Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The visible optical spectrum is a range of electromagnetic frequencies (also known as wavelengths) between 380 and 700 nanometers or 484-668 TeraHertz (THz). This is the range most human eyes are sensitive to. Each color maps to a specific part of that range. Various shades we call "violet," for example, fall in the 380-450 nm, or 668-789 THz. So if someone reports they are seeing a violet color, it will pretty consistently be a portion of the spectrum in this range. If you are seeing light in this range, and report it as "green," we will now that you are either lying, or you have a defective (compared to the rest of us) optical system.
    What? How does this tell what my favorite color is? And you already agreed that went we both look at the color red we don't see it exactly the same.

    When did I say anything about "materialism?"

    When did I dispute that "some things are beyond science?"
    How can you not be a materialist? What exists apart from the nature world in your belief?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Go back to school.

      Pipelining is just a way to subdivide processes. It is a type of parallel processing. Lookahead is just a way to allocate resources needed in upcoming processes. Not guessing outcomes.

      Nothing at all to do with neural networks or how they work.

      Neural networks are just a way to sort things according to patterns.
      Yes, they are. And a processor that can isolate tasks from within a larger program is beginning to take on the aspects of a system that can find and sort patterns.

      But somehow, I have a feeling we're not going to agree. So I'll leave it to you.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Yes, they are. And a processor that can isolate tasks from within a larger program is beginning to take on the aspects of a system that can find and sort patterns.

        But somehow, I have a feeling we're not going to agree. So I'll leave it to you.
        \

        Computers and brains work in completely different ways, carpe. Neural networks are an attempt at mimicking some of the ways a brain works, but at a very simple level. Our greatest neural networks are not even at the level of complexity of an insect much less a human. And neural networks and CPUs are completely different animals. CPUs work on binary and machine code hardwired instructions based on transistor logic gates. Nothing like a human neuron. At it's basic a transistor logic gate is a binary switch. A human neuron is analog both in input, processing and output. It is more than just parallel processing. Even neural networks can barely imitate how actual neurons work.

        there is no actual comparison with modern processors and human brains.

        Some other articles on the topic that you might find interesting:
        https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog...rk-simplified/
        http://www.explainthatstuff.com/intr...-networks.html

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          What? How does this tell what my favorite color is? And you already agreed that went we both look at the color red we don't see it exactly the same.
          What I said was, if we can identify where (and how) in the brain "favorite color" is stored, and how the frequency for your favorite color is stored, then we can know what color is your favorite, without you telling us anything. Indeed, if you tell us it is another color, we will know you are lying, or you have faulty preception equipment.

          What we will not know is your specific experience of your favorite color - or ANY color - or ANY smell - or anything that is subjectively experienced by you. We will eventually (I believe) be able map ideas, thoughts, perceptions, even lines of reasoning (i.e., detect when someone is adding two numbers and what those numbers are). We may even be able, someday, to project the images processed by the brain to a monitor or hologram and "see" what someone is thinking.

          What we will never be able to do is "experience" any of that as the individual experiences it. Consciousness is, as you noted, a subjective experience. Even if we could project the images passing through someone's brain on a monitor or hologram, I would be experiencing MY experience of this projection, not your internal experience.

          And what ANY of this has to do with the initial discussion is still a mystery to me...

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          How can you not be a materialist? What exists apart from the nature world in your belief?
          If "nature world" means everything we know to exist (matter, energy, time, space), then nothing exists apart from it (unless there are other universes). But that does not make me a strict materialist. I believe, because I experience it, that the material gives rise to the immaterial in many other different ways. Time and space, for example, are not material things. Thought, feeling, and ideas all depend on an underlying material reality (i.e., the brain), but they exhibit characteristics that transcend the material. Science is calling these "emergent properties." We see it anywhere that we see systems of sufficient complexity. These properties tend to have a nondeterministic nature to them. Ultimately, as we learn more about these properties, I suspect we will find that it is in them that we find the roots of things like free will. Alternatively, free will might be rooted in the nondeterministic nature of the quantum realm. We really don't know at this point.

          So the immaterial exists - but it is emergent from the material. I believe that is why the notion of "soul" is so pervasive. This sense of "I" must have it's own existence, and perhaps that existence is eternal (because living beings are wired to seek their own survival, so a self-aware being is confronted with a dilemma: the inevitability of its death - and the drive to survive). But the eivdence suggests to us that this "I" is linked to the brain: compromise the brain and this "I" is affected. I believe if you destry the brain, you likewise destroy this "I."
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-14-2018, 10:43 AM.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            \

            Computers and brains work in completely different ways, carpe. Neural networks are an attempt at mimicking some of the ways a brain works, but at a very simple level. Our greatest neural networks are not even at the level of complexity of an insect much less a human. And neural networks and CPUs are completely different animals. CPUs work on binary and machine code hardwired instructions based on transistor logic gates. Nothing like a human neuron. At it's basic a transistor logic gate is a binary switch. A human neuron is analog both in input, processing and output. It is more than just parallel processing. Even neural networks can barely imitate how actual neurons work.

            there is no actual comparison with modern processors and human brains.

