What do you think a machine is!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Sir Whirlysplat
Biomechanics would argue men are machines!
Some cognitive scientists would argue the brain is a machine and emotion is a set of computer viruses that create our conciousness, that we are purely a product of infection! What do you think! I will post later smile

Capt_Fantastic
I'm a machine...oh yeah, a love machine....

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm a machine...oh yeah, a love machine....

wink good for you CF smile

Capt_Fantastic
gigaddy...gigaddy....

Alpha Centauri
Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine". Literally though, it's a mechanical item, system or tool created by man to carry out a task on its own via "A.I", or created to be used by man to carry out a task. Eg: Worktools etc.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine". Literally though, it's a mechanical item, system or tool created by man to carry out a task on its own via "A.I", or created to be used by man to carry out a task. Eg: Worktools etc.

-AC

Bioengineers would disagree, as would many Doctore and Cognitive scientists - trust me on this. Good use of the dictionary AC wink

Koala MeatPie
Man IS a machine, its a complicated organic Robot.

Whena car is smashed, Its peices are thrown out of allignment, and it doesn't work anymore.

When we are shoot, fall off a cliff, crushed, our peices are also thrown off allignment, and we stop working.

As simple as that.

If cars don't go to heaven, we sure as hell don't.
There is no heaven, its the end.

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Man IS a machine, its a complicated organic Robot.

Whena car is smashed, Its peices are thrown out of allignment, and it doesn't work anymore.

When we are shoot, fall off a cliff, crushed, our peices are also thrown off allignment, and we stop working.

As simple as that.

If cars don't go to heaven, we sure as hell don't.
There is no heaven, its the end.

Truth!

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Bioengineers would disagree, as would many Doctore and Cognitive scientists - trust me on this. Good use of the dictionary AC wink

I don't care if they'd disagree or not. I'm not posting here to please them or get their approval.

When our vital organs are destroyed we die. When a machine's parts are smashed, it stops working.

The difference between the two is that humans are organic living beings. Machines couldn't exist without humans.

Humans aren't machines.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't care if they'd disagree or not. I'm not posting here to please them or get their approval.


I'm glad you wouldn't get it

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

When our vital organs are destroyed we die. When a machine's parts are smashed, it stops working.


You're right!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

The difference between the two is that humans are organic living beings. Machines couldn't exist without humans.


hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all. Your understanding of machine is very narrow and lacks imagination! I guess you find Science hard?
erm

Hit_and_Miss
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
gigaddy...gigaddy....

ah... without a doubt the best FG char...
I really wanted this as my avi.. But i couldn't get it small enough...

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all. Your understanding of machine is very narrow and lacks imagination! I guess you find Science hard?
erm

Hahaha, no. I don't find science "hard". I lack imagination? I swear you just agreed with a guy when he said "We die, there's no Heaven, it's the end." Hypocricy flying everywhere.

Secondly your flawed logic here amuses me: "hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all"

So? Who created them? Humans. They were designed to be self-sustaining and not need human attention and upkeep, that doesn't equate to them being able to be created without us.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hahaha, no. I don't find science "hard". I lack imagination? I swear you just agreed with a guy when he said "We die, there's no Heaven, it's the end." Hypocricy flying everywhere.

Secondly your flawed logic here amuses me: "hmm could not be created without a human - but some space probes have not had human contact for 30 years and are still transmitting and genetically engineered "viruses" no longer need man at all"

So? Who created them? Humans. They were designed to be self-sustaining and not need human attention and upkeep, that doesn't equate to them being able to be created without us.

-AC

So you think a machine has to be created by man! I see - again an extremely narrow perspective man emulates nature you see AC. Machines will one day design and build themselves auto ACAD and CAM are the begining.

Mindship
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Biomechanics would argue men are machines!
Some cognitive scientists would argue the brain is a machine and emotion is a set of computer viruses that create our conciousness, that we are purely a product of infection! What do you think! I will post later smile

Biomechs would be right. If you wear that lens, that's exactly how human beings will appear, a reliable (perhaps valid) "as if." Yup. I quite agree.

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Mindship
Biomechs would be right. If you wear that lens, that's exactly how human beings will appear, a reliable (perhaps valid) "as if." Yup. I quite agree.

I knew you would wink you're a scientist wink

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
So you think a machine has to be created by man! I see again an extremely narrow perspective man emulates nature. Machines will one day design and build themselves auto ACAD and CAM are the begining.

Yes, machines do have to be created by man. It has always been this way and it is this way now.

Your last line is pure speculation and only when this happens will your claim hold any water. They don't go around creating themselves now, so you're quite wrong.

Silly you, you can't counter a factual part of the world with a "Well in the future...". Conceptual Vs Factual doesn't work.

-AC

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


When our vital organs are destroyed we die. When a machine's parts are smashed, it stops working.



-AC

But you could argue that just like a machine all it takes is to replace the organ and the mechanism will work. Of course the body could reject the donated organ and failed. Thus we're not similar. However, the same can be said about a machine. Even if the proper piece is correct part the whole mechanism could reject the piece and fail just like the human body.

Now, just to be fair you can counter the argument by just saying. "A machine died? It was NEVER alive in the first place".

Play with the words AC. You should be master at this. wink

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But you could argue that just like a machine all it takes is to replace the organ and the mechanism will work. Of course the body could reject the donated organ and failed. Thus we're not similar. However, the same can be said about a machine. Even if the proper piece is correct the whole mechanism could reject the piece and fail just like the human body.

Now, just to be fair you can counter the argument by just saying. "A machine died? It was NEVER alive in the first place".

Play with the words AC. You should be master at this. wink

If you read my first post I said that many people refer to anything consisting of multiple parts that rely upon each other as mechanical or machine-like.

Having the crucial ingredients called emotion and life is what sets us apart, or we would be machines. To stand a human next to a robot and say "You're the same" is pathetic.

Why do you think that it's common for someone to be referred to as a machine if they show a lack of humanity, emotion and independence? Because that's how machines are and that's what sets humans apart.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, machines do have to be created by man. It has always been this way and it is this way now.

Your last line is pure speculation and only when this happens will your claim hold any water. They don't go around creating themselves now, so you're quite wrong.

Silly you, you can't counter a factual part of the world with a "Well in the future...". Conceptual Vs Factual doesn't work.

-AC

Viruses are not alive outside the host they are considered bio machines by many Doctors and Scientists like me! They reproduce. No! You lack knowledge I am quite right!

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Viruses are not alive outside the host they are considered bio machines by many Doctors and Scientists like me! They reproduce. No! You lack knowledge I am quite right!

No, you just consider viruses to be machines. They're living organisms, not mechanical, synthetic "organisms."

Sharing the same attributes or characteristics does not make any two things the same.

-AC

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Having the crucial ingredients called emotion and life is what sets us apart, or we would be machines. To stand a human next to a robot and say "You're the same" is pathetic.
-AC

Kinda like that Spielberg movie A.I. (I'm under the assumption you saw it.)

debbiejo
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Viruses are not alive outside the host! Yes many are.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Kinda like that Spielberg movie A.I. (I'm under the assumption you saw it.)

Nope, never saw that.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes many are.

trust me they are not, they work by subverting a cells genetic material the only active component is the receptors outside of a host cell.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
trust me they are not, they work by subverting a cells genetic material the only active component is the receptors outside of a host cell. Air born virus?...Also doesn't Aids live outside the body for awhile?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
trust me they are not, they work by subverting a cells genetic material the only active component is the receptors outside of a host cell.

I suppose those airborne viruses die on the way to other people and then resurrect themselves later then?

Moreover, those viruses that are biological having parasitic survival characteristics doesn't equate to them being machines.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Some unusual machines

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/00/11.30.00/biomolecular_motors.html

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/issue/articles/0840/ careers_in_nanobiotechnology_biomolecular_machines
/(parent)/

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I suppose those airborne viruses die on the way to other people and then resurrect themselves later then?

Moreover, those viruses that are biological having parasitic survival characteristics doesn't equate to them being machines.

