I know you are a person. Yes, by your writing alone.

And That is NOT the way Jeremy worded that question.

Your question above is totally different than what Jeremy put forth.

A computer can do nothing without a human to program it.

That seems trite, in all honesty...

Remove the terms 'cannot ever'...

Can you answer the question?

I cant'.

Yes.

How is it done?

Don't ask me, I didn't create the universe.

Actually I think Jeanniebean has a better handle on precisely how the processes of desire and intent come together to manifest the desired results.

All I know is that they work.

Also, keep in mind that I never said that I didn't use thought at all.

I was directly responding to Michael's words just as he had posted them:



My point is that I often solve problems without using analytical thought which is what Michael appears to be obcessed with.

I don't always think like that. On the contrary, I've learned to think far more freely than via the restrictions of strict analytical thinking. I've found this to be far more productive, as well as liberating.

In fact, this isn't unique to humans. Even researchers of quantum computing have found that the quantum world can provide this kind of almost 'magical' instantaneous non-analtyical processing that would simply not be available in a Newtonian world.

They have already used quantum computing techniques to perform calculations that would be impossible in a lineral Newtonian world. The calculations are not being done via 'weighing information' or via 'reason' (i.e. programmed logic code), but rather they are being done within the realm of the quantum field that is unaccessible to us. They are being done "behind" the quantum curtian of complementarity.

Actually it's a fascinating field. I highly recommend it to anyone who is young enough to get started in that sort of thing.

How is it done? I have no clue, and I don't think the people who are working on quantum computers know how it's done either. All they know is that it works.

Check out the Teaching Company Course on Quantum Mechanics. The instructor is actually an expert in quantum information and computing so that's his baby. Unfortunately he only touches on this topic near the end of the course. He basically just says that it's both possible, and has been done. He doesn't explain precisely how they go about doing it.

I imagine this is the same process our own minds use.

Gee, come to think of it I guess that I've grown to actually tap into the quantum capabilities of my own brain.

Far out.

I never really thought of it like that before.

But really, if you want to learn how to tap into the cosmic computer start watching Deepak Chopra's lectures if you're truly interested. And just watch them over and over again until it finally starts to make sense. The first time through you'll probably just say, "Oh this is total B.S."

But clearly if you're thinking like that then you didn't truly understand what he was saying. The more you listen to him the more you begin to understand that what he's saying is true.

Trite?

Not trite at all. It literally changes the entire statement.
I am not going to remove any words from Jeremy's statement and change their meaning. That is up to him to clarify.

The answer to your revised question is simple.

YES.

Wrong. (Well that depends on what you are referring to as 'thought')

Most problems are solved with creativity.

Computers cannot generate creative thought. They are limited by programs which were created by humans using creative thought.

A computer is not creative. Even if it has been programed to appear creative, it is not creative.

Computers don't THINK CREATIVELY. So far, they only run programs.

wux...

Excellent additions...

Throughout the philosophy forum witness Hume's guillotine in practice.

Hume is awesome! Indeed.




To the rest of most of the last few pages...

Logic is innate to all thinking creatures, including yourself. Whether you accept it or reject it, does not matter. It is beyond reprehensible to attempt to claim that one can perform a thinking task without thinking...

Whatever one chooses to believe.

Duck and dodge, dip and sway...

Wallow.

Truly.

You nailed it right there without even getting into the depths of the philosophical jungle.

Creativity is what solves 'real' problems.

The kind of problems that computers are good at solving are textbook problems, like for engineering etc. Those are the same kinds of problems that are given to students as homework.

Only computers are given far more complex ones, but they are still the same type of problems. Just following the yellow-brick algorithm.

Computers are never used for 'innovation' which are the REAL problems of life.

A computerized baby-sitter wouldn't last very long before it was fired for child abuse.

A computer can't even begin to tackle the problems that humans deal with on a daily and often hourly basis.

Humans need to be creative, not just weigh information and shove it through a known algorithm of 'reason'.

