Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
back to that.😂 Everyone with a Science degree who has posted has told you viruses are not alive. 😂
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
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's your point? Going back to what? We've been over that.
-AC
🙂 Point is you didn't know what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread 😉
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 🙂
Stay Whirly 🤘
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
🙂 Point is you didn't know what you were talking about at the beginning of the thread 😉
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
🙂 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 🙂
Stay Whirly 🤘
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
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 CentauriI 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 😱 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 musicolog
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.
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.
[/B]
Secondary sources arre pathetic 😕 Thats because you have none!
[i]Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI'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
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 😉
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriEnd.
[I hope it is now I grow bored with showing you your ignorance.
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 😱 I am.
Hahaha, good one Mr. Humans are equally programmable as Computers.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
🙂 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
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 🙂
A machine is, for example is my computer 😛
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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?
God you're thick, rude and ignorant a response to your outburst .
Humans are programmed it's called Education/ Socialization. I have some, you don't obviously.
Human beings are "programmed" in two important ways: by nature and by nurture. We are not the authors of our own intelligent abilities. First, our brains are complex organs that have built into them the mechanisms that make possible our reasoning abilities. YOU did not design or build your own brain. Either nature did (through evolution) or God did. But in either case, you don't get credit for it. Second, you have been taught and trained by many people, you have been nurtured. If you were raised by wolves, you wouldn't speak a language and you would be incapable of many forms of reasoning that you now take for granted. The training that you have received from other people is a kind of programming. Yes, the capacities that machines have were "built in" by humans, but the capacities that we have were "built in" as well. Humans are programmed, at least in a certain broad sense of "being programmed."
Originally posted by AlphaEnd 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.
Once programmed Computers can act on that programming like humans act on theirs. A baby can't survive on its own! No I keep proving your ignorance.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because computers can't do anything musical or ANYTHING at all without humans. The only way technology advances is if we allow it.
Everything is programmed humans and machines, evolutionary algorithms do not need humans once activated as long as the power is maintained.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHumans can decide when they want to learn and how, they aren't dependent on being taught by someone else. They can self-teach.
They can self teach if the stimuli is available you choose stimuli based on your previous programming.
Primitive but proves my point
By Will Knight. New Scientist News (January 24, 2005). "A computer that learns to play a 'scissors, paper, stone' by observing and mimicking human players could lead to machines that automatically learn how to spot an intruder or perform vital maintenance work, say UK researchers. CogVis, developed by scientists at the University of Leeds in Yorkshire, UK, teaches itself how to play the children's game by searching for patterns in video and audio of human players and then building its own 'hypotheses' about the game's rules. In contrast to older artificial intelligence (AI) programs that mimic human behavior using hard-coded rules, CogVis takes a more human approach, learning through observation and mimicry, the researchers say. ... 'A system that can observe events in an unknown scenario, learn and participate just as a child would is almost the Holy Grail of AI,' says Derek Magee from the University of Leeds." Be sure to see the sidebar with related articles & web sites.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriComputers 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
Well the quotes I posted on self evolving algorithms and neural bio computers (both exist in embryonic forms already) as previously illustrated should show you how!
You really do know very little 🙁
Bless you - Secondary sources to support your arguments please. You have provided none.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
God you're thick, rude and ignorant a response to your outburst .Humans are programmed it's called Education/ Socialization. I have some, you don't obviously.
Haha, put the handbag down Gretchen. It's KMC, not the smokey bingo hall on a Sunday night.
Humans are genetically wired certain ways, yes. I never denied this did I? You proposed they were AS programmable as computers. We both know this is false.
Moving on.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Human beings are "programmed" in two important ways: by nature and by nurture. We are not the authors of our own intelligent abilities. First, our brains are complex organs that have built into them the mechanisms that make possible our reasoning abilities. YOU did not design or build your own brain. Either nature did (through evolution) or God did. But in either case, you don't get credit for it. Second, you have been taught and trained by many people, you have been nurtured. If you were raised by wolves, you wouldn't speak a language and you would be incapable of many forms of reasoning that you now take for granted. The training that you have received from other people is a kind of programming. Yes, the capacities that machines have were "built in" by humans, but the capacities that we have were "built in" as well. Humans are programmed, at least in a certain broad sense of "being programmed."
Yes, but as programmable as computers, who's sole purpose it is to be programmed again and again? No.
Stop making a point then changing what I say so you have something to counter. It's pathetic and cowardly.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Once programmed Computers can act on that programming like humans act on theirs. A baby can't survive on its own! No I keep proving your ignorance.