-AC

They are inert outside of a cell laughing out loud the ignorance is astounding, did you even do GCSE Biology. They are bags of chemicals only outside the cell I will find a "simple" website to explain!

Alpha Centauri
Resorting to links? I've seen this before. Whirly, much like a virus, uses up all his own resources then attaches himself to a new host (the net) and feeds of ITS resources to survive.

Being a machine and being biomechanical are two different things. Especially since the mechanical in biomechanical only comes from the idea that it's multiple parts working together to sustain a whole. Not that it's actually a machine, you're thinking of cybernetics.

What are you arguing? That biological/organic organisms can have "mechanical" elements? You were asking if humans were machines, they're not machines. They possess mechanical elements, not actual machinery.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit2/viruses/lytlc.html

2. Nonliving characteristics of viruses

a. They are acellular, that is, they contain no cytoplasm or cellular organelles.

b. They carry out no metabolism on their own and must replicate using the host cell's metabolic machinery. In other words, viruses don't grow and divide. Instead, new viral components are synthesized and assembled within the infected host cell.

c. They possess DNA or RNA but never both.

Number 2 = No metabolism do you get it simpletons laughing

No metabolism yet they reproduce laughing out loud in a host!!!

links are great AC you should try them they support arguments with evidence try it sometime! wink

Alpha Centauri
If you even realised the irony of what you just said, it'd be funny.

Non-living CHARACTERISTICS. Viruses are alive, they have to be. Having a part does not mean the whole goes by the same rules. Just like having MECHANICAL or non-sentient characteristics in organs doesn't mean that a whole human is a machine.

Come on, Whirly.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you even realised the irony of what you just said, it'd be funny.

Non-living CHARACTERISTICS. Viruses are alive, they have to be. Having a part does not mean the whole goes by the same rules.

Come on, Whirly.

-AC

Rubbish any undergrad bioogist knows they are not, as does any text book and I have backed my opinions up with credible links thats what they are for. laughing out loud

irony laughing out loud

Alpha Centauri
You haven't backed up your opinions with credible links, those links are your opinion.

You're not capable of producing anything on your own, again much like a virus. Fun this, isn't it?

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Simplest explanation I could find

http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp

hope you get it AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Heres a high school lesson plan

http://www.sirinet.net/~jgjohnso/viruses.html

viruses are not alive!

Sir Whirlysplat
Heres a MD telling yousmile

Viruses

By Patrick Quanten MD



Let's start with a medically well-known fact: viruses aren't themselves alive. They are smaller and simpler than bacteria and by themselves they are inert and harmless. So, the immediate question then has to be: How can you "catch" a virus if it isn't a living thing?

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/science/viruses.html

Alpha Centauri
Why do you keep throwing links? Do some typing, man.

You are arguing that they are machines, aren't you? Yes. Therefore, I'm showing you that they aren't. They're not mechanical, man made machines.

What are you trying to prove? Your point of view has shifted about ten times from the first page. All off the back of "Are Humans Machines?".

The answer is no.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
My answer to what a machine is can be made by asserting what a machine isn't: human.

Thankyoueverymuchpleasecomeagain.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
My answer to what a machine is can be made by asserting what a machine isn't: human.

Thankyoueverymuchpleasecomeagain.

Exactment.

As I said, what separates them from us is humanity, being human.

-AC

Ya Krunk'd Floo
I concur! I concur! I concur!

Humans grow, machines are built.

How difficult is that to understand?

Alpha Centauri
It's not, but some people think it's cool to just make a mountain out of a grain of sand, despite knowing the obvious answer.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you keep throwing links? Do some typing, man.

You are arguing that they are machines, aren't you? Yes. Therefore, I'm showing you that they aren't. They're not mechanical, man made machines.

What are you trying to prove? Your point of view has shifted about ten times from the first page. All off the back of "Are Humans Machines?".

The answer is no.

-AC

Hey you said viruses were alive I backed up my statement they were not with Medical Doctors, Teachers etc - just because you got owned. Live with it!

smile

Are Humans Machines - So you're asking a question now? They are Bio machines based on numerous systems we are starting to understand more and more, can we make a human yet? Not from scratch! Could we Clone one yes! The Human Genone project is leading us to understand the role of more and more genes! will we ever be able to make complex organisms from scratch
- sure! We can sequence DNA something we have known the role of for 50 years. Are Men Machines - Yup nerves are electical, hormones are chemical, bones are mechanical etc. Easy really!

Ya Krunk'd Floo
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hey you said viruses were alive I backed up my statement they were not with Medical Doctors, Teachers etc - just because you got owned. Live with it!

When a person resorts to using the 'owned' phase, all preceding posts are deemed invalid.

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
When a person resorts to using the 'owned' phase, all preceding posts are deemed invalid.

wink cool we'll start again! and I can "own" him all over again tmz as I am off to sleep!

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hey you said viruses were alive I backed up my statement they were not with Medical Doctors, Teachers etc - just because you got owned. Live with it!

smile

Haha, well whob...I mean Whirly, you didn't own me. Viruses aren't sentient living beings like humans are, just like trees aren't. Trees aren't dead though, are they? No.

You brought viruses up in a desperate attempt to crawl away from the fact that you tried to prove humans were machines and fell flat on your face.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Are Humans Machines - So you're asking a question now? They are Bio machines based on numerous systems we are starting to understand more and more, can we make a human yet? Not from scratch! Could we Clone one yes! The Human Genone project is leading us to understand the role of more and more genes! will we ever be able to make complex organisms from scratch
- sure! We can sequence DNA something we have known the role of for 50 years. Are Men Machines - Yup nerves are electical, hormones are chemical, bones are mechanical etc. Easy really!

You honestly believe in what parts of your brain you are in control of, that humans and machines, or a robot made entirely of metal, wires and technology, are equal?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
wink cool we'll start again! and I can "own" him all over again tmz as I am off to sleep!

Haha, and you spoke to ME of jokes going over one's head?

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


You honestly believe in what parts of your brain you are in control of, that humans and machines, or a robot made entirely of metal, wires and technology, are equal?

-AC

Not at all! again you misunderstand my post, thats cool you don't get Science - Own you again tmz wink

Alpha Centauri
I asked, I didn't tell. I was asking so that you would reveal what it is you DO believe, because that seems to be many things right now.

You'll hit the mark one day I'm sure.

-AC

WrathfulDwarf
People just see similarities and come to the conclusion that they're both identical. Which in this case it just isn't...

Alpha Centauri
Great sig quote, WD.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I asked, I didn't tell. I was asking so that you would reveal what it is you DO believe, because that seems to be many things right now.

You'll hit the mark one day I'm sure.

-AC

laughing out loud

Again you state nothing, know nothing and ask me laughing out loud hilarious

Humans are Biomachines I will show you links to support my premise rather than state an illimformed opinion like you AC wink

Max More, Ph.D.

If it were true that humans and machines are diametric opposites then it would have to be true that humans are not in the least machinelike and that machines cannot have humanlike properties. Yet biochemistry shows us that we are comprised of billions of machines. Each of our organs and tissues is a machine with a particular function. Each organ is made up of cells which themselves are made up of smaller, simpler biochemical machines. We call these "ribosomes", "mitochondria", "RNA" and the like. Even the seat of our consciousness and personality, the brain itself is made up of many billions of machines—neurons, synapses, hormonal systems, neurotransmitters. Ultimately body and brain are composed of the simplest mechanical parts: subatomic particles. Ultimately we are all quarks in motion.

The alternative view—that humans are the very opposite of machines—can only be true if we accept vitalism. Vitalism holds that life results not from biochemical reactions but from a vital force unique to living things. Whereas modern science sees life as resulting from the complex interactions of mechanistic parts forming an organic whole, vitalism sees life as suffused with a substance not found in non-living nature.

To say that humans are composed of machines is not to say that we are merely machines. Humans are dignified machines. We are (so far) the most extropic, most complex product of billions of years of evolution. All machines are not created equal. Living organisms display properties not shared by simpler machines. These emergent properties (homeostasis, reproduction, learning, intelligence) result not from the addition of a mysterious vital force but from the complexity of functional interrelationships. If we define "machine" and "mechanical" to imply rigid, unvarying, stupid, inflexible function, then humans are not machines, despite being entirely composed of machines. When enough machines work together in complex ways, new properties emerge, properties we refer to with terms like "organic", "living", "feeling", and "thinking".

