Comments on: R&L Thread 4: Semantic Engines and the Turing Test http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/ Fall 2008 Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:30:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Elena Solomon http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-316 Elena Solomon Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:39:23 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-316 Yea, human socialization is an ongoing process. True, our parents teach the basic rules to us, and the more complicated ones as well, but then we get older and learn from our friends and the media. We constantly adapt ourselves to be the person we want to be, and our methods of interacting with others follow. We begin to teach ourselves how to socialize, which a computer could never do because humans programmed it. Any 'teaching' it does would just be a response from a program inside it telling it what to do, a program created by man. A computer can never learn how to socialize well enough to interact with humans. Yea, human socialization is an ongoing process. True, our parents teach the basic rules to us, and the more complicated ones as well, but then we get older and learn from our friends and the media. We constantly adapt ourselves to be the person we want to be, and our methods of interacting with others follow. We begin to teach ourselves how to socialize, which a computer could never do because humans programmed it. Any ‘teaching’ it does would just be a response from a program inside it telling it what to do, a program created by man. A computer can never learn how to socialize well enough to interact with humans.

]]> By: Joel Ferm http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-237 Joel Ferm Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:28:45 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-237 A computer isn't programmed the way we are socialized. We are both programmed, but the socialization aspect to a human is like run-time adaptation for a computer. We are all hard-coded with a basic set of instructions from our genes, and we pick up more instructions and rules as we live. It's like at birth we're all flashed with whatever firmware we have, and it's all created to write our new code. The difference between us and computers is the means by which the baseline code is developed, and the medium of computing. We are made of neurons and pulses are charge imbalances..computers are silicon chips and wires. I believe that computers will become fully conscious themselves some day, either before or after we determine conceptually what consciousness is. I don't believe the ability to explain the concept is a prerequisite for creating it in this case. A computer isn’t programmed the way we are socialized. We are both programmed, but the socialization aspect to a human is like run-time adaptation for a computer. We are all hard-coded with a basic set of instructions from our genes, and we pick up more instructions and rules as we live. It’s like at birth we’re all flashed with whatever firmware we have, and it’s all created to write our new code. The difference between us and computers is the means by which the baseline code is developed, and the medium of computing. We are made of neurons and pulses are charge imbalances..computers are silicon chips and wires. I believe that computers will become fully conscious themselves some day, either before or after we determine conceptually what consciousness is. I don’t believe the ability to explain the concept is a prerequisite for creating it in this case.

]]> By: Ben Tondera http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-236 Ben Tondera Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:09:33 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-236 A computer is programmed in the same way a human being is socialized. It can only be told what we already know, and it is apparent that both computers and people need a stimulus to act or communicate. What makes a human so superior in our minds is that we are also humans. A computer is a creation of ours, so theoretically it shouldn't be able to exceed us, but Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. We could calculate pi to the 1 millionth number, but a computer does it for us so much faster. Now due to the integration of the computer as a quintessential component of our society, it seems the computer has taken a part of us away and now is inherently a part of us. A computer is programmed in the same way a human being is socialized. It can only be told what we already know, and it is apparent that both computers and people need a stimulus to act or communicate. What makes a human so superior in our minds is that we are also humans. A computer is a creation of ours, so theoretically it shouldn’t be able to exceed us, but Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. We could calculate pi to the 1 millionth number, but a computer does it for us so much faster. Now due to the integration of the computer as a quintessential component of our society, it seems the computer has taken a part of us away and now is inherently a part of us.

]]> By: JD http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-235 JD Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:40:22 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-235 Machines cannot give a damn. This is impossible. No matter now hard a programmer works to give a machine "feelings" or "emotions", they will not succeed. A machine can just do what it has been programmed to do, and then does it without any thought or feeling. It is impossible for any machine to get tired or bored or simply have any kind of emotion at all. Machines cannot care when something goes wrong and, on the other side of things, even when it gets things right, it feels no sense of pleasure or pride, or delight in those accomplishments. This holds true because machines have no spirits or souls, and no wishes, desires, ambitions, or goals. That’s why a machine will just stop when it’s stuck, for example if a program is written and there is a bug the program simply stops trying to run the program and a person must go back into the code and correct the issue. Machines stop trying when there is an error, but a person will struggle to get something done. An obvious difference in the way a machine's "mind" works and a human being's mind works. Simply put it is impossible for machines to "give a damn" as they cannot have any emotions, positive or negative. Machines cannot give a damn. This is impossible. No matter now hard a programmer works to give a machine “feelings” or “emotions”, they will not succeed. A machine can just do what it has been programmed to do, and then does it without any thought or feeling. It is impossible for any machine to get tired or bored or simply have any kind of emotion at all. Machines cannot care when something goes wrong and, on the other side of things, even when it gets things right, it feels no sense of pleasure or pride, or delight in those accomplishments. This holds true because machines have no spirits or souls, and no wishes, desires, ambitions, or goals. That’s why a machine will just stop when it’s stuck, for example if a program is written and there is a bug the program simply stops trying to run the program and a person must go back into the code and correct the issue. Machines stop trying when there is an error, but a person will struggle to get something done. An obvious difference in the way a machine’s “mind” works and a human being’s mind works. Simply put it is impossible for machines to “give a damn” as they cannot have any emotions, positive or negative.

]]> By: Katherine Anderson http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-234 Katherine Anderson Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:37:08 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-234 I just don't think we have any way of knowing. It is entirely likely that, as Roy was saying, we are just programmed the way computers are by our creators, and we don't have the technology yet to understand how that is possible. But even if we had the technology, I can't think of a way we could be certain that computers "understood" things. There could very easily be some intangible essence that creates consciousness, too. All I know is that brains work a whole lot like computers, and that the more we learn about the makeup of the world and ourselves, the less we attribute to intangible forces. I just don’t think we have any way of knowing. It is entirely likely that, as Roy was saying, we are just programmed the way computers are by our creators, and we don’t have the technology yet to understand how that is possible. But even if we had the technology, I can’t think of a way we could be certain that computers “understood” things. There could very easily be some intangible essence that creates consciousness, too. All I know is that brains work a whole lot like computers, and that the more we learn about the makeup of the world and ourselves, the less we attribute to intangible forces.

]]> By: Dan Pierson http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-233 Dan Pierson Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:28:21 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-233 Machines can’t give a damn like humans do. Machines can be programmed to “feel” things, but it’s artificial. A machine can never feel what it is like to get a cut or bruise because it is not made of flesh and bone. A machine could be programmed to have empathy for somebody who is injured, but would never be able to comprehend what it is like to feel that kind of pain. Machines can’t give a damn like humans do. Machines can be programmed to “feel” things, but it’s artificial. A machine can never feel what it is like to get a cut or bruise because it is not made of flesh and bone. A machine could be programmed to have empathy for somebody who is injured, but would never be able to comprehend what it is like to feel that kind of pain.

]]> By: Roy Bell http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-232 Roy Bell Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:50:34 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-232 In the sense that Haugeland suggests, I kind of agree that we are semantic engines, but you have to break down each word Haugeland uses to realize his intent at this claim. According to Webster, semantics is the "of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols," but in every variation of the word engine, the word machine is used to describe it. These are words defined by the human race, not the machine race. Humans and machines may share similarities, but they are not completely synonymous, so I wouldn't go as far as implying that our minds are engines; that's a bit extreme, Haugeland. In the sense that Haugeland suggests, I kind of agree that we are semantic engines, but you have to break down each word Haugeland uses to realize his intent at this claim. According to Webster, semantics is the “of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols,” but in every variation of the word engine, the word machine is used to describe it. These are words defined by the human race, not the machine race. Humans and machines may share similarities, but they are not completely synonymous, so I wouldn’t go as far as implying that our minds are engines; that’s a bit extreme, Haugeland.

]]> By: Roy Bell http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-231 Roy Bell Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:27:18 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-231 excuse the grammatical errors. excuse the grammatical errors.

]]> By: Roy Bell http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-230 Roy Bell Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:13:11 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-230 Machines can give a damn to an extent, but it's limited by its programmer. The machine can pretend all it wants to, but their is no emotion, no passion. It's applying the thoughts and suppostions of its creator to any situation that calls for judgement, so I guess you could say that machines that "give a damn" are literally walking plagerisms, but then again, aren't we all? Do we not take the inherited beliefs of our creators (parents, God, etc.) and apply them to everyday situations much like a robot would? Even if we don't, we learn and adapt, just like a robot with those capabilities could. However, paraphrasing what Luke and Austin said earlier, there is no sincerity in the robot; the robot will never evolve like a human would, and it can't be INVENTIVE only INNOVATIVE. Machines can give a damn to an extent, but it’s limited by its programmer. The machine can pretend all it wants to, but their is no emotion, no passion. It’s applying the thoughts and suppostions of its creator to any situation that calls for judgement, so I guess you could say that machines that “give a damn” are literally walking plagerisms, but then again, aren’t we all? Do we not take the inherited beliefs of our creators (parents, God, etc.) and apply them to everyday situations much like a robot would? Even if we don’t, we learn and adapt, just like a robot with those capabilities could. However, paraphrasing what Luke and Austin said earlier, there is no sincerity in the robot; the robot will never evolve like a human would, and it can’t be INVENTIVE only INNOVATIVE.

]]> By: Rebecca Spizzirri http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/2008/09/rl-thread-4-semantic-engines-and-the-turing-test/#comment-228 Rebecca Spizzirri Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:32:51 +0000 http://eripsa.org/Phil101U1/?p=162#comment-228 In response to whether or not machines can "give a damn," I do not feel that they can. Deep Blue did not rejoice over its victory. Even if "giving a damn" is a response to programming (as mentioned in some earlier posts), ie respond in this way when presented with this situation, the machine is simply presenting the required output. There is no emotion. In response to all this talk of autonomous learning... I think that it is possible for machines to hit a "cascade point," ie when a machine essentially learns how to learn independently. For example, when the machine has all the programming foundation given to it by humans, and it can take that a step further, to create something new in an intelligent, rather than random, way. Therefore, I don't think that machines can act intelligently about anything that is not based on the initial rules of its human programming. I don't have the technical vocab to explain my idea fully, but I hope someone sees what I'm getting at? In response to whether or not machines can “give a damn,” I do not feel that they can. Deep Blue did not rejoice over its victory. Even if “giving a damn” is a response to programming (as mentioned in some earlier posts), ie respond in this way when presented with this situation, the machine is simply presenting the required output. There is no emotion.

In response to all this talk of autonomous learning… I think that it is possible for machines to hit a “cascade point,” ie when a machine essentially learns how to learn independently. For example, when the machine has all the programming foundation given to it by humans, and it can take that a step further, to create something new in an intelligent, rather than random, way. Therefore, I don’t think that machines can act intelligently about anything that is not based on the initial rules of its human programming. I don’t have the technical vocab to explain my idea fully, but I hope someone sees what I’m getting at?

]]>