see what would bite, and i got a lot of fish on this one.

Probably because this fat tub of talentless shit, this worthless contribution to humanity, has lots of fat fuck fans, probably fat americans, who think "yayyyy, fat can be successful! there is hope for me!"

Below is a couple paragraphs about Christopher Booker, taken from an article titled "The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation".


For several years he has been waging a similar war against "warmist alarmists", by which he means climate scientists. Nine days ago, for instance, he attacked Michael Mann for publishing a paper that shows (alongside scores of other studies) that global temperatures do indeed follow the famous hockey-stick pattern: a moderate long-term cooling trend terminating in a sudden upward bend. Mann, Booker told his readers, had been "selective ... in his new data, excluding anything which confirmed the Medieval Warming". But Mann's paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, uses every uncluttered high-resolution proxy temperature record in the public domain. How did Booker trip up so badly? By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies.

Under their guidance he routinely mistakes weather for climate and makes claims about the temperature record that bear no relation to the studies he cites. My favourite Booker column is the piece he wrote in February, titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all". In September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ... Its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km". To reinforce this point, he helpfully republished the graph, showing that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. The Sunday Telegraph continues to employ a man who cannot tell the difference between summer and winter.

But for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist - Melanie Phillips included - who has spread more misinformation. The world becomes even harder to navigate. You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust.

Full article can be found here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/23/controversiesinscience.health

The onus is on you to explain why he's not funny, because you issued a statement about said belief. If you said it, you should be able to validate your reasoning. If not, you're just spouting gibberish.

I have no reason to explain anything, because I never said he was funny.

Your turn, Mr. Bond.

It's not actually an accent, because it's probably psychologically based.

She has not left her tiny little town and always wanted to, when she had her trauma, her repressed wishes bubbled forth and made her foreign in her own mind - she's heard of the accents on tv or the internet, and coagulates the bits and pieces into words and a whole language. The "gibberish" she talks once in a while are because her memories of the languages she imitates are garbled, most likely because she didn't understand it. That's why it's accent-like, instead of a different language.

So it's both bullshit and not.