The idea that humans and machines are opposites also fails to recognize that machines continue to evolve more organic, living qualities. Already we are developing robots that display some qualities of animals; we have artificial life software that mutates, reproduces, and evolves, as do computer viruses and worms; we have computers that learn using fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and other computational techniques. Whether a creature or an organ is made of carbon-based organic material, or of silicon or other inorganic materials does not matter. What is important is the complexity of the result: is the structure able to learn, to self-modify, to respond dynamically to changing input?

Full ideas here

http://www.maxmore.com/machine.htm

Sums up my views perfectly wink

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
laughing out loud

Again you state nothing, know nothing and ask me laughing out loud hilarious

Humans are Biomachines I will show you links to support my premise rather than state an illimformed opinion like you AC wink

Max More, Ph.D.

If it were true that humans and machines are diametric opposites then it would have to be true that humans are not in the least machinelike and that machines cannot have humanlike properties. Yet biochemistry shows us that we are comprised of billions of machines. Each of our organs and tissues is a machine with a particular function. Each organ is made up of cells which themselves are made up of smaller, simpler biochemical machines. We call these "ribosomes", "mitochondria", "RNA" and the like. Even the seat of our consciousness and personality, the brain itself is made up of many billions of machines—neurons, synapses, hormonal systems, neurotransmitters. Ultimately body and brain are composed of the simplest mechanical parts: subatomic particles. Ultimately we are all quarks in motion.

The alternative view—that humans are the very opposite of machines—can only be true if we accept vitalism. Vitalism holds that life results not from biochemical reactions but from a vital force unique to living things. Whereas modern science sees life as resulting from the complex interactions of mechanistic parts forming an organic whole, vitalism sees life as suffused with a substance not found in non-living nature.

To say that humans are composed of machines is not to say that we are merely machines. Humans are dignified machines. We are (so far) the most extropic, most complex product of billions of years of evolution. All machines are not created equal. Living organisms display properties not shared by simpler machines. These emergent properties (homeostasis, reproduction, learning, intelligence) result not from the addition of a mysterious vital force but from the complexity of functional interrelationships. If we define "machine" and "mechanical" to imply rigid, unvarying, stupid, inflexible function, then humans are not machines, despite being entirely composed of machines. When enough machines work together in complex ways, new properties emerge, properties we refer to with terms like "organic", "living", "feeling", and "thinking".

The idea that humans and machines are opposites also fails to recognize that machines continue to evolve more organic, living qualities. Already we are developing robots that display some qualities of animals; we have artificial life software that mutates, reproduces, and evolves, as do computer viruses and worms; we have computers that learn using fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and other computational techniques. Whether a creature or an organ is made of carbon-based organic material, or of silicon or other inorganic materials does not matter. What is important is the complexity of the result: is the structure able to learn, to self-modify, to respond dynamically to changing input?

Full ideas here

http://www.maxmore.com/machine.htm

Sums up my views perfectly wink

Typing from your bed, Whirly? You some kind of android or something?

All you ever do is post essay after essay and say "Sums up my view". You don't actually have a view do you? So you post something and stand behind it like some kind of shield then to add to the pathetic nature of your debate, you claim "I owned you".

A) The mere fact that you use that term is a bit stupid.

B) The fact that you aren't even providing your own material is hypocritical. You don't "own" people by posting links, champ.

Now you're saying humans are BIOmachines? What happened to them being machines? I asked you what your opinion is because all you're doing is posting links and saying "This sums up my opinion". I don't want a sum up of your opinion via a link you deem credible, I want your opinion through your typed words. Not altered so that it looks like yours, your own words.

You disagreed when I said humans aren't machines and literally speaking, they aren't machines. You can't debate for that argument. The essay you just posted is an argument opposing the idea that humans and machines are opposites, which is flawed on many levels.

1) Nobody here is arguing that they are opposites, just that the two are not the same.

2) To argue that humans aren't the opposite of machine is to admit that the two aren't the same anyway, albeit indirectly.

This is the problem with copy and pasting, you never know what you've missed.

Next reply better be yours.

-AC

Victor Von Doom
Isn't the thread title a question!

Ya Krunk'd Floo
I don't know, do you!

KidRock
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I'm a machine...oh yeah, a love machine....

Yeah a malfunctioning one laughing

K.Diddy
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah a malfunctioning one laughing



hysterical

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
TAll you ever do is post essay after essay and say "Sums up my view". You don't actually have a view do you? So you post something and stand behind it like some kind of shield then to add to the pathetic nature of your debate, you claim "I owned you".


-AC

I like to provide evidence to support my views, in answer to th rest of your post I missed nothing. I said humans were not "nuts and bolt machines" in response to your post and I have stated continuously they are bio machines, bio machines are at present the most complicated kind of machine. I missed nothing! You missed the point that your view of what a machine is was far to narrow, that was the point of this thread. Owned again smile thats three times in one thread. Try doing research rather than stating opinions on things obviously beyond you.

I love the way you often try to argue about the poster, rather than provide any evidence to support your statements and get annoyed when others post supporting evidence. You really are a flim flam merchant, all opinion and no substance. wink

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I like to provide evidence to support my views, in answer to th rest of your post I missed nothing. I said humans were not "nuts and bolt machines" in response to your post and I have stated continuously they are bio machines, bio machines are at present the most complicated kind of machine. I missed nothing! You missed the point that your view of what a machine is was far to narrow, that was the point of this thread. Owned again smile thats three times in one thread. Try doing research rather than stating opinions on things obviously beyond you.

Owned? Hahaha, how much more of your credibility are you going to throw away? Taking the childish route eh? I'll take the high road and stick to the issue:

You believe you owned me by trying (and failing) to prove that my view of what makes a machine is far too narrow? I believe what you believe, literally machines are nuts and bolts. If you want to get into the technical specifications of biomechanics then yes, humans are possibly applicable, but humans aren't literal machines, this was my argument. So how you've owned me by proving my point I'll never know. You're on another world there, Whirly.

PS: Don't use the O word, it demeans you.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I love the way you often try to argue about the poster, rather than provide any evidence to support your statements and get annoyed when others post supporting evidence. You really are a flim flam merchant, all opinion and no substance. wink

I'm not annoyed, I'm amused. You're not supporting anything because by definition you'd need a base to begin with. All you've done is throw out bits of an opinion then post link after link.

For what? What have you exactly countered? My argument was that humans aren't nuts and bolts machines (fact), nor will nuts and bolts machines ever be equal to humans. That was my argument, you've agreed with the former and you can't prove the latter beyond pathetic speculation. So what is it you're trying to prove? That humans count as biomechs? Who denied that? This all began with you trying to debate my claim of "No computer or machine will ever be able to independently create music as emotional as a band of human musicians." And they won't, fact. Because they aren't capable of emotion, which is of course, the key ingredient for making emotional musical pieces. If you can counter this point (the reason this thread exists anyway) then you will have your "owned" which you so preciously strive for, but you and I both know you can't do that.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Owned? Hahaha, how much more of your credibility are you going to throw away? You believe you owned me by trying (and failing) to prove that my view of what makes a machine is far too narrow?
.

-AC

Its proven you don't believe living things are machines, obviously as we have started being able to modify them they are.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Owned? Hahaha, how much more of your credibility are you going to throw away? -AC

You have been it's no biggie

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
PS: Don't use the O word, it demeans you.