            Some other articles on the topic that you might find interesting:
            https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog...rk-simplified/
            http://www.explainthatstuff.com/intr...-networks.html
            Sparko - my statement was intended to counter the claim that computers are step-by-step systems; they are more complex than that. And I stand by my observation that they are taking on neural net characteristics; we even have neural net chips emerging (albeit crude ones).

            At no point did I suggest that our technology comes even close to approximating human brain activity - or even ant-brain activity. In fact, I never associated the technology with a human brain at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but you seem to have added it to my posts yourself. As I said, I stand by my original observation and it's purpose. I am also not disagreeing with you - every part of your post (above) is correct.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-15-2018, 11:53 AM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Sparko - my statement was intended to counter the claim that computers are step-by-step systems; they are more complex than that. And I stand by my observation that they are taking on neural net characteristics; we even have neural net chips emerging (albeit crude ones).

              At no point did I suggest that our technology comes even close to approximating human brain activity - or even ant-brain activity. In fact, I never associated the technology with a human brain at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but you seem to have added it to my posts yourself. As I said, I stand by my original observation and it's purpose. I am also not disagreeing with you - every part of your post (above) is correct.
              Your comment was in response to Starlight's post where he talks about how a computer that modeled a complete human brain, including neurons would not be conscious because computers are "step by step"

              Even if they are parallel processing out the wazoo with all of the cores and pipelines and lookaheads they can muster, microprocessors are still "step-by-step" even when doing 100 steps at the same time on multiple processor cores. Electrically they are transistor logic gates working as binary switches executing machine code. That is what the doctor Starlight was talking about meant.

              Whether he is right about not being able to model a conscious human mind because of that, I don't know. But he is correct in that computers are still "step-by-step"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Your comment was in response to Starlight's post where he talks about how a computer that modeled a complete human brain, including neurons would not be conscious because computers are "step by step"

                Even if they are parallel processing out the wazoo with all of the cores and pipelines and lookaheads they can muster, microprocessors are still "step-by-step" even when doing 100 steps at the same time on multiple processor cores. Electrically they are transistor logic gates working as binary switches executing machine code. That is what the doctor Starlight was talking about meant.

                Whether he is right about not being able to model a conscious human mind because of that, I don't know. But he is correct in that computers are still "step-by-step"
                Then we disagree. I do not find modern computers to be simple step-by-step machines for the reasons I cited. The rest of your claims I agree with, as I noted. Your conclusion I do not.

                We'll have to leave it there.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Then we disagree. I do not find modern computers to be simple step-by-step machines for the reasons I cited. The rest of your claims I agree with, as I noted. Your conclusion I do not.

                  We'll have to leave it there.
                  To add, they have designed such a computer it was not on the same design as our present computer, which by the way are capable of more than step by step functions, and are capable of self learning capability. They have developed computers that interface with the human brain, and as MIT has done designed a computer designed on the human brain.

                  Source: https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17594-computer-human-brain



                  MIT Scientists Design a Computer That Works Just Like a Human Brain
                  It would be based on the equivalent system to the neuron-neuron matrix designed like our brain is structured, and functions. There is actually a computer designed like this at MIT, but it is not yet capable of what the human brain is capable.

                  As complex and impressive computers are becoming, they still don't hold a candle to the human brain. Sure, we can't instantly recall every piece of data that ever gets saved into our memory banks, and we're not as good at playing board games, but we have the ability to adapt and reason that a computer simply can't emulate.

                  Even advanced computer brains are unable to deal with concepts that don't fit into their existing programming, while organic brains (in most circumstances) are much better at the classic human trait of just making up plans as we go along. That said, humanity's time as the grand champions of winging it might be coming to a close.

                  A team of scientists at MIT have completed a successful initial test of a computer modeled after brain synapses rather than binary 1's and 0's, which could well lead to robot brains that are structured like our own - thereby giving our adaptability to computers so that we become truly obsolete.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-15-2018, 04:14 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    To add, they have designed such a computer it was not on the same design as our present computer, which by the way are capable of more than step by step functions, and are capable of self learning capability. They have developed computers that interface with the human brain, and as MIT has done designed a computer designed on the human brain.

                    Source: https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17594-computer-human-brain



                    MIT Scientists Design a Computer That Works Just Like a Human Brain
                    It would be based on the equivalent system to the neuron-neuron matrix designed like our brain is structured, and functions. There is actually a computer designed like this at MIT, but it is not yet capable of what the human brain is capable.

