[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / aus / film / fit / fur / htg / newbrit / sl / zoo ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Sister Boards [ Literature ] [ History ] [ Christ ] [ Religion ] [ Politics ]

File: 1425774247981.webm (6.88 MB, 1920x1040, 24:13, Big universe.webm)

9e79f4 No.880

Explain to me, why can computers never be man?

What do they lack that men lack?

1e46de No.881

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Watch seven minutes from this documentary, from 13:35 - 20:35.

Intelligence is founded on subjectivity; the capacity to think in a state of projection onto the surrounding environment, as described in phenomenology.

d712fa No.889

>>880
Computers as of today, based on microprocessors. Function the opposite of how the brains does.

Computers can process mass amounts of data according to instruction. But they can't unify that information, interpret into extrapolations, categorize it with intent, and filter what doesn't matter. Computers experience no qualia and no self identity.

Brains quickly filter information grab what they need and see what is relevant. Brains construct new truths about the information, programming themselves.

But most critically brains do experience qualia and do posses a self identity which provides for intent.

When we examine the physics behind this opposition to each other it should be obvious that they are different.

Brains have rhythm, they operate in a field of waves. Things stay in synch and harmony. The brains cells all unify in their operation. The entire brain has a large em field. Charges pass in no structured order but it is a pliable and shifting network.

In the microprocessor however, there is no unified rhythm. Every semi conductor and connection is heavily em shielded, there is no electromagnetic field. Every operation is compartmentalized and isolated from the larger operation.

153360 No.1260

>>889

So OP, out of curiosity would you assert that a sentient, artificial intelligence comparable to that which we deem to be our own "intelligence" to be, is impossible? Or would it still be possible.... For this question, we will limit ourselves to artificially created compounds, not bio-machines or any such thing as that just means we have to go into roo many definitions so as to clarify what we ourselves are...

153360 No.1261

>>889

I also do note how you said "as of today" and am taking that into account. I am just curious :)

9f194d No.1279

File: 1427932928929.jpg (5.53 KB, 230x220, 23:22, 1412206255166.jpg)

>>881
>continentals
jesus christ that video, the jazz music, the retarded philosophy, its a hilarious cliche.

these people think they are hip and cool and profound but they are really just fags

1e46de No.1280

File: 1427935504562.jpg (44.4 KB, 500x352, 125:88, tumblr_mrzp4icXGa1s5ty6po1….jpg)

>>1279

a3d210 No.1437

File: 1429781494398.jpg (21.01 KB, 473x520, 473:520, Alan-Turing1.jpg)

>>889

I hate to disagree, but I disagree.

>they can't unify that information, interpret into extrapolations, categorize it with intent, and filter what doesn't matter.

Computers are actually really great at each of those things.

>In the microprocessor however, there is no unified rhythm

Computers have clocks, which is literally about having rhythm, reliably, even.

>Charges pass in no structured order but it is a pliable and shifting network.

This I agree with. I would say this is the fundamental difference. Brains are massively parallel whereas computers are extremely serial by comparison. Beyond that, they are just so unlike the Von Neuman architecture that modern computers are based on that it's almost difficult to compare them at all. Plus I would say we hardly even know how the brain works.

That's all from a physiological perspective. Beyond that, it's just "consciousness" (what the other said about qualia, self identity, and intent) and for that, all we can say is "we don't know". We don't know why we're conscious and we don't know what it would take for a machine to be conscious as opposed to just being really really good at imitating consciousness.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / aus / film / fit / fur / htg / newbrit / sl / zoo ]