You started it in another thread telling me you could own me laughing out loud you haven't ever. I actually don't believe anyone can be owned on a forum and was playing *** for tat.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

If you want to get into the technical specifications of biomechanics then yes, humans are possibly applicable, but humans aren't literal machines, this was my argument. So how you've owned me by proving my point I'll never know. -AC

Nope again you miss the point the fact we can modify everything about humans from the way they think to how the muscles absorb protein indicates they are machines - you miss the point again.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

For what? What have you exactly countered? My argument was that humans aren't nuts and bolts machines, nor will nuts and bolts machines ever be equal to humans.
-AC

We agree in this but I asked you what you thought a machine was a machine does not have to be nuts and bolts. Yoiu back track by giving a narrow definition of what a machine is.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

. So what is it you're trying to prove? That humans count as biomechs? Who denied that? This all began with you trying to debate my claim of "No computer or machine will ever be able to independently create music as emotional as a band of human musicians." And they won't, fact. Because they aren't capable of emotion, which is of course, the key ingredient for making emotional musical pieces.

-AC

You see all emotion is in the opinion of many is a response to stimuli, as machines get more complex they will feel emotion. Pathetic speculation. Hmm you can't prove it is or isn't. You only prove you lack imagination. Yup you don't like me posting supporting links usually because you have none to support your lack of speculation. smile

xmarksthespot
A virus doesn't satisfy the requirements to be considered alive, AC.

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A virus doesn't satisfy the requirements to be considered alive, AC.

smile So speaks another scientist!

Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.

On we go:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Its proven you don't believe living things are machines, obviously as we have started being able to modify them they are.

Human's aren't nuts and bolts machines, they're not machines in the common sense as I said, which you have apparantly ignored haven't you? If you want to be technical and get into the specifics of BIOmechanics, then again, as I said, yes.

My argument was, is and will always be that humans aren't the same as nuts and bolts machines, man made tools and mechanisms, nor will they ever be. You continually ignore that point to your discredit.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You have been it's no biggie

How childish, you disappoint me.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You started it in another thread telling me you could own me laughing out loud you haven't ever. I actually don't believe anyone can be owned on a forum and was playing *** for tat.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realising how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope again you miss the point the fact we can modify everything about humans from the way they think to how the muscles absorb protein indicates they are machines - you miss the point again.

You're making about 90 different points, and you accused ME of flip flopping. All the points you've made, I've understood. They're just dumb.

Let's get on topic: You disagreed when I said no technology sans human intellect will ever produce music as emotional or intricate as a band of human musicians. Do you still hold this view?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We agree in this but I asked you what you thought a machine was a machine does not have to be nuts and bolts. Yoiu back track by giving a narrow definition of what a machine is.

A machine doesn't have to be nuts and bolts, I said in my first post that people refer to machines as many things. Primarily they are constructed my men with synthetic or possibly natural materials, but still created by men. A machine first and foremost is what you find in a factory. I never, ever said there was no other kind of machine did I? No. I said that humans aren't the common version and perception of machine.

Try reading my posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You see all emotion is in the opinion of many is a response to stimuli, as machines get more complex they will feel emotion. Pathetic speculation. Hmm you can't prove it is or isn't. You only prove you lack imagination. Yup you don't like me posting supporting links usually because you have none to support your lack of speculation. smile

Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
I lost my whole post laughing out loud I will redo it later suffice to say it has evidence to back it AC.

Alpha Centauri
I never doubted your ability to post links and claim "This is what I believe." You're A+ in that class.

What I HOPE I will see is you replying to this:

"Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable."

And the part before it. Since those are the relevant parts on which you created this thread.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never doubted your ability to post links and claim "This is what I believe." You're A+ in that class.

What I HOPE I will see is you replying to this:

"Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable."

And the part before it. Since those are the relevant parts on which you created this thread.

-AC


No more silly than saying they "won't" ever heard of Copernicus smile

Now I will reply properly smile

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.erm So is my MP3 Player when I'm listening to music.

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How childish, you disappoint me.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.



yes I admit to playing *** for tat smile I am childish often! As regards your statement thats an issue from the past and one I can easily find!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.



Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC laughing out loud


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.


Again highlighting your narrow understandingsmile Machines I my mind are far more varied than nuts and bolts, that was your answer not mine smile


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.



Not even active outside of a host - again your lack of knowledge finds you out.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On we go:



Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Human's aren't nuts and bolts machines, they're not machines in the common sense as I said, which you have apparently ignored haven't you? If you want to be technical and get into the specifics of BIOmechanics, then again, as I said, yes.

My argument was, is and will always be that humans aren't the same as nuts and bolts machines, man made tools and mechanisms, nor will they ever be. You continually ignore that point to your discredit.


Nope your original argument was machines can "never" feel emotion

I ask you what you considered a machine to be as to me humans are a lot of machines working together. I posted this widely accepted Scientific concept, which is an extension of of something 11 year olds understand called "levels of organization" which uses the "mechanistic model of biology".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How childish, you disappoint me.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.



yes I admit to playing *** for tat smile I am childish often! As regards your statement thats an issue from the past and one I can easily find!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.



Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC laughing out loud


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri



Secondly, will's and maybes' are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable.

-AC

will's and maybes based on things lie David Copes experiments. Better than "wont's" based on no evidence. What do you consider a masterpiece in art to be. All to often it is a poor copy of nature. Fractal patterns which are generated randomly can certainly be art.


Anyway Computers have started composing - Cope played a game where he tested Musicians to see if they could work out which pieces were written by a computer and which were not. They couldn't.

Game Over!!!

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC laughing out loud

A) I'll believe-man made machines can have emotion when I see it for myself. Until that day, I'll not believe it to be possible. That's not a matter of me being narrow minded, it's a matter of me simply not believing one concept because I've got no reason to. Again with the cut and pasts, your credibility is dwindling.

B) "is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon."

Too simple says who? You? Why is it ok for what you say and what you SPECULATE (because that is purely what it is, you have no fact to suggest otherwise) to become enough, but my belief based on what exists today, isn't? Quite hypocritical. YOU think computers and machines will mimic emotion? Mimic? They MIGHT be able to MIMIC in future, who ever mentioned that though? I was referring to the creation and manifestation of emotions on their own, independently. Which I don't believe will ever be possible.

You think what you want, you're the one with something to prove, not me. My point is already a factual state, machines don't have emotion now and as it stands, they won't. If it happens I'll admit my wrong.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Again highlighting your narrow understandingsmile Machines I my mind are far more varied than nuts and bolts, that was your answer not mine smile

Go read my first post.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Not even active outside of a host - again your lack of knowledge finds you out.

They are active, they just can't access certain characteristics such as reproduction without a host. You posted that earlier also, again, read before pasting.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope your original argument was machines can "never" feel emotion

My actual quote was that no amount of computer technology will ever be AS emotional as a band of humans. Go dig the quote up and see for yourself. Read the posts, Whirly. You're losing the plot.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I ask you what you considered a machine to be as to me humans are a lot of machines working together. I posted this widely accepted Scientific concept, which is an extension of of something 11 year olds understand called "levels of organization" which uses the "mechanistic model of biology".

Go read my first post, what did I say? I said that it's widely accepted that many parts working together, regardless of being man made or not, are often viewed or cited as "a well oiled machine." In the traditional sense, they are nuts and bolts creations of man. Last time: Read the posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
will's and maybes based on things lie David Copes experiments. Better than "wont's" based on no evidence. What do you consider a masterpiece in art to be. All to often it is a poor copy of nature. Fractal patterns which are generated randomly can certainly be art.


Anyway Computers have started composing - Cope played a game where he tested Musicians to see if they could work out which pieces were written by a computer and which were not. They couldn't.

Game Over!!!

You claim my won't are based on no evidence? You called ME ignorant? The evidence is the world we live in. There's no indictation that machines well ever feel pain like a human, sadness, despair, happiness or elation. None whatsoever. Mimicry? Maybe, maybe. Independent? No, and I won't believe it until I see it. You're going by the future, which doesn't even exist yet.

Besides that copy and paste job that you posted twice (haha, lame and desperate) I'll judge this "game" that Cope played, you're clutching at straws. Now that you've realised that machines won't ever have independently born emotion equal to our own, you are trying to say "No, I mean the ability to MIMIC."

The musicians he chose simply couldn't tell the difference, it doesn't mean musicians can't. He could do it with 10, they might not notice. Then if you get 10 others, they most likely will.