                    As complex and impressive computers are becoming, they still don't hold a candle to the human brain. Sure, we can't instantly recall every piece of data that ever gets saved into our memory banks, and we're not as good at playing board games, but we have the ability to adapt and reason that a computer simply can't emulate.

                    Even advanced computer brains are unable to deal with concepts that don't fit into their existing programming, while organic brains (in most circumstances) are much better at the classic human trait of just making up plans as we go along. That said, humanity's time as the grand champions of winging it might be coming to a close.

                    A team of scientists at MIT have completed a successful initial test of a computer modeled after brain synapses rather than binary 1's and 0's, which could well lead to robot brains that are structured like our own - thereby giving our adaptability to computers so that we become truly obsolete.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    If you go to the actual article that your pop article is referring to you will see that it says:


                    Researchers in the emerging field of “neuromorphic computing” have attempted to design computer chips that work like the human brain. Instead of carrying out computations based on binary, on/off signaling, like digital chips do today, the elements of a “brain on a chip” would work in an analog fashion, exchanging a gradient of signals, or “weights,” much like neurons that activate in various ways depending on the type and number of ions that flow across a synapse.
                    https://news.mit.edu/2018/engineers-...-hardware-0122

                    Basically saying they are doing RESEARCH to create a computer that works like a brain instead of the way computers CURRENTLY work, using binary switching (and step-by-step) processing which is what I was saying. Thanks for proving me right, Shunya even though that was the last thing you wanted to do.

                    The researchers are trying to create neural networks in hardware that mimic human analog neurons. Which currently are only done in software. Carpe was saying that today's CPUs work more like brains, yet they don't. Maybe if these researchers get anywhere they might in the future. But it will take a complete redesign of how computers work from the way they work today.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      If you go to the actual article that your pop article is referring to you will see that it says:


                      Researchers in the emerging field of “neuromorphic computing” have attempted to design computer chips that work like the human brain. Instead of carrying out computations based on binary, on/off signaling, like digital chips do today, the elements of a “brain on a chip” would work in an analog fashion, exchanging a gradient of signals, or “weights,” much like neurons that activate in various ways depending on the type and number of ions that flow across a synapse.
                      https://news.mit.edu/2018/engineers-...-hardware-0122

                      Basically saying they are doing RESEARCH to create a computer that works like a brain instead of the way computers CURRENTLY work, using binary switching (and step-by-step) processing which is what I was saying. Thanks for proving me right, Shunya even though that was the last thing you wanted to do.

                      The researchers are trying to create neural networks in hardware that mimic human analog neurons. Which currently are only done in software. Carpe was saying that today's CPUs work more like brains, yet they don't. Maybe if these researchers get anywhere they might in the future. But it will take a complete redesign of how computers work from the way they work today.
                      At no point did I say or imply this (emphasized text). If you think I did - please provide the specific post. I have actually explicitly affirmed that this is NOT what I was staying, or at any point implied.

                      I do not understand the proclivity so many here have for telling other people what they said/mean and holding on to their own perception rather than accepting the word of the person who actually made the statement. As a computer scientist, I would be foolish to suggest that our existing computers even begin to approximate ANY brain, never mind the human brain. I even explicitly said I agreed with every statement in your previous post.

                      So, I repeat, again, my statement was to refute the statement that modern computer systems are "step-by-step" systems. I interpret "step-by-step" to mean one instruction at a time, one after another. Modern computers use multiple cores, pipelining, look aheads, and a wide variety of mechanisms to escape this step-by-step limitation of earlier processors. They are (crudely) beginning to take on the attributes of neural nets (in this context, a computer term, not a human physiology term). We even have neural net processors emerging (and I provided an Intel link).

                      Modern processors are NOT approximating the human brain, though there is research (e.g., the MIT example) in that direction.

                      At this point, I've repeated myself often enough. I'll leave the rest of the discussion to ya'll.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        At no point did I say or imply this (emphasized text). If you think I did - please provide the specific post. I have actually explicitly affirmed that this is NOT what I was staying, or at any point implied.

                        I do not understand the proclivity so many here have for telling other people what they said/mean and holding on to their own perception rather than accepting the word of the person who actually made the statement. As a computer scientist, I would be foolish to suggest that our existing computers even begin to approximate ANY brain, never mind the human brain. I even explicitly said I agreed with every statement in your previous post.

                        So, I repeat, again, my statement was to refute the statement that modern computer systems are "step-by-step" systems. I interpret "step-by-step" to mean one instruction at a time, one after another. Modern computers use multiple cores, pipelining, look aheads, and a wide variety of mechanisms to escape this step-by-step limitation of earlier processors. They are (crudely) beginning to take on the attributes of neural nets (in this context, a computer term, not a human physiology term). We even have neural net processors emerging (and I provided an Intel link).