A baby can't SURVIVE on it's own, no. This is only because of the beginning stages. Your computer doesn't get stronger and more self sufficient as it gets older, it gets worse. Why? Because technology advances. Why? Because HUMANS are advancing it. Without humans, these far away fairy theories of independent sentient thought that computers will have, would never even exist. Nor do I believe it will anyway.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Everything is programmed humans and machines, evolutionary algorithms do not need humans once activated as long as the power is maintained.
WHO said that humans weren't "programmable"? Me? No. You? No. Who said humans were as programmable as computers? You? Yes. Me? No.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
They can self teach if the stimuli is available you choose stimuli based on your previous programming.
Yeah, everything they do relies on the human wanting to give them the ability to do so. Computers don't choose for humans, humans choose for computers.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Primitive but proves my pointBy Will Knight. New Scientist News (January 24, 2005). "A computer that learns to play a 'scissors, paper, stone' by observing and mimicking human players could lead to machines that automatically learn how to spot an intruder or perform vital maintenance work, say UK researchers. CogVis, developed by scientists at the University of Leeds in Yorkshire, UK, teaches itself how to play the children's game by searching for patterns in video and audio of human players and then building its own 'hypotheses' about the game's rules. In contrast to older artificial intelligence (AI) programs that mimic human behavior using hard-coded rules, CogVis takes a more human approach, learning through observation and mimicry, the researchers say. ... 'A system that can observe events in an unknown scenario, learn and participate just as a child would is almost the Holy Grail of AI,' says Derek Magee from the University of Leeds." Be sure to see the sidebar with related articles & web sites.
Another googlism...tsk tsk. Nothing new. Rest assured, I AM reading these quotes, they're just not proving anything that holds down your argument. Maybe because you're changing it every five minutes.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Well the quotes I posted on self evolving algorithms and neural bio computers (both exist in embryonic forms already) as previously illustrated should show you how!You really do know very little 🙁
It shows me how you get your OPINION and belief that this will occur, yes. You have every right to that, but what you must understand is that I'm not denying that the ability of computers will grow, especially in the area of mimicry, but that will ALWAYS be derived from human constants. It will never be solely created from them. They may become as able as we are at the arrangement and catagorisation, very much so, but they will never be able to create a symphony.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Bless you - Secondary sources to support your arguments please. You have provided none.
Primary sources to support your arguments please, you have provided none. I've provided no secondary sources because I don't need them to explain the simplicity of what my points are.
You do.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Haha, put the handbag down Gretchen. It's KMC, not the smokey bingo hall on a Sunday night.Humans are genetically wired certain ways, yes. I never denied this did I? You proposed they were AS programmable as computers. We both know this is false.
-AC
It's not just about Genetic wiring I asked if you had hear of Memes.
I am going to use Richard Dawkins to explain.
Viruses of the Mind ?Richard Dawkins
1991
The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . .
Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
1 Duplication Fodder
A beautiful child close to me, six and the apple of her father's eye, believes that Thomas the Tank Engine really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. She and her school-friends believe the solemn word of respected adults that tooth fairies and Father Christmas really exist. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs she will believe you. If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell she will have nightmares. I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?
A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
DNA, too, includes parasitic code. Cellular machinery is extremely good at copying DNA. Where DNA is concerned, it seems to have an eagerness to copy, seems eager to be copied. The cell nucleus is a paradise for DNA, humming with sophisticated, fast, and accurate duplicating machinery.
Cellular machinery is so friendly towards DNA duplication that it is small wonder cells play host to DNA parasites --- viruses, viroids, plasmids and a riff-raff of other genetic fellow travelers. Parasitic DNA even gets itself spliced seamlessly into the chromosomes themselves. ``Jumping genes'' and stretches of ``selfish DNA'' cut or copy themselves out of chromosomes and paste themselves in elsewhere. Deadly oncogenes are almost impossible to distinguish from the legitimate genes between which they are spliced. In evolutionary time, there is probably a continual traffic from ``straight'' genes to ``outlaw,'' and back again (Dawkins, 1982). DNA is just DNA. The only thing that distinguishes viral DNA from host DNA is its expected method of passing into future generations. ``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg.
For data on a floppy disc, a computer is a humming paradise just as cell nuclei hum with eagerness to duplicate DNA. Computers and their associated disc and tape readers are designed with high fidelity in mind. As with DNA molecules, magnetized bytes don't literally ``want'' to be faithfully copied. Nevertheless, you can write a computer program that takes steps to duplicate itself. Not just duplicate itself within one computer but spread itself to other computers. Computers are so good at copying bytes, and so good at faithfully obeying the instructions contained in those bytes, that they are sitting ducks to self-replicating programs: wide open to subversion by software parasites.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, but as programmable as computers, who's sole purpose it is to be programmed again and again? No.Stop making a point then changing what I say so you have something to counter. It's pathetic and cowardly.
The purpose of a reprogrammable computer is to be programmed again and again, the purpose of a learning algorithm is to improve at whatever it is learning.
I haven't changed what you said I have quoted you. The irony of his coming from you mate is hilarious.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A baby can't SURVIVE on it's own, no. This is only because of the beginning stages. Your computer doesn't get stronger and more self sufficient as it gets older, it gets worse. Why? Because technology advances. Why? Because HUMANS are advancing it. Without humans, these far away fairy theories of independent sentient thought that computers will have, would never even exist. Nor do I believe it will anyway.
Ahh.. but computers improve as you add more programs, until they get old, humans are the same. You are entitled to your belief but I am entitled to disagree.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
WHO said that humans weren't "programmable"? Me? No. You? No. Who said humans were as programmable as computers? You? Yes. Me? No.
Humans in some ways are more programmable Society could be considered an example of this. Again I cite Memes theory, you get that now right.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAnother googlism...tsk tsk. Nothing new. Rest assured, I AM reading these quotes, they're just not proving anything that holds down your argument. Maybe because you're changing it every five minutes.
More Flim Flam to use Google to support your arguments you have to know about things like Memes?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriPrimary sources to support your arguments please, you have provided none. I've provided no secondary sources because I don't need them to explain the simplicity of what my points are.
You do.
-AC
I have provided both, Your "opinion" argument is amusing.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Haha, put the handbag down Gretchen. It's KMC, not the smokey bingo hall on a Sunday night.
I will do - if you do, as you picked it up first 😉
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It's not just about Genetic wiring I asked if you had hear of Memes.I am going to use Richard Dawkins to explain.
Viruses of the Mind ?Richard Dawkins
1991
The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . .
Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
1 Duplication Fodder
A beautiful child close to me, six and the apple of her father's eye, believes that Thomas the Tank Engine really exists. She believes in Father Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. She and her school-friends believe the solemn word of respected adults that tooth fairies and Father Christmas really exist. This little girl is of an age to believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes into frogs she will believe you. If you tell her that bad children roast forever in hell she will have nightmares. I have just discovered that without her father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?
A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.
DNA, too, includes parasitic code. Cellular machinery is extremely good at copying DNA. Where DNA is concerned, it seems to have an eagerness to copy, seems eager to be copied. The cell nucleus is a paradise for DNA, humming with sophisticated, fast, and accurate duplicating machinery.
Cellular machinery is so friendly towards DNA duplication that it is small wonder cells play host to DNA parasites --- viruses, viroids, plasmids and a riff-raff of other genetic fellow travelers. Parasitic DNA even gets itself spliced seamlessly into the chromosomes themselves. ``Jumping genes'' and stretches of ``selfish DNA'' cut or copy themselves out of chromosomes and paste themselves in elsewhere. Deadly oncogenes are almost impossible to distinguish from the legitimate genes between which they are spliced. In evolutionary time, there is probably a continual traffic from ``straight'' genes to ``outlaw,'' and back again (Dawkins, 1982). DNA is just DNA. The only thing that distinguishes viral DNA from host DNA is its expected method of passing into future generations. ``Legitimate'' host DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg.
For data on a floppy disc, a computer is a humming paradise just as cell nuclei hum with eagerness to duplicate DNA. Computers and their associated disc and tape readers are designed with high fidelity in mind. As with DNA molecules, magnetized bytes don't literally ``want'' to be faithfully copied. Nevertheless, you can write a computer program that takes steps to duplicate itself. Not just duplicate itself within one computer but spread itself to other computers. Computers are so good at copying bytes, and so good at faithfully obeying the instructions contained in those bytes, that they are sitting ducks to self-replicating programs: wide open to subversion by software parasites.
Stop this, speak for yourself. You're becoming Deano V2.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
The purpose of a reprogrammable computer is to be programmed again and again, the purpose of a learning algorithm is to improve at whatever it is learning.
Exactly. Who improves technology? Humans. How? Because we are learning more. If we don't, computers won't. We didn't have Pentium 4 processors back in 1980 did we? No.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I haven't changed what you said I have quoted you. The irony of his coming from you mate is hilarious.