One crucial part that seems to have slipped your oh so able mind: All the pieces on the computer were, at some point, played and recorded by humans. All the computer is doing is arranging, it's not playing the musical instruments or creating the music itself.

This is the irony: When you finally do start typing yourself, you talk utter nonsense.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I'll believe-man made machines can have emotion when I see it for myself. Until that day, I'll not believe it to be possible. That's not a matter of me being narrow minded, it's a matter of me simply not believing one concept because I've got no reason to. Again with the cut and pasts, your credibility is dwindling.

B) "is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon."

Too simple says who? You? Why is it ok for what you say and what you SPECULATE (because that is purely what it is, you have no fact to suggest otherwise) to become enough, but my belief based on what exists today, isn't? Quite hypocritical. YOU think computers and machines will mimic emotion? Mimic? They MIGHT be able to MIMIC in future, who ever mentioned that though? I was referring to the creation and manifestation of emotions on their own, independently. Which I don't believe will ever be possible.

You think what you want, you're the one with something to prove, not me. My point is already a factual state, machines don't have emotion now and as it stands, they won't. If it happens I'll admit my wrong.



Go read my first post.



They are active, they just can't access certain characteristics such as reproduction without a host. You posted that earlier also, again, read before pasting.



My actual quote was that no amount of computer technology will ever be AS emotional as a band of humans. Go dig the quote up and see for yourself. Read the posts, Whirly. You're losing the plot.



Go read my first post, what did I say? I said that it's widely accepted that many parts working together, regardless of being man made or not, are often viewed or cited as "a well oiled machine." In the traditional sense, they are nuts and bolts creations of man. Last time: Read the posts.



You claim my won't are based on no evidence? You called ME ignorant? The evidence is the world we live in. There's no indictation that machines well ever feel pain like a human, sadness, despair, happiness or elation. None whatsoever. Mimicry? Maybe, maybe. Independent? No, and I won't believe it until I see it. You're going by the future, which doesn't even exist yet.

Besides that copy and paste job that you posted twice (haha, lame and desperate) I'll judge this "game" that Cope played, you're clutching at straws. Now that you've realised that machines won't ever have independently born emotion equal to our own, you are trying to say "No, I mean the ability to MIMIC."

The musicians he chose simply couldn't tell the difference, it doesn't mean musicians can't. He could do it with 10, they might not notice. Then if you get 10 others, they most likely will.

One crucial part that seems to have slipped your oh so able mind: All the pieces on the computer were, at some point, played and recorded by humans. All the computer is doing is arranging, it's not playing the musical instruments or creating the music itself.

This is the irony: When you finally do start typing yourself, you talk utter nonsense.

-AC


long post I gave evidence again and even showed machines can compose music good enough to fool experts. You offer nothing but your opinion. No evidence.

Utter nonsense? No! Simply opinions based on theories which are beyond your education. smile Come back when you've graduated and realise all knowledge is built on the ideas of others.

I like to stand on the shoulder of giants AC. You should try it sometimes it gives opinions weight and substance. By saying I I I all the time you lack this.

wink Never say Never you're not a prophet!

Your whole post brings nothing to the table. Except your attempt at prophecy.

Machines can make music good enough to fool experts. They don't need emotion for that. You need maths.

You say machines will never feel emotion, I say it's possible I am not a prophet you are.

You say machines are nuts and bolts only then try to get out of it.

You bring nothing.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
long post I gave evidence again and even showed machines can compose music good enough to fool experts. You offer nothing but your opinion. No evidence.

Fooling experts? It's all humanly created music you fool. It's just put onto a computer and ARRANGED by the computer. You can buy programmes to do that in PC World.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Utter nonsense? No! Simply opinions based on theories which are beyond your education. smile Come back when you've graduated and realise all knowledge is built on the ideas of others.

Built on, not ripped from. Either way, you're sitting there acting as if you've won something when you're fighting a losing battle.

"I've proven machines created..." no you haven't. You've proven that it can accurately arrange pieces of music. It's not sitting there thinking and feeling, "This is so moving" is it? No. It's not playing the instruments is it? No.

That's all you've done though, posted stuff you believe. Big deal, Deano does that everyday. Congrats.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I like to stand on the shoulder of giants AC. You should try it sometimes it gives opinions weight and substance. By saying I I I all the time you lack this.

I know what I want to say and what my own opinion is and where my facts come from. I don't need to post massive essays to make my posts bigger. You don't, but when you do type yourself, you come up with such horsecrap like "Machines compose."

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Your whole post brings nothing to the table. Except your attempt at prophecy.

Machines can make music good enough to fool experts. They don't need emotion for that. You need maths.

One flaw: They're not making it. There's the kicker, you see.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You say machines will never feel emotion, I say it's possible I am not a prophet you are.

As of right now, history and present are on my side. All you have is the conceptual future and what you believe to be possible. Not looking good for you.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You say machines are nuts and bolts only then try to get out of it.

I did?

The first part of my first post:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine".

Hmm, shh.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fooling experts? It's all humanly created music you fool. It's just put onto a computer and ARRANGED by the computer. You can buy programmes to do that in PC World.


Nope it's based on Musical Algorithms, the maths behind music!

'In Search of the Horowitz Factor,' Dr. Widmer and his team described giving the computer 13 recordings of Mozart piano sonatas, played into a Bösendorfer Disklavier by the pianist Roland Batik, to see if they could use the computer to determine rules that described the pianist's interpretive choices. ... It could.

You see composers choose based on rules as do performers!


Computers can be programmed to understand these rules.

Gameover again.

I'm getting bored correcting you my foolish, ill educated friend wink

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope it's based on Musical Algorithms,

'In Search of the Horowitz Factor,' Dr. Widmer and his team described giving the computer 13 recordings of Mozart piano sonatas, played into a Bösendorfer Disklavier by the pianist Roland Batik, to see if they could use the computer to determine rules that described the pianist's interpretive choices. ... It could.

You see composers choose based on rules


Computers can be programmed to understand these rules.

Gameover again.

I'm getting bored correcting you my foolish, ill educated friend wink

Ok, so, now your name is Whob V2.

I know about the rules of orchestral composing, don't assume that I do not. It's actually hilarious how you do say the exact same thing back to me and then act like you're proving me wrong or something.

They gave the computer the recordings first via a disklavier after a HUMAN had played them and transfered them onto the computer, it then has to be set to whatever key and structure the orchestra are playing to so that it can break it down and reconfigure it. You can do the same with any music program, granted that is more sophisticated, but that's what it does.

How many times have you worked with music on a computer? Name me some programs you've worked with. Because it seems like you're just overlooking all this for the sake of it.

Fact of the matter: It's not creating the music. End of story, this is fact. It's not creating it. It's reinterpreting it based on what it's programmed to do.

You believe it's creating it while in the same vein, post something that proves you wrong.

"Dr. Widmer and his team described giving the computer 13 recordings of Mozart piano sonatas, played into a Bösendorfer Disklavier by the pianist Roland Batik, to see if they could use the computer to determine rules that described the pianist's interpretive choices. ... It could."

Not only was it all the humans doing the work and the computer doing what it was programmed for, but they were seeing if they could USE it to determine rules by themselves, not the computer.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, so, now your name is Whob V2.

-AC

No your Kid Rock! right
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I know about the rules of orchestral composing, don't assume that I do not. It's actually hilarious how you do say the exact same thing back to me and then act like you're proving me wrong or something.



Then you know that its mathssmile

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They gave the computer the recordings first via a disklavier after a HUMAN had played them and transfered them onto the computer, it then has to be set to whatever key and structure the orchestra are playing to so that it can break it down and reconfigure it. You can do the same with any music program, granted that is more sophisticated, but that's what it does.


Yes the computer had to be programmed as does a human, your point is?

mine is this:

A Western college student must learn to "understand" a Beethoven symphony. The aboriginal understands his music naturally. The Westerner can understand aboriginal music also, if he is willing to learn its language and laws and listen to it in terms of itself. It cannot be compared with a Beethoven symphony because it has nothing to do with it. Machines need programming so do people.