In fact, some people aren't very reaonsble so they end up solving their problems without even using reason.

How many people have whacked their TV set or some other appliance when it was acting up and it started working properly again.

That was based on 'reason'? I don't THINK SO!

Now I don't understand the meaning of this post at all.

I did not say I did not use logic. I don't even know who you are talking to because you certainly are not addressing my points.

A computer cannot solve problems like a human because a computer is not capable of independent creative thought. It only follows programs.

Well, like Jeanniebean points out. It all depends on how you define thought and thinking.

You keep talking about thought like as if humans are vulcan and can only think in terms of logic. Most people know that's a load of crap.

You seem to denounce intuition or anything outside of logical analysis.

We just disagree with your limitations of what constitutes thought.

From my perspective thought includes intuition, spontaneous creativity, and the abilty to come up with brand new fresh ideas that are clearly not based on previous knowledge or experience.

You're demanding all of this and demanding that all thought is based on previous knowledge, and/or experience, or some combination of this and that analytical thinking is the only kind of 'awareness' that qualifies as 'thought'.

We simply disagree with that hard core approach to the human mind.

It's as simple as that.

Argue your case until your blue in the face. It's all based on totally unsupportable idealism. You can't explain spontaneous creativity using your model.

And we know that creativity exists.

JB...

You attempted to refute a true claim that applies to all cases of human problem solving without giving any logical grounds. Here is what needs to happen...

Define creative thought.

Explain how that definition refutes this statement...



Creative thought is not outside of this.

Until then, this conversation is closed to me, because it seems like illogical hogwash, and you have shown nothing of substance which warrants a belief that creative thought is outside of this construct. Duck and dodge, dip and sway...

Wallow.

Got substance?

Evidently you do not know the difference between idealism and what I think.

Do you even know what your talking about?

You have no idea what my 'model' is or if I even have one, let alone whether or not it would accurately entail creative thinking. So then, your presupposition is just that...

Empty and meaningless.

Your logic is severely flawed - riddled with ungrounded false presuppositions.

Wallow.

If you are including 'creativity' in that statement I am not refuting it at all.

What I refute is the implication (or question, or whatever you want to call it) that a computer can be programed to solve problems as well as a human.

This is not possible because computers cannot think creatively.

You failed to mention creativity in your statement and now you are claiming (or implying) that your statement 'includes' creative thought. (by saying that it is not outside of it..) blah blah

Thats a nice recovery, but you still have the problem of the original question or problem that implies a computer can solve problems as well as a human if programed to think logically and from the same reasoning. This is not true because a human thinks creatively and a computer is not capable of independent creative thought.

That is the bottom line, I don't know how many times I have to say it.

so wallow yourself.

Creative thought is thought.

That is a true tautology, and needs no mention.

The computer needs no creativity of it's own - beyond a clever programmer - to exactly mimic that same creativity.

Therefore...

You would not know the difference.

It is not possible to program a computer to 'think like a human' or 'solve problems' particularly human problems, like a human could for the very simple and obvious reason that a computer is not a human.

EVEN IF COMPUTER WERE TO BECOME SENTIENT in its own right it would never think like a human because it is not a human and it does not have human emotions. Neither could it 'program' itself to have human emotions.

Therefore, a computer (sentient or not) could never solve a problem in the identical way a human might solve a problem.

To mimic something is not creativity.

There would also be tell-tale flaws and limitations.

You could easily discover the difference. It would take more that a "clever programmer" to cover all the variables.

Any new variable would stump the computer and like the chess game computer my husband kept beating, the computer would eventually malfunction or freeze up and crash.

No one ever said it could.



The essence of a strawman.

How does any of that sheeeee-ought apply to this, which is what you were attempting to deny?



Keep up, will ya?... Focus!!!

Stop changing the subject.

I don't give a rats butt about that statement.

That is NOT what this conversation was about.

It is about a question about computers solving problems.

You are the one who needs to focus!!