Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Not Artifical Part II

  1. May 13, 2003 #1
    Mentat's original post "not artifical" brought me to some info that poured out as I was typing it, so I thought I'd post it here because it revives his post and will open up some new information regarding his original post.

    Here is his original post:

    Next I will post my reply, which was not my first.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2003 #2
    I replied

  4. May 13, 2003 #3
    Artifical - Resulting from non-organic processes. Made in imitation of something natural. Let's work on this definition some more.

    Natural - Resulting from and consisting of earthly organic molecules.

    Computer - A machine which processes numerical data. ONLY does that, however machine can be removed from definition if needed.

    Intelligence - (only easy to define in terms of non-human
    intelligence in this discussion). Ability to use information to create new information.

    Man-made - Perhaps impossible to define! for this argument let's suffice to say a computer is man made. This in no way makes it artificial.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2003
  5. May 13, 2003 #4
    So, a natural thing must be organic? The metals are not natural?

    No, "machine" need not be removed, as it fits perfectly well with the idea that human brains are computers. Humans bodies are machines, which house the most complex computer (known to man), the brain.
  6. May 13, 2003 #5
    Ahh, but brains do more than process numerical data. Thus they are NOT computers.

    That was the point of my definition.

    That definition of a computer is so common I've never heard another, what is yours and I'll see what I think but I believe that's the proper one.

    PS: my definition for natural is flawed, as you have pointed out. Let me get back to you with a better one.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2003
  7. May 13, 2003 #6
    Says who? If (in the future) humankind produces AI, that "computer" will be able to be creative, and emotional, and all of the other things that humans are. Will that make it any less a "computer"?

    Well, my problem with it is when you add the postulate that that's all it does. I disagree, as all process of the brain are produced by the same electrochemical reactions, and are thus related in nature, are they not?

    Good man. I really (honestly) admire that you can admit a flaw in something you said. It's more than can be said for some of the other members.
  8. May 13, 2003 #7

    Is the intelligence of a man-made computer artifical?

    Defining terms (by LA)

    Intelligence - The ability to use existing information to create new and unique information.

    Man-Made - for our discussion we will assume the human brain is NOT man-made and that a computer IS.

    Computer - an object which can only process numerical data.

    Natural - Consisting only of existing elements occuring in nature.

    NonOrganic - Natural mass which are not considered organic molecules.

    Organic - Natural mass which contains only molecules considered organic
  9. May 13, 2003 #8
    Problems I have:

    1. Be my definitions, which I feel are pretty well-considered, a computer cannot possibly have intelligence in the first place.

    2. Since we are speaking of a computer that DOES have intelligence (by my definition) let us call such an object an INTELLIGENT MASS.

    THus a brain and such a object mentat is describing are both INGELLIGENT MASSES.

    SO the question :

    Is the intelligence of a man-made computer artifical?


    How can we speak of differences between the brain INTELLIGENT MASS and an INTELLIGENT MASS that was designed by humans?

    This should make it better.
  10. May 13, 2003 #9
    Mentat - I am enjoying this, so thus far let me know anything we need to agree on from here, and then we will speak of the reformed question.


    I think the problem is mostly going to be in the word ARTIFICAL.

    It doesn't really apply well to the higher level of discussion we're speaking of.

    We have something to say of intelligence, of man-made, and of such an object that exhibits intelligence. But the differences between the brain and MENTATS MASS as we can now call it, heh I bet you like that, are difficult

    Difference 1: The brain is electrochemical. I would presume that MENTATS MASS would be purely electrical. Although it could be both, it seems the electricty could acheive what the brain does, as the brain uses chemicals only between nerves, and no such gap would exist logically.

    So we're comparing an electrochemical MASS with a electrical MASS.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2003
  11. May 15, 2003 #10
    To be perfectly clear, the question is: "is the intelligence of a man-made computer genuine or not?"

    That's creativity. Intelligence is just the ability to process new knowledge (dictionary definition).


    That defies the very name of the machine: "computer". A "computer" is something that "computes".

    Don't metals occur in nature? As a matter of fact, all elements occur in Nature.
  12. May 15, 2003 #11
    Exactly, because your definitions were designed that way.

    Fine, let's discuss that (btw, you can explain in one post, you have plenty of room).
  13. May 15, 2003 #12
    That's good, I hope you enjoy debating your points as well.

    So why did you say that this was a "difference"?

    What's wrong with that? You said yourself, "it seems the electricity could acheive what the brain does...".
  14. May 15, 2003 #13
    I was awaiting your return. I'll type this out rather than do all these quoting things:

    1. Ok, if we say intelligence can be genuine or artificial, then the goal is to figure out which it is.

    2. Mentat said: "Intelligence is just the ability to process new knowledge (dictionary definition)."

    My dictionary says to process AND apply knowledge. The apply is important. My calculator can process information (add two numbers) but it cannot apply it's data.

    3. You've opened up a new definition: process, so please define!

    4. I don't understand what you are saying about my definition of COMPUTER. to COMPUTER is to process numberical data, is it not?

    REFORMED question: Is the intelligence of a man-made computer genuine or artificial?

