It will calculate a lot faster and solve chess problems faster - by brute force. And lots of other trivial shit. We can only 'create' what we can draw blueprints for - random connections of transistors gets - Thevenin's law and noise.

What it won't *ever* have is.. Eureka! Ah I See [very much more than perhaps, was hoped for], like the dream of a snake eating its tail, said to have catalyzed the discovery of the benzene ring. It won't be fucking *alive*, Dr. Frankenstein.

And mainly - Eureka! is an *emotional* response to a solution of a mostly-intellectual problem. Nuance - forget other than the literal, even without the 'ephemeral', and all those similar words you find rilly offensive because: they aren't concrete.
Did I mention love? Your machine couldn't even 'love' a cat. (Even really retarded homo-saps respond to love)

No: we couldn't come close, even to matching the functioning of a nit-wit's brain! IMhO.

Face it: we don't know SHIT about how our brain/minds, our 'person'alities 'work', how we arrive at bizarre associative (for one) speculative new ideas and are later, unable even to say how it "dawned on us that ___". Do you really need more examples of why this is a preposterous idea, however a cute wish?


Ashton
And if you want me to stick to your fav concrete words - it's gonna be insufferably dull - like your proto-robot is guaranteed to be. Life is nuance or it's McDonalds digital.

Yup, there was that time, over the ton.. when that moving van suddenly appeared and 4 brakes must have exceeded 1 G, somehow.. but that of course was a Vincent, not just a machine.

:-\ufffd

Some folk have faith in a god; some in the idea there is none such (or at least not in the forms thus far popularly catalogued). Some even imagine they can 'prove' any of the above.

Your impressive list of organs 'about' human psych merely demonstrates how Interesting is the Question. No? I agree: there *IS* much lore. There is maybe almost as much lore there, as re economics - some even imagine possession of an algorithm for assuring 'prosperity' (for various definitions, weighted in the eye of the beholder).

One person in a forum has given his algorithm for ~ "what is reason-able". No comment.

My 'faith' here is from self- and other observation, that (~~)

A. The intellect is ever so much better at revealing the false - in some effort to see beyond (intellect's view?) than in ever revealing these high Truths, Questions which so preoccupy the writers of manuals for human conduct.

B. The lower cannot see the higher is a principle, obviously conceived by men - as obviously: aiming a bit beyond ideas merely deducible from some arbitrary postulates - axioms created, so as to nicely circumscribe some problem we defined today. Our laboratory always requires these axioms - we call that, "the scientific method". It has great utility in most matters which can be reproduced, observed independently by many - and the meaning of the data debated. Some places are extra-laboratory, and are not deduced via this methodology.

C. What this means is left to the total experience and accumulated insights of any reader of the principle. As a 'principle' it is 'true' only insofar as it has utility (else mere arbitrary dogma).

I believe the principle has demonstrated utility in ferreting out the false, often intermixed with the er 'conditionally true'? And I think it demonstrates by simplest parallel:

The 'mind' (as we call that which is sentient within) cannot 'know itself'. It can and does: collect lore. We know something. I merely call that shit - compared to what is not-known and likely cannot be known. It is then, a qualitative observation about the limits of ~ 'accumulated data' of whatever quantity. Must 'meta' also be defined? Good luck.

As to blueprints. This thread began from Hawking's dream of a meta-brain IIRC. I suggest that one cannot 'create' a meta-brain unless one knows enough of the workings of a 'brain' so as to have any idea what 'improvement' might mean! let alone: where to apply "the patch".

If that's insufficient to comprehend my 'meaning' - please feel free to 'prove' the possibility of proof or disproof of the thesis. Or - never 'mind'; there's nothing to 'win' but some sort of tautology anyway..


Ashton

word. Reality! indeed.

We'd likely agree on the general steps to produce a new machine, once we had the specs and knew the technology.

And while I'd agree that much human behavior is more machine-like than umm Wise (?) we're not going to reach agreement that, you could model a search for a human mind along the same 'theorem-domain' as [that which creates 'theorem-domains']. Love to nail it down for you all logically parsed, but that wouldn't be reasonable. Or possible.

(Now if I said, it violates causality!, we could go directly to That theological principle, but likely as fruitlessly)

Sorry - not everything that is, can be explained by physics alone. Sentience is one such as cannot. But by all means: place your bets. It's as fun a game as any, but my bet remains: you'll get a calculator which could never feel.. Eureka!. We don't know shit about feel, especially. You'll never create a thing which realizes, I. Am. Never..




Ashton

Here's a simple suggestion for a definition: "Reality" is where people,
complete with more or less "reasonable" and "wise" minds, build machines
and shared theories and possibly (in my so far un-disproven opinion) minds.

Who said any differently about 'what usually we do'? I *said* - you'd get a machine. Not a human mind - let very much alone: an 'improved' human mind. (But when you call our daily activities 'reality', if you mean that in the highest scale possible (?) Well, that would be a too long digression to explore. Some other time, though unlikely.)

Logic is a very good and useful tool -- no more than a tool, and not
absolutely always the best tool, but very good and useful nevertheless --
out there in the "cold, harsh land of reality".

It's the outside tangible world; not the cloud-cuckoo-land inside our heads,
where we build all kinds of more or less (and this is possibly the only thing
that's truly "unknowable", at least to everyone except the owner of each
head) un-reasonable and un-wise kooky theories and other dogmatic
edifices.

Who said logic is not extremely useful? Useful to whom: someone, someone who perceives, thinks, feels, possesses self-awareness. Did you imagine that the concept 'logic' has existence anywhere outside the mentioned receptacle?

Logic isn't required in there -- not that I can see how that in and of itself is
supposed to ensure that the quotient of "reason and "wisdom" is going to
be any higher...

Possibly you can imagine some definition of 'reason' or 'wisdom' operating with no logic - but I think we're heading for epistemology city. That or, you are looking for a complete and 'logical' definition of both those concepts, too?

And while I'd agree that much human behavior is more machine-like
than umm Wise (?) we're not going to reach agreement that, you
could model a search for a human mind along the same
'theorem-domain' [...]

But who said we're searching for a human mind, exclusively?

Haven't you asserted that it's impossible to create any "intelligent" mind, or
did I misread you completely? (Or are you just going by the comfortably
anthropocentric -- and completely circular! -- definition that any
"intelligence" has to be "human"?)

Read much? like the link to Hawking's words?

It is vital to develop
ways of keeping
biological systems
superior to electronic ones, Hawking
continued. Humans must develop an
interface that allows the human brain to be
directly connected to a computer, so that
the artificial brain contributes to human
intelligence, rather than opposing it.

I'll try to say it slowly: Before you can construct an interface to a biological *system, you must fucking understand! exactly-enough, how that system operates.

* and if Mr. Hawking or you imagine - because we have this neat word system, it 'means' that: we Can "understand everything we call a system", next: I demur. And the simplest reason -in both senses- I can give you why it is obvious that, "the mind cannot understand itself" is the "reason of scale" I mentioned. And if it is your habit to label every concept which you do not understand - or believe not worth your effort to try, as some sort of "new-age-style mystical blathering" - then, tough shit. I'm not required to teach the determinedly anti-clueful, any more than you are.

And you behave as if there *were* some nice logical explanation of every concept (the apparent mind-language) including but not limited to: reason, wisdom, sentience, self awareness and no doubt: I Am too!

You might as well say, "if *I* can't parse it into bite-sized serial chunks" - it doesn't exist. In which case, neither does love, nor is there any need for those other words you find distinctly uncomfortable: evanescent, ephemeral, ineffable - and likely sublime too..

But I think you circumscribe quite well, your own view of it all.. about here:

Like your petrified-into-empty-dogma "theology" about the supposed --
but never, ever, logically proven, nor "wisely" explained, nor even
"reasonably" defended -- "uniqueness" of the human mind, you mean?

There's no one capable of "wisely explaining" *anything* - to the smugly closed and locked mind - especially such a mind as casually dismisses! the limitless qualities which differentiate a human from any machine we make or ever could.

And if that still eludes being "intuitively obvious" to you, then perhaps yours IS such a mind all-unaware - as might meet the specs for SH's proposal, and we can surely ready that limited-edition for an interface - maybe about the time Windoze becomes stable?

Christian R. Conrad

The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything About Un-Wise Un-Reason

Not this time - I demur and say, "doesn't know shit even about what it means to be a human Being".

(I have to suppose this has been an intentional exercise in futility - on which you thought I just.. might.. be teased into biting, via sophomoric twittings. Nahhh. :-\ufffd )