Lest we forget the “software” architecture, an architecture of protocols and referencing instructions for sorting and storing data systems. IMO, that is the place to look for the secret of the greatest efficiency in “selective symbolic thought processing” (intuitive thinking).
In a sense we do this as parents with children. They sort and file data and symbolic reactions to their environment and public situations. It takes a decade for this system to fully develop and even then a ten year old child has still a lot to learn.
IMO once we know how to develop a thought program which simulates “experiences”, the AI will take care of the rest.
Lest we forget the “software” architecture, an architecture of protocols and referencing instructions for sorting and storing data systems. IMO, that is the place to look for the secret of the greatest efficiency in “selective symbolic thought processing” (intuitive thinking).
The things you mention are not architecture; they are algorithms. Software architecture is better represented by pipes and filters, levels of abstraction and patterns, strong cohesion and loose coupling, interfaces, and the oft forgotten documentation.
Observing and recording the elctromagnetic spectrum of an event is a form of “vision”, humans can’t even see the star let alone it’s planet and its basic properties. i.e. size, mass, distance.
Many animals and insects see different spectrums than humans. The great advantage of a computer is that it can perform and emulate every possible form of vision by any other animal.
Lest we forget the “software” architecture, an architecture of protocols and referencing instructions for sorting and storing data systems. IMO, that is the place to look for the secret of the greatest efficiency in “selective symbolic thought processing” (intuitive thinking).
The things you mention are not architecture; they are algorithms. Software architecture is better represented by pipes and filters, levels of abstraction and patterns, strong cohesion and loose coupling, interfaces, and the oft forgotten documentation.
Ok, actually that is what I meant with my confusing posit…...
Lest we forget the “software” architecture, an architecture of protocols and referencing instructions for sorting and storing data systems. IMO, that is the place to look for the secret of the greatest efficiency in “selective symbolic thought processing” (intuitive thinking).
The things you mention are not architecture; they are algorithms. Software architecture is better represented by pipes and filters, levels of abstraction and patterns, strong cohesion and loose coupling, interfaces, and the oft forgotten documentation.
Ok, actually that is what I meant with my confusing posit…...
Observing and recording the elctromagnetic spectrum of an event is a form of “vision”, humans can’t even see the star let alone it’s planet and its basic properties. i.e. size, mass, distance.
Many animals and insects see different spectrums than humans. The great advantage of a computer is that it can perform and emulate every possible form of vision by any other animal.
Oh, well “computer vision” usually means processing an image/video feed to identify objects/faces and stuff like that.
Observing and recording the elctromagnetic spectrum of an event is a form of “vision”, humans can’t even see the star let alone it’s planet and its basic properties. i.e. size, mass, distance.
Many animals and insects see different spectrums than humans. The great advantage of a computer is that it can perform and emulate every possible form of vision by any other animal.
Oh, well “computer vision” usually means processing an image/video feed to identify objects/faces and stuff like that.
Precisely, it can do that and all the other stuff as well.
No, Deep Blue cannot do those things. How does that support your argument that computers are fundamentally different from brains? Computers do lots of things in real time, like fly aircraft, which it needs to be able to “see” to do. My XBox with Kinect can “hear” and “see” me (in 3 dimensions), process and respond to vocal commands in real time, process and respond to gestural commands in real time, and move its camera up and down. It just can’t taste, which it really has no reason to do since it doesn’t need to eat. Netflix on my XBox “thinks” in the sense that it offers up movies to me that I might like, based on my viewing history. That’s very thoughtful
That is because they are machines designed by humans to do specific tasks. OTOH, humans are not designed by humans or any entity and therefore cannot be conceived as machines in that sense.
Specifically, let’s analyze what is meant by the phrase/expression “biological machine”. Firstly, what is a machine?
A machine manages power to accomplish a task, examples include, a mechanical system, a computing system, an electronic system, a molecular machine and a biological machine.
If you click on the link biological machine in the article, it takes you to the article on organism instead. Why is there no article on biological machine? Nowhere in the articles on machine or organism does it specifically state that humans or human brains are biological machines. Why not?
From the same wiki on machine, the meaning of machine:
The meaning of machine is traced by the Oxford English Dictionary to an independently functioning structure and by Merriam-Webster Dictionary to something that has been constructed. This includes human design into the meaning of machine.
Since humans and human brains are not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that they are not machines and cannot be conceived/characterized as such. In other words, they are biological organisms and that is all there is to it.
Hence, the phrase/expression “biological machine” is a contradiction in terms because what is biological cannot a machine and vice versa.
OTOH, to ascribe machinelike properties to them is tantamount to admitting a supernatural designer/creator which is creationism or intelligent design. This is akin to religion.
A machine is a complex physical object designed to perform some task or tasks. A brain is a complex physical object, designed by natural selection to perform all kinds of tasks.
A machine is a complex physical object designed to perform some task or tasks. A brain is a complex physical object, designed by natural selection to perform all kinds of tasks.
Who or what is the designer and its implications are crucial.
In the case of a machine, the designer is human. It is the product of human intelligent design.
OTOH, if biological evolution via natural selection designed brains, can biological evolution or natural selection be conceived as a designer?
If it can be so conceived, is it in the anthropomorphic sense of a designer?
If it is so, the issue of intelligent design arises.
If it is not so, then there is no designer at all.
Without a designer, can a brain be conceived as a machine at all (if a machine is a complex physical object designed to perform some task or tasks) even though at the molecular level, the micro components of the brain exhibit machinelike behavior? Also, does it follow, by extension, that the micro components of the brain entail the brain (as a whole) is a machine?
For instance, physics describe the behavior of micro and macro objects in the universe with great accuracy as machinelike, so by extension, is the universe a machine?
Thus, from the perspective of biology, the brain is better conceived as a biological organism, not as a biological machine.
That is why wikipedia has no article on biological machine.
wiki is a lot like the bible. You can often find bits of data to fit any argument. And like the bible, it includes fiction.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but generally, the serious articles are well written and it is definitely not like the bible.
BTW, from the report on the title of this post at the BBC
On whether eventually, machine consciousness is possible:
However, Dr Mark Bishop, professor of cognitive computing at Goldsmiths, was more cautious.
“[I] understand cognition to be something over and above a process simulated by the execution of mere computations, [and] see such claims as verging on the magical,” he said.
wiki is a lot like the bible. You can often find bits of data to fit any argument. And like the bible, it includes fiction.
Wikipedia is not perfect, but generally, the serious articles are well written and it is definitely not like the bible.
Well, I do have to admit that it has improved over the years. It was not a very good resource in the beginning but it has matured. In that way, kkwan you are right, it is nothing like the bible.