    My largest problem is COMPUTER. All my sources say a computer is something that computes, and to compute is to process numerical data. By this, a computer couldn't have intelligence, because intelligence requires an application of knowledge, not just a processing of it.

    My suggestion is that we replace computer with MENTAT'S MASS - being a machine that can not only process data but can produce new and unique data based on previous data. the M MASS is also man-made, so we can combine terms and shorten the question:

    Is the intelligence of Mentat's Mass genuine, or artificial?

    Now we need to come to terms on INTELLIGENCE, GENUINE, and ARTIFICAL.

    Here are my definitions of these, let's work on these three first:

    Intelligence - the specific ability to create new and unique information from previous information (practically put, a machine can produce data that is not in its memory).

    Genuine and artificial - No idea what me, you or anyone really means of these terms. You go first on these two
  15. May 15, 2003 #14
    I don't have a problem with comparing an electrochemical and electrical objects, just wanted to point it out.
  16. May 15, 2003 #15
    That's an interesting point. I was trying to show that intelligence couldn't actuallly be artificial, but I suppose this is an equally meritable question.

    Actually it can. You see, to process information = to take in knowledge; while to apply knowledge = to do something with that knowledge (like making connections, as does your calculator).

    (See above).

    No. To compute is to "reckon" or "calculate". To "calculate" (according to Merriam-Webster) is to:

    Yes, this is closer to my original question.

    Merriam-Webster Dictionary (the first dictionary on my "search") gave the definitions that I mentioned above.

    This is an equally meritable question, but please take note of the aforementioned definition of "computer".

    I don't agree that that's what "intelligence" is. Intelligence is just processing data.

    For the purpose of this discussion, "artificial" means "not genuine".

    "Genuine" means:

  17. May 15, 2003 #16
    Ok, further work on intelligence needs to be done.

    Let me explain why I use my definition.

    To use previously processed (and stored) information to produce NEW information.

    My calculator cannot produce NEW information. It has a program in it that tells it what every two numbers are, when added and subtracted (note multiplying and dividing are merely advanced additions and subtractions).

    All my calculator can do is, then, add and subtract. I will NEVER EVER produce information to me that isn't already in it the moment it's finished being made.

    Can we agree on that?

    I call that processing information. Likewise, if we move that into humans. Mentat's whats your hair color? Your answer is merely processing information (retrieving your hair color, which takes alot of detailed processes I won't go in to) and telling me.

    Hard to think of an example of what intelligence IS. Let's try this

    If I asked you my hair color, when we met, that might work. Because, you would see my hair, and have to compare what you see with previously processed data (what your brain knows of colors). For exmaple, if I met you in the dark of night, you would have to think, hmm, what might this look like in normal light, do I think it's black or just dark brown? Is the lighter parts (from slits of a light beam hitting my head) the more accurate color, or the dark parts?

    You'd be using data. You've seen someones hair in normal light, and know what that looks like in dark light, thus you could reverse this porocess.

    It's crude, but somewhere there appears to me to be SOMETHING MORE than merely what I put above it.
  18. May 16, 2003 #17
    I'm cool with that.

    Sure, I agree with that. I would, of course, explain that by saying that 1) your calculator is not supposed to be intelligent; and 2) if it's original programming were more complex, it would be able to attain to actual (if a little primitive) intelligence.

    Yeah, that requires intelligence - both to understand your question, and to give an answer, based on my knowledge.

    You are describing imagination/creativity in this last part. Also, a calculator cannot take in new information (which is why I said that it wasn't intended to be intelligent), but I can - and when I take in the new information relating to your hair color, I then draw on what I already know, and come to a conclusion.
  19. May 16, 2003 #18
    " I then draw on what I already know, and come to a conclusion."

    Exactly, and that's the difference.

    When I type in 9 times 9 in my calculator, it doesn DRAW ON what it knows to give me the answer. It simply displayed the answer it's programmed to give.

    You on other hand hand, do not already have the answer. You look at your memory and give an answer. If you already had the answer, you could not possible be incorrect, you see?

    I calculator cannot be incorrect (assuming it's programmed answers are correct). You however can be wrong, because you're making an ASSERTION on top of your memorized knowledge, that's intelligence, ability to make that assertion.

    You're refering to creativty, nearly what I call intelligence. Creativity doesn't exist to me.

    Intelligence is making an assertion based on data, not simply accessing data you already have. thus it's NEW information.

    For instance let's turn to deep blue again. Unlikes those cheap kmart chess teachers, deep blue is not programmed with every move for every situation that's best, and does not simply choose the one move it's programmed to make based on the position of EVERYPIECE on the board.

    Instead deep blue makes an assertion based on informaton. It can be incorrect, and it has been, because it's been beat.

    Does this clear anything up?
  20. May 16, 2003 #19
    You are missing the fact that a calculator was not programmed to be intelligent. I was. This means that I am capable of taking in a new piece of knowledge. A calculator cannot do that. So, if you add this bit of reasoning (the taking in of new bits of knowledge) to your understanding, you are probably right (or, at least, I'll probably agree with you).

    That's what all uncreative people say .

    Yes, you are correct, and that means that the only reason a calculator isn't intelligent is that it is incapable of ever taking in a new piece of knowledge.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook