I think, therefore I am - true or false?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Depends on what you mean by "I" in this context. If "I" refers to the personality inside your head, then that statement is somewhat of a tautology. However, if I recall correctly, many zoologists consider the "mirror" test to be definitive. If a creature coming up to a mirror wants to attack it as a rival, there is no sense of self and no recognition of self. Koko the gorilla passed this test. It has also been shown to work for some dolphins. And it works for babies in a roundabout way. Most people don't think about it this way, but birth doesn't produce a ready-made person. The brain slowly develops over time. When the baby recognizes itself in a mirror, the personality has formed sufficiently to implement a sense of self.
I take the quote to imply that if you have sufficient sense of self to ask the question, then your "self" exists and puts extra emphasis on "self-aware."
One man's opinion here, since self-awareness is one of "those" philosophical concepts that always gets folks in trouble when they try to define it.
I take the quote to imply that if you have sufficient sense of self to ask the question, then your "self" exists and puts extra emphasis on "self-aware."
One man's opinion here, since self-awareness is one of "those" philosophical concepts that always gets folks in trouble when they try to define it.
Alan Turing's test stands as the best answer to that question.
If you are told that you are testing a new type of distant communication involving a teletype or computer keyboard, and you can have a free and open conversation with who-/whatever is on the other end of the line, but you CANNOT SEE the other end and are not permitted to ask "What are you?" - and if you then cannot tell whether you are talking to a human or a computer, then for all intents and purposes, that computer is sentient (or perhaps you are not.)
I remember many years ago that no machine had ever passed the Turing test, but oddly enough some machines came close. There was this little program called "Parry" that came closer than any other AI at the time. It did so by being crazy. "Parry" didn't come from "Thrust and parry" (swordplay) but from "Paranoid" because the AI was simulating someone with a paranoid delusion. Apparently, if you are crazy, your thoughts tend to be more constrained than if you are sane.
Which leads me to speculate how the late Robin Williams would have appeared as the "disembodied member" of the Turing test. He was so wildly all over the mental map that people would probably have thought of him as a random-phrase generator.
If you are told that you are testing a new type of distant communication involving a teletype or computer keyboard, and you can have a free and open conversation with who-/whatever is on the other end of the line, but you CANNOT SEE the other end and are not permitted to ask "What are you?" - and if you then cannot tell whether you are talking to a human or a computer, then for all intents and purposes, that computer is sentient (or perhaps you are not.)
I remember many years ago that no machine had ever passed the Turing test, but oddly enough some machines came close. There was this little program called "Parry" that came closer than any other AI at the time. It did so by being crazy. "Parry" didn't come from "Thrust and parry" (swordplay) but from "Paranoid" because the AI was simulating someone with a paranoid delusion. Apparently, if you are crazy, your thoughts tend to be more constrained than if you are sane.
Which leads me to speculate how the late Robin Williams would have appeared as the "disembodied member" of the Turing test. He was so wildly all over the mental map that people would probably have thought of him as a random-phrase generator.
In the case of self as existence, I think @The_Doc_Man explained my position better than I could.
In the true sense of existence, thinking is not a prerequisite.
As for AI, I don't believe I could ever accept it as real consciousness; I would see it as a clever machine. (Let the puns out on this one, I earned them all with my chosen moniker)
In the true sense of existence, thinking is not a prerequisite.
As for AI, I don't believe I could ever accept it as real consciousness; I would see it as a clever machine. (Let the puns out on this one, I earned them all with my chosen moniker)
What if this clever machine had the exact same structure of the brain, but instead of being all guey and squishy, it was hardware? It thought the identical same thoughts as the human brain, but it was silicon. Would it still not be sentient? To be sentient, is the defining characteristic "it must squish"?
I use CBD oil to manage the inflammation and nerve pain to avoid opiate maintenance. Unfortunately it's still state to state in the USA and my state just decided they don't want to play the same way as the other so I am now seen as an unapologetic criminal and illegal drug user until the medical MJ structure is put into place.
I have a friend of mine who was diagnosed with MS about 3 years ago. She was inexplicably collapsing, legs giving way and so on. Saw so many doctors and specialists and they had no idea what was going on. And then the diagnosis came. So she tried some cannabis. She rolled her joint but put the entire mini bag of grass in there and smoke it all! She said she went bonkers! I told he afterwards you only need a little bit in there! The neighbour name over as there was a bit of a commotion going on with her acting rather strangely. A rather memorable lesson!
I am reminded of a question posed in The Imitation Game, which is the story of Alan Turing and his colleagues at Blechley Park during WW II. They cracked the Enigma code. But in a side conversation, someone asked Alan about an article he had written (from which the movie's title was derived). In this scene, he posed the question: Just because something thinks differently than you, does that mean it doesn't think? (Paraphrased!)
We know that gorillas can think in at least rudimentary ways. Koko the gorilla knew about 60 words of sign language, could grieve at the passing of one of his playmates, and could recognize himself in a mirror. Dolphins can pass the mirror test and have been trained for underwater search missions. Please note that I am limiting my comments on dolphins to what has been declassified and published. Intentionally changing the subject, dogs can obey commands given verbally or with gestures. They can be trained to sniff out drugs, bomb chemicals, or skin cancer. (No, not kidding - the first known cancer-sniffer was a beagle.) Obviously, none of the above are human. But the question has to be, does that disqualify them from actually being recognized as thinking?
Now take that to another level. The "Watson" AI project from IBM has been studying oncology for a while and is now equally capable as the most competent diagnosticians when it comes to identifying the presence of at least several dozen cancers. The difference between the human brain and most computer brains is that human brains are associative. (See also the "Memory Castles" discussion in another thread in this forum.) The idea of associating a memory with another memory or image is an attempt to take advantage of associative memory. Computer brains have to apply algorithms based on a more linearized mode of operation but they can still reach the same conclusions by using tricks such as indexing and parallel processing, with what are called "Fork/Join" methods. I.e. come to a fork in a decision tree, so you assign one CPU to one fork and another CPU to the other fork. Later, when both CPUs are finished, they JOIN each other and one CPU goes on while the other CPU gets reassigned.
We know that gorillas can think in at least rudimentary ways. Koko the gorilla knew about 60 words of sign language, could grieve at the passing of one of his playmates, and could recognize himself in a mirror. Dolphins can pass the mirror test and have been trained for underwater search missions. Please note that I am limiting my comments on dolphins to what has been declassified and published. Intentionally changing the subject, dogs can obey commands given verbally or with gestures. They can be trained to sniff out drugs, bomb chemicals, or skin cancer. (No, not kidding - the first known cancer-sniffer was a beagle.) Obviously, none of the above are human. But the question has to be, does that disqualify them from actually being recognized as thinking?
Now take that to another level. The "Watson" AI project from IBM has been studying oncology for a while and is now equally capable as the most competent diagnosticians when it comes to identifying the presence of at least several dozen cancers. The difference between the human brain and most computer brains is that human brains are associative. (See also the "Memory Castles" discussion in another thread in this forum.) The idea of associating a memory with another memory or image is an attempt to take advantage of associative memory. Computer brains have to apply algorithms based on a more linearized mode of operation but they can still reach the same conclusions by using tricks such as indexing and parallel processing, with what are called "Fork/Join" methods. I.e. come to a fork in a decision tree, so you assign one CPU to one fork and another CPU to the other fork. Later, when both CPUs are finished, they JOIN each other and one CPU goes on while the other CPU gets reassigned.
If a human brain is associative, the nerve impulses have to go in one direction at a time, even if much parallel processing goes on. Neurons in our brain are associated with a huge cluster of 10K other neurons. Yet, the directional travel of each impulse is still linear. The impulse may come back the same channel, yet that is also linear travel. So, there is a lot of linearity going on in the brain.
Neural nets are suppose to mimic the way we learn. I know the rather amazing Watson has many layers, and does a lot of parallel processing.
Maybe the word "think" needs a revisit for modern times. Why should humans feel they have a monopoly on thinking? (See the thread "Do pets think?" for further perspective.
).
Neural nets are suppose to mimic the way we learn. I know the rather amazing Watson has many layers, and does a lot of parallel processing.
Maybe the word "think" needs a revisit for modern times. Why should humans feel they have a monopoly on thinking? (See the thread "Do pets think?" for further perspective.
)."Why should humans feel they have a monopoly on thinking? "
Why, indeed? Many among Mankind are quite possessive about certain abilities as being exclusive to humanity. Take a dip in the religion pool and bring up evolution. You'll catch a LOT of that sort of possessiveness. But I am reminded of Mark Twain's comment: "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to."
Why, indeed? Many among Mankind are quite possessive about certain abilities as being exclusive to humanity. Take a dip in the religion pool and bring up evolution. You'll catch a LOT of that sort of possessiveness. But I am reminded of Mark Twain's comment: "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to."