Originally posted by sirnex
The mechanics of life is easy for you to understand? The mechanics of something we don't even understand at this moment in time how it arose is...
Easy for *YOU* to understand? Now you off being that trolling nitwit doing the crap spouting again. Think before you type, please.
Who doesn't understand the mechanics of life? Am I a doctor that knows all the little details? No. But the functions of life itself are
understandable and logical.
Rather than slinging personal insults here, why don't you try coming up with something about life that you think is not understood. I notice you
offer nothing of that sort, but instead dismiss me, then call me names.
Biological systems are not setup the same as digital representations, if you understood biology and programming as you claim to be one, you
would understand this. I agree that the body is a biological machine, but that machine is not analogous to to any binary program ever written by man
at this moment nor can even be compared in complexity to any program written by man at this moment.
#1. "Binary" program means a program of duality. 1's and 0's, on and off switches. Yes, the universe does in many cases work in exactly this
manner. Action and reaction and so forth.
#2. I am not saying creation is a program exactly. I am saying it is
LIKE a program in the way it functions, meaning it functions because of
LOGIC. The laws of physics for example, that is logic being applied.
These things CAN and ARE put into programs all the time in different forms. Entire virtual worlds are created from nothing but logic and so forth.
NASA and plenty of other scientists put in the laws they see and run simulations and all sorts of things.
Personally, I can't even believe you are arguing against it. I suppose I need that reviewed by scientists? You know why it's not? Because it's
freaking obvious that is why.
Either your lying or your lying. I see no way to reconcile such blatant idiocy.
Do you actually know anything about programming to argue about this? I mean, if you are going to make such claims, then you must have some
experience writing programs right?
Define subjective and what it means to you.
Pretty sure I already gave you links on the differences between subject and objective. At any rate, all you need to do is put in those 2 keywords
into google.
Given you above arguments, I'm beginning to doubt the validity of this statement.
Another dismissal without any real argument. Isn't that what you keep saying is "faith"?
What company do you work for, what software have you developed that lead to these various answers that appear analogous to the human systems.
For starters, I'd never answer that question. But the type of work I do for a living is NOT in anyway related to AI and such. The AI stuff was
only a personal goal/project for me that I worked on in my spare time. I write custom programs for companies and such, rather than public software.
Chances are, you have used a program I have written, as the majority of my work things are internet/web based.
AI was something I worked on in my free time. And I eventually abandoned the project when I realized that true intelligence required consciousness,
and that it was beyond logic.
All intelligence from a program will be artificial in nature. Meaning, not real intelligence. Don't get me wrong, programs will do many great
and wonderful things in the future. Drive your car, and handle many of the daily things we do every day. AI is 100% capable of all those things.
But it works because programmers are able to put the logic into the program. The program then only carries out that logic. But it carries that
logic out with 100% accuracy and at a much faster rather than humans.
As such, programs are the way of the future. However, there is the boundary I came across, and that is in terms of actually getting it to create
logic, as humans do(a measure of true intelligence).
In the end, I came to realize that even if I was successful in creating all the parts(the stuff that was humanist in nature, brain, long term memory
and so forth) that in the end 1 thing would be missing. And that is consciousness. Without consciousness in it, then it would always just be
nothing but patterns and logic working out.
This is well known, and if you do a bit of research into the field of AI you will find that getting consciousness into a computer is a #1 goal.
But they too also realize these limits, and so they are trying to find a way to get your consciousness into a computer. The idea being that once
in, the functions of the computer will do the things the brain and such does, only unlike the human flesh, could be upgraded and so forth, resulting
in what they hope to be like a super intelligence, as well as the ability to have direct control over things, unlike the flesh currently.
I recently seen a show on the Science channel called "Brink". One of the episodes was about AI. On it, they had someone from the field on TV.
The above things was the basic topic(and about being able to save memory, and back it up in case of memory loss). The host oddly enough mentioned
consciousness and the philosophical question. Care to guess what the experts reply was? "Some things are beyond Science".
Is that scientifically proven by him? Nope, nor can it be. But it is something that anyone who works in the field eventually comes to realize and
understand. From their own work and experience and by taking these things head on. Some are more stubborn than others, but in general it seems to
be the rule.
Entire companies are focused on getting consciousness into a machine.
Personally I quit working on it because I realized that I was really only doing that which was already done, and that I was already living in the
result. But again, this is based on more information and thought than I can possibly express here.
Years of you working on these programs that led to these answers for you but you are unable to provide this research in order for it to be reviewed
and verified and then resort to a cop-out explanation that it's something that you just "have to understand"? Your a trolling tool.
Unable to provide and not taking the time to argue with the most basic concepts are 2 different things. You can say what you like, but at the end
of the day you are basically asking me to explain calculus to someone who wants to argue about basic math. The most basic of concepts seems to be
beyond your comprehension.
If you want to blame me for it, then go ahead. But I'm just going to move on. If you were actually trying to grasp those concepts in an honest
manner, then fine I would probably spend hours on it. But that isn't the case. You are just being argumentative in defense of your own
beliefs.
Perhaps because you've discussed this with other arrogantly ignorant pompous buffoons who think they have the answers as well.
No, actually they were atheists and we disagreed on many things and had a much heated debate that went on for quite some time. While many people
look for like minded people to talk to and such, I do the opposite. Thus why I even bother responding to you.
Your full of sh**, you tell me you went into programming as an atheist but through some conversion of digital representations of human system function
written into programming code you've decided to not be an atheist anymore. In other words, you have in possession something that can be reviewed and
verified and yet still resort to more cop-outs than I can even imagine.
Well, there is a bit more to it than that, I had other experiences and such. The AI part isn't really the point either. It was the questions
and problems I was confronted with that lead to the understanding as a result of it. Of which, anyone can ask and think about, but it is something
that someone has to do on their own.
And I'm not at all sure what you think I have in my possession that is proof. What part of - "Failed" do you not understand? If I had such a
thing in my possession, then it would prove my entire premise wrong and I would be speaking to that effect.
