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

Not Artificial

  1. No, I agree with Mentat

    4 vote(s)
  2. No, but for different reasons than Mentat's

    6 vote(s)
  3. Yes, because...

    5 vote(s)
  1. Apr 17, 2003 #1
    As many of you know, I object to the reference of all intelligence, other than that of organic beings, as being "artificial". That is the point of this thread. Here are the definitions of the key-words, "intelligence" and "artifical":

    I have not included all definitions of "artificial" because I only object to the application of this (the quoted) one.

    It seems as though many (maybe most) people believe that the intelligence of a man-made computer is "artificial", or not genuine. I disagree. I think that a man-made computer can ("can" is a key-word, as my argument has nothing to do with the current limits of technology) posses all of the qualities listed in the above definition of "intelligence", and that there is nothing ingenuine about it.

    What is your opinion (please give the reason for choosing as you do)?
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 17, 2003 #2
    Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.
  4. Apr 17, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    It depends on the meaning of artificial you use. If you imply that non-organic intelligent must inherently be different from organic ones, even inferior, I disagree. But it's pretty clear that computerised AIs as we now construct them are "man made" and hence in that way artificial. It may be different for the products of evolutionary programming though...

    Is there a word for "self made"?
  5. Apr 17, 2003 #4

    I agree with heusdens.

    Mentat, I believe you are arguing on behalf of intellegence "itself"?
    So, if I may interpose, "can" (as you said is the key word on your arguement) is verb that requires a will, that is, a certain extent of freewill in, if not all (which I doubt), some cases. So how can a computer have free will? Free will is not only a neurological senstion, but is more of a psychological sensation which, either way, involves chemical reactions. I honestly don't how a computer "can". I know "can" can be used as "Can the computer occupy an '03 program?", but my argument of "can" is based on the context of "Can the compter expand its hard drive?" or something of that sort; IOW, "can" in the context of a will. Before I can establish a definte conviction on this point, I should like Mentat to explain the way he is using "can" in his argument.
  6. Apr 18, 2003 #5
    i support that the computer is artificial
    becuase the computer is create by a human
    if our world no human being ...
    than no computer at all
  7. Apr 18, 2003 #6
    Ok, this ones for alexander. An organic entity is a chemical reaction which functions according to it's functions which have been built over time via natural selection. These functions allow awareness via sensory input. There is nothing abstract about it. These inputs are stored and processed according to the needs of other functions. Thinking is done in accordance with the accomplishing of these functions according to highest order Mos Lowwww in a phisological frame of reference. No Carp here.

    A computer accomplishs a second functions according to the limitations of it's hardware and preset functions. It's abilty to learn is programmed like us. Even if a program written to learn is written it can learn only to the limit of those predefined functions outward. It will not be able to reason new formulas which have not been preprogrammed with a higher order than has been programmed. A human being can only because the matrix for a human being is far more complex than any computer that can ever be built.

    A computer may be able to perform limited sets(Chess) and actually outperform human beings as long as it plots deep enough to a degree, this is a limited set of logic performed outward.

    Today you are all Zombies. And judging from your posts on both forums I witnessed that some of you like to play both ends against the middle when it is convienient.

    This means human beings are "not concious" and should remove all references to this other than to establish a reframe of reference for a reboot of your human PC with electrical activity. When that activity stops you are dead - same as a computer. Sorry you are no better than ants here.


    Your other option is the universe is concious behind and throughout the entire infinite creation. These are your only two options. You have no other choices. Sorry you are not better than ants here.

    Oh yea the fish thing is a is a subconsious representation of my unexpressed conciousness in the chemical machine or it is that and a little more. Who among you is brave? Who can stand up against reality itself? Do you think you can bear the weight of the question?

    No settlers allowed - don't waste my time fish.
  8. Apr 18, 2003 #7
    Yes, in the sense of "artificial"'s meaning "man-made". However, the definition that I argue against, is that of not being genuine, or being "fake".
  9. Apr 18, 2003 #8
    Well, I tried to make sure (in my first post) that people knew that I was refering only to the defining of a "man-made" computer's intelligence as non-genuine. That's the kind of "artificial" I meant.

    I know that they are man-made, and thus "artificial", but I don't think that their intelligence is - in anyway - less genuine than ours.
  10. Apr 18, 2003 #9
    Ok, that's a reasonable request. When I say "can" I don't imply free will, or even will, of any kind. When I say "can", I say it in the sense of having the potential to do something. A sub-atomic*can* decay - this doesn't mean that it has a "will" of any kind, it just has the potential to do so.
  11. Apr 18, 2003 #10
    Yes, the computer is man-made. However, I am not talking about that definition of "artificial". I am talking about whether or not a computer's intelligence is genuine. One definition of "artificial" is "not genuine" - and many people apply this definition to man-made computers. Is this your view?
  12. Apr 18, 2003 #11
    I agree a computers intellegence is no less legitament than our own.if we are created by God and God Is doing everything,then one would have to accept that if a AI was brought online,God would be in charge of the AI's consciousness,the the AI or to us consciouns would be the same,because God gives us our consciouness,so what's the difference.
  13. Apr 18, 2003 #12
    No one needs to stand up against reality. People are real, aren't they? If people are real, then they must stand up against themselves, in order to stand up against reality.
  14. Apr 18, 2003 #13
    i don't think the computer is genuine
    if in the future
    the human can make a "life" for a computer
    that time i think human is become the god already
  15. Apr 18, 2003 #14
    What makes you think that a man-made computer isn't alive? A human is alive, and we're computers.
  16. Apr 18, 2003 #15
    and i ask back from you
    what proof show human is a computer??
    how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?
  17. Apr 18, 2003 #16
    i'm also don't believe that the human enable create a computer
    which have a same intelligence with human....
    just like a god....
    can god create the other new god? or just enable to create the human
  18. Apr 18, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    Ask your local neurologist.
    And ask yourself this: What happens when we are born, when we grow a brain? Isn't consciousness created then by man?

    Why not? Is it a technical reason or a philosophical one?

    That's theology but why not? God is supposedly omnipotent.
  19. Apr 18, 2003 #18
    you omnipotent can create the other omnipotent...
    it just like the god give u 3 wish
    then u say the 1st wish is want another the other 3 wish
    the second wish is want another 10 wish.....
    then this is no end....
    u think it's possible
    i don't think so
  20. Apr 18, 2003 #19
    u just always say why not
    u never give any scientific proof
    there is no any phonomenon show me that can happen
    so i don't believe
  21. Apr 18, 2003 #20
    We are essentially [basically] computers. Computers posess a basic anatomy of our own human brain. The mind and brain are two different references. The mind is supposedly unexplained (that is, it does not hhave an "absolute" definition) but Mentat will do an excellent job explaining this. I will just say that the brain is an organ of the mind.
    This is the definition of a computer:

    Humans posess these characteristics; excluding the high speed calculations when compared to an industrial computer.

    Humans are much more complicated than industrial computers are. This explains for creativity and feelings. Our physcological reactions and stuff is all a result of chemical reactions that are effected by the perceptions of our senses. We cannot, yet, replicate this in an industrial computer. Note that I said "industrial" when I refer to computers. This is supposed to help you identify which sort of computer I am refering to; the industrial kind.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook