Originally posted by Mentat
So, because it was not my own invention, it is artificial?
Again, this is not what "artificial" means. It's "alien"/"foreign"/"external"/etc, but it's not artificial.
"It's genuine to me"? Do you mean that I accept it's being genuine?
It's alien/foreign/new to my body, but it is a genuine replacement, and it was produced naturally.
You still haven't decided, do you mean artificial in absolute sense or only relative. You mix them all the time. You just switched relative meaning to absolute, and you get that bone was produced naturally. Who cares? Alien/foreign does not describe that it mimics and replaces your genuine bone. That what the word artificial is used for.
If you take artificial in relative sense, then you have immediately problem, where to draw the line. Think about it. I'm not saying that I must be right, I'm merely saying that you 'could' look at it that way. Thats more than dictionary allows.
If your body grows a bone, 'do you mean that you accept it's being genuine'? If you invent something new, it IS genuine. Its just not new to everyone. If I install forcibly belief in you, its not just alien/foreign, if you accept it and start using in reasoning, you've been programmed, some thoughts cloned.
Its just that you can view relations between closed systems in terms of genuine vs artificial. Its not conventional, and maybe mad, but that's one way.
Take Nature as closed system, take human as standing out of it, and after awhile putting a robot into Nature. Its artificial, to whom? So, what is teachings of parents to a baby? Artificial experience. You don't like that usage of word? Don't use it. How do I draw the line? I told that earlier. When two closed systems interact, they change each other. To reshape other system, you need to first overcome its strength, destroy old order and impress the new one. That makes heat, entropy. But when one system forms internally new order from excess heat, its selfinteraction, it consumes heat. This is the distinction. And of course, afterall, everything in nature is .. natural.
This is not true at all. Simple example: Chess engines. A computer with a chess engine, can be confronted with a variation that was never programmed into it (as not all variations can be programmed into it, that's impossible), and it will respond.
You object invain. Its not variations, no one cares about them. Its conditions, methodologies, algoritms. Formulas, not values. Chess engines have been 100% defined. Its too simple game. For computer, all is defined when you describe rules of game and it has unambigous non-contradictionary perception of it. If other player makes false move, and it wasn't defined as false, computer would get lost. If rules of game were contradicitonary, it would be unable to resolve many situations. Imagine opponent making partial moves, 1/3 of one and 2/3 of other piece. If that's not defined as legal move, computer will stop/ignore. Its simple to define all chess rules, and comp will never fail. But it'll be amazingly dumb chessplayer. To go beyond that, you need to teach it truly 'think', and that's the tough one.
Intelligence is more than being able to react to black&white scenarios. In chess, there may be thousands of paths that seem all equal. Human will never think them all through, he will have intuition, 'tunnel vision'. Computer has only 1 option - try all through and while at that assign cost/benefit values for later decision. How it weighs values is defined 100% by algoritm, preprogrammed and 100% defined to avoid failure upon hitting unaccounted situation. Human decides without having even idea of cost/benefit, he may switch algoritms on the fly, create a new one, etc. Computer chess can never byitself create a new algoritm. It all must be preprogrammed.
Chess-engine has only one thing: capacity to play chess. It has no capacity to think.
To create an algoritm, intelligence of the creator must be higher than intelligence of an algoritm. Notice the contradiction. How on Earth does intelligence in human brain develop is mystery. It does impossible - monkey mind writes physics textbooks, monkey creates einsteins.
Yes, "training of existing program". How's that different from what we do to man-made computers?
The computer within my skull has been faced with quite a few paradoxes, and I'm still alive. If I see that they can't be resolved, then I call their irresolvability a resolution. (Paradox applied to paradox, in case you didn't notice.)
We don't train computers, we define them. They have no room for error, and that means no room for selfintelligence. Your skull is not finished yet, it develops, creates its own program. That will stop somewhere in your life, and after that you'd be 'old school' guy.
When humans have children, the children are endowed with a complex (genetic) program, which the children then expand on for the rest of their lives. How is this different from a man-made computer (setting aside the fact that a child's genetic programming is much more complex than a man-made computer's).
Children are endowed with BIOS only. The rest gets created by them. They have capacity to reprogram themselves, and not only logically, but also physically redesign the 'computer'. DNA has only very small amount of 'functions' needed to sustain the body. Intelligence gets birth inside brain, with only partial help from outside. The quality of stuff that comes from outside, pretty much shapes the limits of a brain. There is a reason for saying 'food for mind'.
What kind of sense does that make? If they are more complex, then they are not as "dumb" as they used to be.
ok, imagine small heap of sand. simple. Imagine huge mountain. Magnitudes more sand, much more complex. Is the mountain 'smarter'? Ok, let's build laserguided, electronically controlled, programmable, infrared-sensitive ... mousetrap. Its more complex, is it smarter? Can it 'think'?
Humans call it art. Attaching label to it doesn't make it any simpler. You think its program that's more complex, but problem is that humans are uncapable to grasp even startingpoint for such program, not just writing it. Problem is in thinking, not doing it.