Dr. George Johnston has argued with Computer music the "artists angst is all in your head". laughing out loud

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

How many times have you worked with music on a computer?


Misdirection - irrelevant

One common program that makes music like humans

Voyager: " The Voyager computer program is a powerful robot. It composes music--improvised, unpredictable music--using a virtual 64-piece orchestra. The Voyager?s inventor, George Lewis, improvises with his robotic partner, and creates music that we?d like to think only humans could make.


Game over again. I hope you're learning but I'd love some evidence of anything from you besides "I think" and "Whirly is stupid because he disagrees with me and provides evidence to support his arguments".

Keep the faith smile

Stay Whirly rock

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Yes the computer had to be programmed as does a human, your point is?

What's a computer without a human?

Game over, quite literally, for the computer. The human can go away, grab a guitar and make passionate music. The computer sits there gathering dust.

Hence why my points stand and yours do not. Not only do computers show no signs of being anywhere imaginably close to humans with regards to emotions, let alone having independent ones of their own, but they are useless without us.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
mine is this:

A Western college student must learn to "understand" a Beethoven symphony. The aboriginal understands his music naturally. The Westerner can understand aboriginal music also, if he is willing to learn its language and laws and listen to it in terms of itself. It cannot be compared with a Beethoven symphony because it has nothing to do with it. Machines need programming so do people.

Dr. George Johnston has argued with Computer music the "artists angst is all in your head". laughing out loud

Agreed, machines need to learn as do humans. You're missing the point now, though. Machines can ONLY learn if a human decides to teach it. If you sit there playing music, I can learn it and perceive it whether you want me to or not. Because humans have emotion and perception beyond that which any computer will have, if nowadays and history is anything to go by. I'll sit here and play the Moonlight Sonata with my computer off. We'll see how quickly it learns.

Again, your point falls flat.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Misdirection - irrelevant

No, quite relevant. If you've never worked with music programs on computers, don't try telling someone who has, how they work. Because you evidently have no clue.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
One common program that makes music like humans

Voyager: " The Voyager computer program is a powerful robot. It composes music--improvised, unpredictable music--using a virtual 64-piece orchestra. The Voyager?s inventor, George Lewis, improvises with his robotic partner, and creates music that we?d like to think only humans could make.

Hahaha, again you are proving yourself wrong, Whirly. Where do you think those sounds of the orchestra come from? The computer doesn't create them, humans do and humans DECIDE to teach the comp. The comp doesn't learn on it's own, the human decides to upload it and add it. The computer is not sentient, following me? Good. Then, even WITH this knowledge, the computer cannot create without a human telling it to.

It doesn't sit there thinking "Gonna whoop out a symphony." George Lewis uses it, it doesn't do anything alone.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, quite relevant. If you've never worked with music programs on computers, don't try telling someone who has, how they work. Because you evidently have no clue.


Nope I'm a geneticist and enzymologist, hence I understand machines. I have worked with AI. Your point if you don't understand AI you can't argue with me because I do?

Irrelavent

Requiem for the soul. If creating sublime music is the highest of human achievements, how come a pile of computer code writes better music than most people? By Bob Holmes. New Scientist Magazine. (August 9, 1997). "How could Mozart write a symphony more than 200 years after his death? Meet a computer program called EMI (pronounced Emmy) and its creator, a living, human composer named David Cope. Under Cope's tutelage, EMI created the 42nd symphony by analysing some of Mozart's other 41 and extracting 'essence of Mozart'."

New Scientist believe EMI "cretaes" sorry I'll take them over you!

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicology." It seems to be working.

Why I talked about artificial life you see it all comes together wink

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I'm a geneticist and enzymologist, hence I understand machines. I have worked with AI. Your point if you don't understand AI you can't argue with me because I do?

So? You evidently know shit all about music: The creation of at least.

You've gone around in so many circles I could probably create a spirograph with your posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Requiem for the soul. If creating sublime music is the highest of human achievements, how come a pile of computer code writes better music than most people? By Bob Holmes. New Scientist Magazine. (August 9, 1997). "How could Mozart write a symphony more than 200 years after his death? Meet a computer program called EMI (pronounced Emmy) and its creator, a living, human composer named David Cope. Under Cope's tutelage, EMI created the 42nd symphony by analysing some of Mozart's other 41 and extracting 'essence of Mozart'."

New Scientist believe EMI "cretaes" sorry I'll take them over you!

Oh, how will I sleep knowing you chose someone else's opinion? I'll take my own facts on musical creation than a geneticist who has to get his info ripped directly from google and science magazines. You believe a publication if it makes you sleep better wink. Just don't call me stupid when you're the one believing what you read in "New Scientist" magazine. It's not the best claim considering you've just labelled yourself a geneticist.

All of what you just said proves that it has to be involved with a human, human teachings, human emotion, human insight, human tutelage.

Edit: As per usual, you edited your post with yet another google extract to prove my point. "Under the tutelage of..." "With the aid of..."

Computers can't do it alone, we both prove this. You indirectly so.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Oh, how will I sleep knowing you chose someone else's opinion? I'll take my own facts on musical creation than a geneticist who has to get his info ripped directly from google and science magazines. You believe a publication if it makes you sleep better wink. Just don't call me stupid when you're the one believing what you read in "New Scientist" magazine. It's not the best claim considering you've just labelled yourself a geneticist.

All of what you just said proves that it has to be involved with a human, human teachings, human emotion, human insight, human tutelage.

-AC

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicology." It seems to be working.

Why I talked about artificial life you see it all comes together wink

Again you offer nothing except - "Whirly is stupid he believes credible publications over me". laughing out loud

Alpha Centauri
Yes Whirly, you pass "Look Mum! I can use Google.com 101". Your trophy is in the mail.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you just consider viruses to be machines. They're living organisms, not mechanical, synthetic "organisms."


back to that.

laughing out loud Everyone with a Science degree who has posted has told you viruses are not alive. laughing out loud

Another accepted view

Nori Kasahara, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of pathology and biochemistry, and one of the newest members of the Institute for Genetic Medicine and the USC/Norris Cancer Center, specializes in developing miniature packages to ferry genes to their ultimate destination. His strategy involves nesting the genes inside disabled viruses, or vectors, and then allowing the viruses to infect target cells.


"Viruses are machines that have evolved over millions of years specifically to put their DNA or RNA into a host cell," says Kasahara. "So it's beneficial to take advantage of their natural properties."

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/ccr/96fall/nori.html

You are boring me AC

whobdamandog
The debate really seems to be over the definition of what constitutes something as being "alive." Both AC and Whirly have different interpretations over stated definitions.

From a scientific perspective..Whirly is indeed correct about virus's not being alive.

However from a philosophical perspective..one could indeed say that AC is actually correct about them being "alive."

Moving on. My opinion about the original topic. Many of the natural processes/components that make up the human body are indeed mechanical, however, science is incapable determing/understanding/duplicating all of these processes. Those processes that are not capable of being duplicated exist within a realm which is foreign to scientists and most of humanity..that realm being the supernatural.

My two cents...

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Those processes that are not capable of being duplicated exist within a realm which is foreign to scientists and most of humanity..that realm being the supernatural.


Yup you and AC believe far more in the Supernatural than I that's true.

soleran30
Words meanings have a tendency to change as things progress. Not sure if using todays verbage amounts to tomorrows "progress."

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by soleran30
Words meanings have a tendency to change as things progress. Not sure if using todays verbage amounts to tomorrows "progress."

Agreed!

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
back to that.

laughing out loud Everyone with a Science degree who has posted has told you viruses are not alive. laughing out loud

Another accepted view

Nori Kasahara, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of pathology and biochemistry, and one of the newest members of the Institute for Genetic Medicine and the USC/Norris Cancer Center, specializes in developing miniature packages to ferry genes to their ultimate destination. His strategy involves nesting the genes inside disabled viruses, or vectors, and then allowing the viruses to infect target cells.


"Viruses are machines that have evolved over millions of years specifically to put their DNA or RNA into a host cell," says Kasahara. "So it's beneficial to take advantage of their natural properties."