You are. Whether you realise it or not, you are. Maybe it's unintentional, but you're either answering the wrong quotes with the wrong answers or something else then, because you've misconstrued many of my points.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Ahh.. but computers improve as you add more programs, until they get old, humans are the same. You are entitled to your belief but I am entitled to disagree as we
For crying out loud...*Retrieves Etch-a-Sketch*
Right, here we have a computer, and here we have a human. The human will learn when it wants, how it wants for as long as it wants to. Fact. The computer will only "learn" what is "taught" to it as and when it is needed, it relies on the human to gain it's knowledge and to be taught. If you hold the box of Norton Anti-Virus up to the monitor, it doesn't go "Hmm, might learn that."
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Humans in some ways are more programmable Society could be considered an example of this. Again I cite Memes theory, you get that now right.
Computers are by default, the more programmable as it's their primary purpose. Let's let that go, it's simple.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
More Flim Flam to use Google to support your arguments you have to know about things like Memes?
No but if I wanted copy and pastes of the same story in slightly changed overtones I'd go to Deano. I've read what you post and none of it disproves my point, only what you believe to be my point.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop this, speak for yourself. You're becoming Deano V2.-AC
Not really because Richard Dawkins etc. is not Rense or David Icke - A very bad comparison.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly. Who improves technology? Humans. How? Because we are learning more. If we don't, computers won't. We didn't have Pentium 4 processors back in 1980 did we? No.-AC
We created computers, no-ones doubts that you said they could not evolve I explained some algorithms were able to learn and gave examples of several methods they do this. You are discussing Hardware, I am discussing Software and where we can expect initially human created computers abilities to end up. I think you missed the point on purpose. However originally I was only arguing machines could create music based on musical rules and interpret them based on performers rules. Two claims I have backed with Secondary sources. I argue in the future they will be even more autonomous. How much I don't know and neither do you. Moot point.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are. Whether you realize it or not, you are. Maybe it's unintentional, but you're either answering the wrong quotes with the wrong answers or something else then, because you've misconstrued many of my points.
I am saying the same of you! I think though its because you are caught up in the music aspect of the debate and lack the other specialized knowledge.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriFor crying out loud...*Retrieves Etch-a-Sketch*
Please we had your ball you wanted to bounce before, put your etch a sketch away I don't want to see your picture of a house.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Right, here we have a computer, and here we have a human. The human will learn when it wants, how it wants for as long as it wants to. Fact. The computer will only "learn" what is "taught" to it as and when it is needed, it relies on the human to gain it's knowledge and to be taught. If you hold the box of Norton Anti-Virus up to the monitor, it doesn't go "Hmm, might learn that."Computers are by default, the more programmable as it's their primary purpose. Let's let that go, it's simple.
It really isn't that simple, People don't learn what they want, they first learn what they need to survive. This is an operating system. They then learn what the need to function this is the software. The choices are based on the input they are exposed to. As Computers (made by man at present) become more able to process information this is likely to happen. Computer AI is beyond insect level now. Thats about a billion years of evolution in 40 years 😉 Oh and it's speeding up. True AI in sixty years at this rate. Ever heard of the Singularity.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriNo but if I wanted copy and pastes of the same story in slightly changed overtones I'd go to Deano. I've read what you post and none of it disproves my point, only what you believe to be my point.
-AC
Again Dawkin is not Rense neither is any of the other links I've posted.
Selective Sources, try them, they will help you.
The Deano comparisons come from your penchant for posting links or pasting chunks of text.
Here's the deal, here's how debates work: If you're not going to take the time to put across your argument yourself, then I'm not taking the time to deal with those parts of your post.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We created computers, no-ones doubts that you said they could not evolve I explained some algorithms were able to learn and gave examples of several methods they do this. You are discussing Hardware, I am discussing Software and where we can expect initially human created computers abilities to end up. I think you missed the point on purpose. However originally I was only arguing machines could create music based on musical rules and interpret them based on performers rules. Two claims I have backed with Secondary sources. I argue in the future they will be even more autonomous. How much I don't know and neither do you. Moot point.
The only way machines could interpret is if a program is created BY humans and TAUGHT to the computer. They won't independently learn that on their own.
You confuse that issue way too much. It is a FACT....a FACT....that they are not creating the music. End of story. They haven't created, they have arranged.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I am saying the same of you! I think though its because you are caught up in the music aspect of the debate and lack the other specialized knowledge.
That's what it started from and the principle is the same.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
It really isn't that simple, People don't learn what they want, they first learn what they need to survive. This is an operating system. They then learn what the need to function this is the software. The choices are based on the input they are exposed to. As Computers (made by man at present) become more able to process information this is likely to happen. Computer AI is beyond insect level now. Thats about a billion years of evolution in 40 years 😉 Oh and it's speeding up. True AI in sixty years at this rate. Ever heard of the Singularity.
