Londoners: PM 'not ruling out' Tube strike ban

Glaucus said:
Again your applying something special to a human. Its not mimickery at all, that is exactly the process we used.
You still seem to think we have no base program which then learns. This is no different.

We are taught chairs, we can than see that chairs are general x proportion and apply this.

So no, its no mimicry at all, unless you decide humans are suddenly something special and use magic. We don't, we use the same principles, memory and maths to decide if the portions, shape etc fit our knowledge of items that we have been told are chairs.
Click to expand...

Actually a human who has never seen or had experience of a chair could cognitively reason its use independently...a machine could not...that is the fundamental difference.

I am not applying something special to humanity..simply illustrating an inherent difference in how humanity differs from machines in its cognition.

You comparison is on,y analogous, it is not literal as you keep trying to imply.
 
Castiel said:
Actually a human who has never seen or had experience of a chair could cognitively reason its use independently...a machine could not...that is the fundamental difference.
Click to expand...

No it cant and a chair is something learnt. We can reason we can use it for sitting and in fact several robots can do the same. Nothing more than knowing some maths and knowing you anatomy.
 
Glaucus said:
No it cant and a chair is something learnt. We can reason we can use it for sitting and in fact several robots can do the same.
Click to expand...

Whatever you wish to believe Glaucus....the fact is that machines simply do not have the inherent independent cognitive ability that humans have, you think they do so carry on...nothing anyone here says will clearly influence your opinion so I see no further point in trying, the whole thing is getting circular and repetitive.
 
You have it the wrong way around, reverse your statement.
I don't apply something special and magical to humans, you do.
Are thoughts are nothing more but the some of are pre programming, hardware and what we've learnt/remembered.

Not some extra 4th magical thing.
 
Glaucus said:
You have it the wrong way around, reverse your statement.
I don't apply something special and magical to humans, you do.
Click to expand...

Yawn...I am not doing that. Stop being so confrontational. I simply disagree with your assessment of the cognitive ability of current machines are comparable to Humans, I did not say that human cognition is either special or magical, it is simply as it is...ridiculous to even suggest I said that!
 
Castiel said:
Yawn...I am not doing that. Stop being so confrontational. I simply disagree with your assessment of the cognitive ability of current machines are comparable to Humans, I did not say that human cognition is either special or magical, it is simply as it is...ridiculous to even suggest I said that!
Click to expand...

Its not confrontational.
You said i believe something, and your wrong, i believe the exact opposite.

If you don't apply some magical 4th thing, how is a computer different?
You have your hardware, you have pre installed program, you learn. You then see something and you execute a program. This is zero different to computing.

You only get a difference if you add something else which we've never seen in before.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Its not confrontational.
You said i believe something, and your wrong, i believe the exact opposite.

If you don't apply some magical 4th thing, how is a computer different?
You have your hardware, you have pre installed program, you learn. You then see something and have a choice and you execute it. This is zero different to computing.
You only get a difference if you add something else which we've never seen in before.
Click to expand...

You are being confrontational.

You are also speaking metaphorically, showing a similarity rather than a literal comparison.

The differences are inherent, Humans think and reason independently, they require no external programming from another individual...a human can be taught, but doesn't actually require teaching to learn...a machine requires the teacher, a machine requires that co-dependence on its creator...a human doesn't. The simplest way of putting it is that a machine can only act within its predefined programming, a human can act outside of those predefined experiences that you state are analogous to programming...we have the ability to develop beyond our external input, self reflect if you will...a machine cannot. It is a slave to its program, a human can consciously alter the terms of their own program, to use your analogy.

The kind of machine that would fulfil the criteria such as the aforementioned R.Daneel Olivaw do not currently exist. you can program a machine to mimic independent thought, but it still requires a programmer...a human doesn't, they are independent, a human will learn regardless of external influence....all complex life does this, it isn't unique to humanity, but it isn't inherent in humans machinery either.

It not about attributing a magical 4th condition, it is simply showing a fundamental difference in humans and machines.
 
Last edited:
I dont agree it shows a fundamental difference at all, all it shows is lack of parallel computing. Machines cant do thousands of calculations at the same time, so they seem bad/poor, if you split it down to a small portion, and a certain part of the task, then its identical process, not imitation it is the same
.
And no i don't agree that humans can learn on there own, like you suggest. We need that pre programming and hardware, just like injuries and diseases show. You damage that hardware or programming and you can lose these abilities. Just like machines need pre programming then from that can learn and remember.

So no its no different to how machines are programmed, the difference is one came about by natural process and the other by our hands.

