It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
Here you go a simple function of counting to five written in C#
double[] result = new double[5]
sum =0;
for(int i =0; i < 5;i++)
[
sum += i+1;
result[]= sum;
sum = 0;
]
Answer: 1,2,3,4,5
There you go a function of counting to five. All of this needed to count to five and you brain can do it so much faster.
As I described to everyone here before, this is a simple function of counting to five. What I was trying to show you all is that it cannot count to six or beyond with this function. So therefore it cannot learn or adapt to a situation. The reason being is the i
Originally posted by andersensrm
In the article it is presented that Descartes believes that it is impossible for a machine to do things as humans do. Basically he's saying that it is impossible, impractical, to essentially "program" every response to every situation.
Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
Again camus, you would still have to enter in an input with your function. Also, using a MAX function would not give you a return until it finished until eternity.
So again, the function fails as an AI. Lastly, an array is far faster than a console writeline, so you are going to have a console pop up on every loop? That doesn't make any sense, how are you going to access the data from a writeline that has passed?
A persons memory is nothing but stored bits of information...
Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by camus154
I am going to respond with one more on your function. I used a array of doubles and you used an integer function. With the array of doubles I can input a decimal number and yours cannot. So again, AI is limited to the function that you as the programmer define. So again with your function it cannot count with decimal number to five, but mine can and the stupid computer cannot figure out why?
Yes, as I stated before in this thread the amount of lines code required to simulate our brains is next to impossible. I don't know of one programmer that code every single possibility, that our brains can do(which we take for granted everyday).
Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by blocula
A persons memory is nothing but stored bits of information...
Careful now, nobody agrees about how the actual data is mapped in our brains. Computer engineers, scientists, doctors and psychologists all use the terms map, array, and bits, but the actuality of the "Neural Net" using Neurons in our heads is far different from computer memory. Computer 1's and 0's are tiny stored electromagnetic charges and neurons are flesh and blood. Plus the grid array and access to it (retrieval) is different.
If they knew how it worked they would have invented a brain by now (not that they aren't working on it). By comparison to a human brain, mans invention of computers is like comparing a flash light to the sun. We are emulating it with silicone, but can't come close.
Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by intrptr
And the android ash from alien-1979,the android bishop from aliens-1986 and the tin man from the wizard of oz-1939.Although some people confuse androids with cyborgs.Androids are all machine and cyborgs are part machine...
edit on 20-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by camus154
You still missed the point. I thought far ahead on someone coming in to debunk the function and find a flaw. What I showed you is that it has limitations and always will with our current way of programming.
Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by intrptr
Then theres the questions...Are we living in a simulated reality? Are we three dimensional holograms existing within someones or somethings virtual reality? that are yet to be answered and if we are,then we are down-loading and up-loading pre-programmed information all the time...
edit on 20-3-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by intrptr
That's hilarious, Star Trek? So a fictional writer sitting in his house who came up with some random writing of a story is somehow science? I don't think so.