I'm not denying that "AI" will evolve, but I refuse to believe that it will ever be possible for man made machines and/or autonomous constructions to feel emotion as we do.
Why do you think it's called artificial intelligence? Think about that for a second. It's not called ARTIFICIAL intelligence because they create it themselves. Computers are only as smart as the human race makes them.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The Deano comparisons come from your penchant for posting links or pasting chunks of text.
I realised that and again cope and Dawkins are not Rense, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to understand what experts think in context.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Here's the deal, here's how debates work: If you're not going to take the time to put across your argument yourself, then I'm not taking the time to deal with those parts of your post.
😂 because you can't
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The only way machines could interpret is if a program is created BY humans and TAUGHT to the computer. They won't independently learn that on their own.
Neither do humans, the rules evolved over hundreds of years, humans learn these rules.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
.
You confuse that issue way too much. It is a FACT....a FACT....that they are not creating the music. End of story. They haven't created, they have arranged.
-ACNot according to UCSC that secondary evidence you hate so much!!! AC knows more than UCSC ❌
e seem to accept the achievements of machine composing at an alarmingly uncritical pace. In an article in the EE Times, Colin Johnson writes that “computers can compose a new Bach cantata, but cannot compose anything novel, because their algorithms merely encapsulate a particular style of music” (eetimes.com/at/news/OET20021230S0015). The reference can only be to David Cope, since no one else—as far as I’m aware—has produced work to substantiate the first and last of those claims. Since the mid-1980s, Experiments in Musical Intelligence, Mr. Cope’s program, has been generating Bach-like inventions, Chopin-like nocturnes, Mozart-like symphonies or, as on this CD, Bach-like instrumental concerti and suites, at an unprecedented level of technical accomplishment. There are, in fact, no other contenders for machine-composed music anywhere approaching this level, in consequence of which Mr. Cope’s work has excited enormous admiration and speculation. An article in New Scientist calls it a “requiem for the soul”, and theorists like Leonard Meyer, Fred Lerdahl, Ray Kurzweil, and Douglas Hostadter have expressed interest, approbation, and amazement (arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/biography_page_2.htm).
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThat's what it started from and the principle is the same.
yes you are!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not denying that "AI" will evolve, but I refuse to believe that it will ever be possible for man made machines and/or autonomous constructions to feel emotion as we do.Why do you think it's called artificial intelligence? Think about that for a second. It's not called ARTIFICIAL intelligence because they create it themselves. Computers are only as smart as the human race makes them.
-AC
Again you engage in prophecy!
Another secondary source with a different opinion, I'm not saying he's right
Vernor Vinge
Department of Mathematical Sciences
San Diego State University
(c) 1993 by Vernor Vinge?(This article may be reproduced for noncommercial purposes if it is copied in its entirety, including this notice.)
The original version of this article was presented at the VISION-21 Symposium sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute, March 30-31, 1993. A slightly changed version appeared in the Winter 1993 issue of Whole Earth Review.
Abstract
Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
I kept it short 🙂
Keep the faith 🙂
Stay Whirly 🤘
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
😂 because you can't
I've read each and every one that you've posted. There's nothing to deal with, there's seriously not. They all amount to the same point via a different route. That being that there is progression in the areas of computer technology connected with human experiences. I've dealt with that all over this thread anyway.
But no, to be specific, the reason I choose not to "deal" with them isn't because I can't, it's because you're not taking the time to contribute so I'm not gonna bother with those parts. I don't get why you take pride when they're not even your opinions anyway.
It's not like you are posting independent thought after thought.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Secondly, Neither do humans, the rules evolved over hundreds of years, humans learn these rules.
Human's don't sit around doing nothing. From birth they are perceiving the world around them, they're not vegetables until someone says "HEY! Learn this!" You have an incredibly naive view.
With regards to the quote you messed up:
AGAIN, for the love of intellect, all it shows is that the computer is very advanced at ARRANGING. If you turn a computer on, the most powerful computer in the world, and you completely ignore it and leave it, it cannot learn and play a song. It's just....how can you even maintain that?
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Again you engage in prophecy!
Oh? Let's see this:
Another secondary source with a different opinion, I'm not saying he's right
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Abstract
Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.
If you took a break from trying to come across as the next Christopher Lambert in Highlander, you'd realise that you are doing everything you accuse me of and in the pricess, digging yourself deeper into the hole.
The above quote is utter speculation and there is nothing to suggest this will happen.
-AC