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/ccr/96fall/nori.html

You are boring me AC

What's your point? Going back to what? We've been over that. That's not relevant to why the topic was started, the emotion/machine/human debate was. The one you just abandoned.

Go back and deal with the actual purpose of the topic.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's your point? Going back to what? We've been over that.
-AC

smile Point is you didn't know what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread wink

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's not relevant to why the topic was started, the emotion/machine/human debate was. -AC

Rewriting the topic again. You said Machines could not write music as vibrant as humans. I've shown already early music composing and analysing machines like EMI already can do a pretty good job of it.

Lopez de Mantaras, Ramon and Josep Lluis Arcos. 2002. AI and Music: From Composition to Expressive Performance. AI Magazine 23(3): 43-58. "In this article, we first survey the three major types of computer music systems based on AI techniques: (1) compositional, (2) improvisational, and (3) performance systems. Representative examples of each type are briefly described. Then, we look in more detail at the problem of endowing the resulting performances with the expressiveness that characterizes human-generated music. This is one of the most challenging aspects of computer music that has been addressed just recently. The main problem in modeling expressiveness is to grasp the performer's 'touch,' that is, the knowledge applied when performing a score. Humans acquire it through a long process of observation and imitation. For this reason, previous approaches, based on following musical rules trying to capture interpretation knowledge, had serious limitations. An alternative approach, much closer to the observation-imitation process observed in humans, is that of directly using the interpretation knowledge implicit in examples extracted from recordings of human performers instead of trying to make explicit such knowledge. In the last part of the article, we report on a performance system, SAXEX, based on this alternative approach, that is capable of generating high-quality expressive solo performances of jazz ballads based on examples of human performers within a case-based reasoning (CBR) system."

already we are modelling the performers touch!!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Go back and deal with the actual purpose of the topic.

-AC

Which was what is a machine, I have already shown a machine has far for definitions than you thought and can do things you thought only humans could do!

Show me something - anything to refute all my "expert witnesses". Thats the point of Secondary Sources AC. You're good at arguing I grant you, but you never bring anything to the table but opinion. Sometimes that's enough. Often it isn't.

Keep the faith smile

Stay Whirly rock

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
smile Point is you didn't know what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread wink

Oh dear, Whirly. Look:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Rewriting the topic again. You said Machines could not write music as vibrant as humans. I've shown already early music composing and analysing machines like EMI already can do a pretty good job of it.

They didn't create it. What part of that do you find unable to comprehend? It's all created and given to the computer by humans, do you not understand this? This is fact. The computers are not creating the music and sitting there being moved by it. It's fed to them like when you install a game. It's just a tool for use in this case.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Lopez de Mantaras, Ramon and Josep Lluis Arcos. 2002. AI and Music: From Composition to Expressive Performance. AI Magazine 23(3): 43-58. "In this article, we first survey the three major types of computer music systems based on AI techniques: (1) compositional, (2) improvisational, and (3) performance systems. Representative examples of each type are briefly described. Then, we look in more detail at the problem of endowing the resulting performances with the expressiveness that characterizes human-generated music. This is one of the most challenging aspects of computer music that has been addressed just recently. The main problem in modeling expressiveness is to grasp the performer's 'touch,' that is, the knowledge applied when performing a score. Humans acquire it through a long process of observation and imitation. For this reason, previous approaches, based on following musical rules trying to capture interpretation knowledge, had serious limitations. An alternative approach, much closer to the observation-imitation process observed in humans, is that of directly using the interpretation knowledge implicit in examples extracted from recordings of human performers instead of trying to make explicit such knowledge. In the last part of the article, we report on a performance system, SAXEX, based on this alternative approach, that is capable of generating high-quality expressive solo performances of jazz ballads based on examples of human performers within a case-based reasoning (CBR) system."

already we are modelling the performers touch!!

I sometimes do feel like I'm talking to Jimmy from South Park with you Whirly. "THIS is my point." "Well tha-well tha- well that's wr-wrong AC. Now wait another 10 pages.........repeat your point please."

Look, WITHOUT ANY HUMANS the computer is obsolete.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
smile Which was what is a machine, I have already shown a machine has far for definitions than you thought and can do things you thought only humans could do!

Show me something - anything to refute all my "expert witnesses". Thats the point of Secondary Sources AC. You're good at arguing I grant you, but you never bring anything to the table but opinion. Sometimes that's enough. Often it isn't.

Keep the faith smile

Stay Whirly rock

It can't do things only humans can do, you've not proven that. It can't play a guitar or an instrument, it can't think of music from scratch. It has it all fed to it by humans.

Your expert witnesses are the same as the ones you tried pulling out in the other debate we had, google. Pathetic, anyone can do that.

I'm not bringing opinion Whirly, well not solely.

Machines do not create the music, they arrange it and you can buy programs to do so in any PC store. I've used programs as such. They learn, humans learn, the difference is, I can learn by looking out my window. I can decide when I want to learn and how, and perceive it with emotion. Machines cannot.

End.

-AC

Sir Whirlysplat
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh dear, Whirly. Look:



They didn't create it. What part of that do you find unable to comprehend? It's all created and given to the computer by humans, do you not understand this? This is fact. The computers are not creating the music and sitting there being moved by it. It's fed to them like when you install a game. It's just a tool for use in this case.




Which bit don't you get Computers are programmed as are humans. A computer is programmed to recognise patterns analyse them and create similar patterns. As are people.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


I sometimes do feel like I'm talking to Jimmy from South Park with you Whirly. "THIS is my point." "Well tha-well tha- well that's wr-wrong AC. Now wait another 10 pages.........repeat your point please."

-AC

Thats OK sometimes I feel like I'm talking to twenty year old with no understanding of Science eek! I am.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Look, WITHOUT ANY HUMANS the computer is obsolete.


hmm ... You use Obsolete to mean no longer in use - correct, debatetable but irrelevant.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It can't do things only humans can do, you've not proven that. It can't play a guitar or an instrument, it can't think of music from scratch. It has it all fed to it by humans.



Humans can't think of music from scratch either. They have to learn the rules which have evolved. They didn't produce music immediatly.

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicologOriginally posted by Alpha Centauri

It can't do things only humans can do, you've not proven that. It can't play a guitar or an instrument, it can't think of music from scratch. It has it all fed to it by humans.



No it synthesises the sound I miss your point totally here.



Your expert witnesses are the same as the ones you tried pulling out in the other debate we had, google. Pathetic, anyone can do that.



Secondary sources arre pathetic confused Thats because you have none!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri



I'm not bringing opinion Whirly, well not solely.

Machines do not create the music, they arrange it and you can buy programs to do so in any PC store. I've used programs as such. They learn, humans learn, the difference is, I can learn by looking out my window. I can decide when I want to learn and how, and perceive it with emotion. Machines cannot.

End.

-AC

Machines have to be programmed so do you. They are starting to learn independantly.

Computer learning is embryonic

Machine learning approaches to analyzing human brain activity. This project uses functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to capture three-dimensional images of human brain activity at a spatial resolution of 1mm, once per second. This is a wonderful set of data for studying the operation of the human brain, and because it is relatively new, there is a great need for new algorithms to analyze the data. Recently we have demonstrated that it is possible to train machine learning algorithms to decode mental states of human subjects (e.g., to determine whether the word a person is examining is a noun or a verb) based on their observed fMRI brain activity. I am interested in developing new algorithms that will help discover the spatial-temporal patterns of activity associated with a variety of brain processes, and that will help us better understand the working of the human brain. We have access to the CMU-University of Pittsburgh Brain Imaging Research Center, to design and collect data for our own experiments.
This project raises interesting machine learning questions such as how to train classifiers in extremely high dimensional, noisy data, and how to learn

temporal models that characterize the evolution of hidden cognitive states while humans perform tasks such as reading and answering questions.



Reposted because you didn't get it

Max More, Ph.D.

If it were true that humans and machines are diametric opposites then it would have to be true that humans are not in the least machinelike and that machines cannot have humanlike properties. Yet biochemistry shows us that we are comprised of billions of machines. Each of our organs and tissues is a machine with a particular function. Each organ is made up of cells which themselves are made up of smaller, simpler biochemical machines. We call these "ribosomes", "mitochondria", "RNA" and the like. Even the seat of our consciousness and personality, the brain itself is made up of many billions of machines—neurons, synapses, hormonal systems, neurotransmitters. Ultimately body and brain are composed of the simplest mechanical parts: subatomic particles. Ultimately we are all quarks in motion.

The alternative view—that humans are the very opposite of machines—can only be true if we accept vitalism. Vitalism holds that life results not from biochemical reactions but from a vital force unique to living things. Whereas modern science sees life as resulting from the complex interactions of mechanistic parts forming and

continued in next post

Sir Whirlysplat
organic whole, vitalism sees life as suffused with a substance not found in non-living nature.

To say that humans are composed of machines is not to say that we are merely machines. Humans are dignified machines. We are (so far) the most extropic, most complex product of billions of years of evolution. All machines are not created equal. Living organisms display properties not shared by simpler machines. These emergent properties (homeostasis, reproduction, learning, intelligence) result not from the addition of a mysterious vital force but from the complexity of functional interrelationships. If we define "machine" and "mechanical" to imply rigid, unvarying, stupid, inflexible function, then humans are not machines, despite being entirely composed of machines. When enough machines work together in complex ways, new properties emerge, properties we refer to with terms like "organic", "living", "feeling", and "thinking".

The idea that humans and machines are opposites also fails to recognize that machines continue to evolve more organic, living qualities. Already we are developing robots that display some qualities of animals; we have artificial life software that mutates, reproduces, and evolves, as do computer viruses and worms; we have computers that learn using fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms, and other computational techniques. Whether a creature or an organ is made of carbon-based organic material, or of silicon or other inorganic materials does not matter. What is important is the complexity of the result: is the structure able to learn, to self-modify, to respond dynamically to changing input?

Full ideas here

http://www.maxmore.com/machine.htm

I am only using Computers as you understand them to guess at how things like this

UF SCIENTIST: “BRAIN” IN A DISH ACTS AS AUTOPILOT, LIVING COMPUTER
Oct. 21, 2004?Contact Information _|_ Photo Information


GAINESVILLE, Fla. --- A University of Florida scientist has grown a living “brain” that can fly a simulated plane, giving scientists a novel way to observe how brain cells function as a network.
The “brain” -- a collection of 25,000 living neurons, or nerve cells, taken from a rat’s brain and cultured inside a glass dish -- gives scientists a unique real-time window into the brain at the cellular level. By watching the brain cells interact, scientists hope to understand what causes neural disorders such as epilepsy and to determine noninvasive ways to intervene.
As living computers, they may someday be used to fly small unmanned airplanes or handle tasks that are dangerous for humans, such as search-and-rescue missions or bomb damage assessments.
“We’re interested in studying how brains compute,” said Thomas DeMarse, the UF professor of biomedical engineering who designed the study. “If you think about your brain, and learning and the memory process, I can ask you questions about when you were 5 years old and you can retrieve information. That’s a tremendous capacity for memory. In fact, you perform fairly simple tasks that you would think a computer would easily be able to accomplish, but in fact it can’t.”
While computers are very fast at processing some kinds of information, they can’t approach the flexibility of the human brain, DeMarse said. In particular, brains can easily make certain kinds of computations – such as recognizing an unfamiliar piece of furniture as a table or a lamp – that are very difficult to program into today’s computers.
“If we can extract the rules of how these neural networks are doing computations like pattern recognition, we can apply that to create novel computing systems,” he said.
DeMarse experimental "brain" interacts with an F-22 fighter jet flight simulator through a specially designed plate called a multi-electrode array and a common desktop computer.
“It’s essentially a dish with 60 electrodes arranged in a grid at the bottom,” DeMarse said. “Over that we put the living cortical neurons from rats, which rapidly begin to reconnect themselves, forming a living neural network – a brain.”
The brain and the simulator establish a two-way connection, similar to how neurons receive and interpret signals from each other to control our bodies. By observing how the nerve cells interact with the simulator, scientists can decode how a neural network establishes connections and begins to compute, DeMarse said.
When DeMarse first puts the neurons in the dish, they look like little more than grains of sand sprinkled in water. However, individual neurons soon begin to extend microscopic lines toward each other, making connections that represent neural processes. “You see one extend a process, pull it back, extend it out – and it may do that a couple of times, just sampling who’s next to it, until over time the connectivity starts to establish itself,” he said. “(The brain is) getting its network to the point where it’s a live computation device.”
To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane’s controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system.
“Initially when we hook up this brain to a flight simulator, it doesn’t know how to control the aircraft,” DeMarse said. “So you hook it up and the aircraft simply drifts randomly. And as the data comes in, it slowly modifies the (neural) network so over time, the network gradually learns to fly the aircraft.”
Although the brain currently is able to control the pitch and roll of the simulated aircraft in weather conditions ranging from blue skies to stormy, hurricane-force winds, the underlying goal is a more fundamental understanding of how neurons interact as a network, DeMarse said.
“There’s a lot of data out there that will tell you that the computation that’s going on here isn’t based on just one neuron. The computational property is actually an emergent property of hundreds or thousands of neurons cooperating to produce the amazing processing power of the brain.”
With Jose Principe, a UF distinguished professor of electrical engineering and director of UF's Computational NeuroEngineering Laboratory, DeMarse has a $500,000 National Science Foundation grant to create a mathematical model that reproduces how the neurons compute.
These living neural networks are being used to pursue a variety of engineering and neurobiology research goals, said Steven Potter, an assistant professor in the Georgia Tech/Emory Department of Biomedical Engineering who uses cultured brain cells to study learning and memory. DeMarse was a postdoctoral researcher in Potter’s laboratory at Georgia Tech before he arrived at UF.
“A lot of people have been interested in what changes in the brains of animals and people when they are learning things,” Potter said. “We’re interested in getting down into the network and cellular mechanisms, which is hard to do in living animals. And the engineering goal would be to get ideas from this system about how brains compute and process information.”
Though the ”brain” can successfully control a flight simulation program, more elaborate applications are a long way off, DeMarse said.
“We’re just starting out. But using this model will help us understand the crucial bit of information between inputs and the stuff that comes out,” he said. “And you can imagine the more you learn about that, the more you can harness the computation of these neurons into a wide range of applications.”



will affect machine ability in the future, I have no idea but I can guess wink

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


End.



[I hope it is now I grow bored with showing you your ignorance.

Alpha Centauri
Seeing as the previous two posts contained about two lines of relevancy, I'll reply to those. None of your quotes or excerpts (which I have read) contain anything that discredits my argument.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Which bit don't you get Computers are programmed as are humans. A computer is programmed to recognise patterns analyse them and create similar patterns. As are people.

A computer's sole purpose is to be programmed to do our bidding, this isn't the sole purpose of a human. You are quite stupid aren't you? Humans as programmable as computers? Are you serious?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Thats OK sometimes I feel like I'm talking to twenty year old with no understanding of Science eek! I am.

Hahaha, good one Mr. Humans are equally programmable as Computers.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
smile hmm ... You use Obsolete to mean no longer in use - correct, debatetable but irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How is it? It's the very debate we're discussing. End of story then. If you agree that humans can exist without computers, but the vice versa is not possible, then you are proving yourself wrong and me right.

Because computers can't do anything musical or ANYTHING at all without humans. The only way technology advances is if we allow it.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Humans can't think of music from scratch either. They have to learn the rules which have evolved. They didn't produce music immediatly.

Actually like talking to a brick wall. What are you not getting? The rules exist but they're used more like guidelines than anything.

Here, I'll say it again:

Humans can decide when they want to learn and how, they aren't dependent on being taught by someone else. They can self-teach.

Computers cannot, my computer will be out of date at some point and unless I choose to feed it new upgrades, it will plunge further into being obsolete. Therefore, if computers cannot do things without human assistance, how do you figure they will ever reach this mythical height of independence?

-AC