So no you are very much applying something else which we have zero evidence for, like a soul for example, you might not believe in a soul, but you are applying something along those lines.
 
Glaucus said:
I dont agree it shows a fundamental difference at all, all it shows is lack of parallel computing. Machines cant do thousands of calculations at the same time, so they seem bad/poor, if you split it down to a small portion, and a certain part of the task, then its identical process, not imitation it is the same
.
And no i don't agree that humans can learn on there own, like you suggest. We need that pre programming and hardware, just like injuries and diseases show. You damage that hardware or programming and you can lose these abilities. Just like machines need pre programming then from that can learn and remember.

So no its no different to how machines are programmed, the difference is one came about by natural process and the other by our hands.

So no you are very much applying something else which we have zero evidence for, like a soul for example, you might not believe in a soul, but you are applying something along those lines.
Click to expand...

I disagree..I think there is ample evidence of the inherent difference between Humans and Machines, every time you have an original thought would be evidence enough.

I am not applying anything else, simply showing the differences. Let us look at this from a different perspective. Machines are incapable of independent originality, they can only act within the parameters of their programming, no matter how complex that program is, they are slaves to it, they can access a given store of experience and programmed responses to any given situation to make a correct action, but they cannot act abstractly or independently by interacting with their own perception and interpretation of their pre-set data, it just gives the appearance that they can..it is mimicry based on the anthropomorphism that we often unconsciously attribute to things .....humans can react and behave according to their intelligence, experience and consciousness, they can take what they learn and apply it in original and independent ways..the machine relies entirely upon the ability of the human that created it...a human can express complex original concepts abstractly, a machine cannot. That doesn't require a soul..only consciousness, emotion and an individual and original perception of the world, all things that a machine currently lack. We can build machines to mimic human actions, we can build machines that can learn, but we cannot yet design a machine that can reason independently through its own perception of the world, it is totally reliant upon what it is built to do. No matter how complex and advanced a machines programming is, they are unable to emotionally and perceptually connect to the world...they lack that relationship to their environment. Thus the fundamental difference between Man and Machine.

You clearly are of a different opinion.
 
Last edited:
Goodness gracious, this has gotten rather out of hand. Are the tube trains going to be driven by lathes and assembly lines now or have I missed something?
 
Glaucus said:
Lol, that isn't different at all.

And humans either work times table out, or just have the result pre saved.
This again isn't different. A computer can have a table and read the result or do the maths, its the same.

You just keep putting up scenarios thinking humans are somehow special. The stuff we do is pretty darn basic. The difference is we can do thousands of these simple things at the same time. We have huge parallel processing power.
Click to expand...

So you lol and think I am wrong. Fair enough. I just think you don't actually get the subtle difference. You think they way humans work things out is basic - I am of a very different opinion.
 
The complexity is not from individual calculations, you get illusion of complexity due to absolutely huge parrarel computing. The underlying calculations/thoughts etc aren't complicated. Its just you're doing thousands of them at the same time.
 
Glaucus said:
The complexity is not from individual calculations, you get illusion of complexity due to absolutely huge parrarel computing. The underlying calculations/thoughts etc aren't complicated. Its just you're doing thousands of them at the same time.
Click to expand...

I am sure you are correct Glaucus in your assertions a few posts back. When my next guest slot at UCL pops up I'll send them in your direction.
 
Lets take all the tax payers money away from the railway companies and let them stand of their own two feet.
 
Haha greta debate. You know I'm not the only one who thinks like this? this isn't some new thought. It is all part of well established philosophy/science. Its just these things are untestable at the moment, hence there's many competing branches.
 
deuse said:
may I ask you who came a showed humans how to make fire or the wheel if they couldn't learn on their own?
Click to expand...

You've taken it out of context.
We can learn within are pre programmed state. Just like machines. We just have a far more complex program and hardware.
We dont just learn. Theres an entire biological process that happens, without that biological process you cant learn. Castile is trying to argue that we aren't pre programmed and we can just do what ever we want. Which is clearly wrong and goes against physics and biology for a start.
 
Glaucus said:
You've taken it out of context.
We can learn within are pre programmed state. Just like machines. We just have a far more complex program and hardware.
We dont just learn. Theres an entire biological process that happens, without that biological process you cant learn. Castile is trying to argue that we aren't pre programmed and we can just do what ever we want. Which is clearly wrong and goes against physics and biology for a start.
Click to expand...

Which is a fundamental misunderstanding about what I have said....I did not say we can do whatever we want, or that our actions are not influenced by environmental, biological or ethical factors...quite the contrary in fact.

You are attempting to equate man and machine....I am pointing out the differences inherent in both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom