Jeremy said:


--->HOW DOES SHE FEEL ABOUT YOU? ? ?

And, please, don't give me IF-THEN-ELSE...

Thanx, ArtGurl, I just got tired of this unending argument over essentially the same thing... The point is:

FREE WILL IS A RELATIVE MATTER! ! !

* * * THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTELY FREE WILL * * *

______A WILL IS FREE ONLY TO A CERTAIN EXTEND______

There are already computers what will answer that question.

This again goes to the root of the problem how do we compare a computer to us when we only know how computers think.

We must know how we think before we can say that when an android says its happy to see you it means less or more then you do when you say that to me as I walk in the room.

Its far to early in brain research to make such assumptions, that is the core of my argument that to say one knows that people are special in there feelings, when you do not know how you actually form these feelings, is premature.

The same information measured with the same reasoning will give the same results...

Yes so now we must gather the details of measurement in each environment. This is being done but the brain in not an easy thing to break down into components. Then there is that nasty problem of ethics.

Hi Mirror!

Actually that is the 'new age' (light against dark) philosophy where the good vs evil battle rages on. In truth, service to self and service to others on the higher levels is the same thing as all are connected and all are THE SELF.

But we live in the lower worlds of duality and opposites where light and dark, good and evil aspects of THE SELF are apparent and in a constant battle for balance.

According to The Leading Edge International Research Group (Val Valarian)it is the incarnation path of the reptilian consciousness that is limited to the lower density worlds. The only way for them to advance to the higher densities is by jumping incarnation paths from reptilian to human. Humans incarnate simultaneously while reptilian consciousness incarnate sequentially. If interested, you can read more at their website: http://www.trufax.org/

Thanks JB. I will check it out

Jeremy said:



Are you serious?

"cannot ever..." gives you an open ended "it could happen in the future.." scenario.

Lets talk about NOW.

There are many problems NOW that cannot be solved by a computer but can be solved by a person.

Your challenge rests on possible future events imagining what a computer 'might' be able to do in the future.

The future does not exist.

"..nasty probelm of ethics?"

You sound just like a reptilian overlord.

Since every individual is unique "the same reasoning" does not exist, except perhaps in an identical computer program.

My X-husband was a chess player. Pretty good bridge player too. (A life master.) He was thrilled to discover a computerized chess game and he bought it. It had ten levels of skill. It would consistently beat me at level one, and I only won one game at that level. I could never win at level two.

But my husband consistently won at level ten until the chess machine malfunctioned.

He traded it in for a new one. He consistently won at level ten with the new machine also until it malfunctioned and quit working.

He traded that one in also. Same thing happened with the third machine.

The machine was programed to lose the game by making a suicidal or fatal move when it could not win. When my husband consistently won at level ten, the machine permanently malfunctioned and would not play any more games.

The chess programs may have gotten better by now. But I realized that playing chess with my husband for me was an exercise in futility. He was too good.

That is fascinating. Well I find chess players fascinating. Did your ex husband ever compete. World Championship is a big thing in chess!

He did not compete in chess, but he did in Bridge. He was a professional bridge player and people would hire him as a partner in money games. When we were married, he was a systems analyst. He helped design the computer sytstems for City Bank of Chili.

Comparing problem solving between computers and humans, I said this...



Then this response was given...



False...

Ridiculous, in fact!

The comment was, in context, talking about the deeper concept of problem solving. Problem solving requires information to be considered and reasoning to do such a thing. If the same information is considered using the same reasoning methods - regardless if they are programmed into a computer by a person or directly learned by a person - then the conclusions are the same.

That reasoning has the same source.

So then, your *except* portion of the response is all that is relevent to the conversation at hand between Jeremy and I. Individuality is not being held in consideration and has no bearing on this matter. The relevence lies in the fact that a program written by a clever human to reason out problems can do so using the same reasoning as the programmer.

If a human can figure it out, then a human(perhaps the same) can program a computer to figure it out as well.

I believe that that is the consideration being held in thought.

Very cool! Sorry it didn't work out with the marriage. I hope at least you are both still friends though.

Sorry Creative for being off topic.

And now back to the daily program.

Oh don't forget to pass the mash potatoes.

No apologies necessary smiless...

You are, by far, one of my favorite people on this site!

I don't believe it. I don't believe the statement. In theory, it might make sense, but that is just a theory. In actuality I don't think that would or could happen. In some imaginary fantasy world perhaps.



I don't believe that either. Computers don't think like humans and no human that I know of has ever programed a computer to think like a human.

Also, a human who might know how to solve a particular problem might not know how to write a computer program to do the same... even if he or she was a programmer. Such a human may find it impossible to know his own mind and his own reasoning process that intimately.

In actual reality, I don't think your statement is possible.

My X-husband, a systems analyst and programmer wrote a program to win a numbers contest. He used a half million dollar computer to work on the problem to come up with the answers. There were too many variables and it took this computer days, even weeks sometimes to come up with a possible answer. He would submit the answers and still never win the contest.

Who won? I asked him.

The winner was some housewife in Minnesota or somewhere.

Why? I asked him. "You are a computer programmer with a high I-Q and a half million dollar computer at your disposal and you can't win over a house wife in Minnesota?

He just said, "The human mind is much more capable of solving problems than a computer. It knows how to prioritize and improvise. A computer has to look at every variable no matter how meaningless and trivial.

"Perhaps it was just not a good enough program."

He agreed.

It is not as simple as you guys try to make it sound.

And PARDON ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MY OPINION.

I could imagine it is not easy! What it is worth, these threads give us the possiblity to see different idealogies that is for sure. If only I could understand half of them.


Go Minnesota housewife!

I don't think so.

Do you truly think that a programmer can write a program that mirrors his very own reasoning skills? Perhaps in solving a simple strait forward well defined problem, this might work, but in a very limited and specific way.

But it is not realistic to think that any computer can be programed to reason like a human or that this could happen in our current time and technology. But if you want to imagine a technology that does not yet exist, far into the future then go ahead. That's just fantasy anyway.