                        Modern processors are NOT approximating the human brain, though there is research (e.g., the MIT example) in that direction.

                        At this point, I've repeated myself often enough. I'll leave the rest of the discussion to ya'll.

                        Please.

                        You said
                        Just for argument's sake, modern computers are no longer "step-by-step" devices. They incorporate the concepts of pipelines and look aheads. YOu also now have multiple processors interworking to complete a task. As time moves on, these devices look and operate more and more like a neural network than a linear processor.
                        So my statement "Carpe was saying that today's CPUs work more like brains, yet they don't" is correct.

                        The point of your comment was that modern processors are working more like our brains because of piplining and look aheads. Which was incorrect. While researchers might be working on computers that do work more like brains, moderns CPU's do not. At their basic, they are still step-by-step processors. I have no idea why you can't just admit what you stated was incorrect and insist on trying to wiggle your way out of it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Please.

                          You said

                          So my statement "Carpe was saying that today's CPUs work more like brains, yet they don't" is correct.

                          The point of your comment was that modern processors are working more like our brains because of piplining and look aheads. Which was incorrect. While researchers might be working on computers that do work more like brains, moderns CPU's do not. At their basic, they are still step-by-step processors. I have no idea why you can't just admit what you stated was incorrect and insist on trying to wiggle your way out of it.
                          "Neural network," as it was used there, was a reference to the computer concept of a neural network - not the concept of a human brain. The discussion was about computers. At no point did I say, think, or imply, that computers were like human brains. But you apparently know better what I was thinking than I (and continuous, and somewhat ridiculous, tactic used on this forum), so it is clear nothing further is to be gained by continuing to suggest that I might actually know what I was thinking when I spoke.

                          Have at it, Sparko. You are officially appointed the new expert on "what Carpe is thinking."
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            "Neural network," as it was used there, was a reference to the computer concept of a neural network - not the concept of a human brain. The discussion was about computers. At no point did I say, think, or imply, that computers were like human brains. But you apparently know better what I was thinking than I (and continuous, and somewhat ridiculous, tactic used on this forum), so it is clear nothing further is to be gained by continuing to suggest that I might actually know what I was thinking when I spoke.

                            Have at it, Sparko. You are officially appointed the new expert on "what Carpe is thinking."
                            Dude. The context was literally about comparing computers and human brains. Like you were literally responding to Starlight who had just got done saying, "...a standard computer would not be conscious even if it computationally models an entire human brain with neurons firing, because it is a step-by-step data processing entity whereas the correlate of consciousness is the interacting network itself...". It's not like your post materialized out of the ether totally off topic.

                            I really wish you would stop with the goofy whining about how members of this forum read your posts. If it bothers you that people are able to read between the lines that much, then stop posting here.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              "Neural network," as it was used there, was a reference to the computer concept of a neural network - not the concept of a human brain. The discussion was about computers. At no point did I say, think, or imply, that computers were like human brains. But you apparently know better what I was thinking than I (and continuous, and somewhat ridiculous, tactic used on this forum), so it is clear nothing further is to be gained by continuing to suggest that I might actually know what I was thinking when I spoke.

                              Have at it, Sparko. You are officially appointed the new expert on "what Carpe is thinking."
                              You keep saying stuff like "I'll leave the rest of the discussion to ya'll."

                              and then you just can't help yourself can you?

                              I can only respond to what you typed, not what you were "thinking" and if what you were thinking was different from what you actually said in your post, then you have a bigger problem than I can address here. Because what you actually SAID was wrong and that is what I did address. And you still can't seem to just say that you were wrong on anything. At least not with grace. It's more like, "well sure, have it your way you were right but you have no idea what I REALLY meant!, I am done here!" and then you keep coming back.


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Dude. The context was literally about comparing computers and human brains. Like you were literally responding to Starlight who had just got done saying, "...a standard computer would not be conscious even if it computationally models an entire human brain with neurons firing, because it is a step-by-step data processing entity whereas the correlate of consciousness is the interacting network itself...". It's not like your post materialized out of the ether totally off topic.

                                I really wish you would stop with the goofy whining about how members of this forum read your posts. If it bothers you that people are able to read between the lines that much, then stop posting here.
                                Adrift - I have no problem with people misunderstanding something I wrote. Life happens. When someone does that, and I clarify what I was saying, for them to insist they actually know better what I was saying than I is simply ridiculous. When they continue to do it after several exchanges, I find it an inane way to have a conversation. It happens here a lot. If pointing it out is "whining,"
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                20 responses
                                79 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X