Thinking without language?
jure.sah at guest.arnes.si
Mon Nov 22 10:53:36 EST 1999
kenneth Collins wrote:
I see that Bloxy has got may clones just whit different names.
> Jure Sah wrote:
> > Completely agree with you!
> > However, that zillions of operations seems just a little too much for a normal
> > human...
> > Let me tell you how many operations does a computer make while he thinks of let's
> > say a number.
> > And I think that DATA problem is already solved just nobody "want's" to use it.
> > Let's say you got a picture (bitmap) can you change that picture in to a sound
> > directly? Well can you?
> not unless i've a sound card, with it's associated firmware and software programs. and i
> don't on this machine. then there's the problem of discordant 'header' info, even among
> files that bear the same 'extension'.
You can't hear unless you have an "associated" ear! Ha ha your just so pathetic!
(Please don't try to make me mad... I don't treat my enemies too well)
> no shared 'program', no 'communication'.
> what's necessary is an architecture that, given data, write its own program to discover,
> and use, any data.
That "superior" brain of yours couldn't do shit without those million years of evolution!
> that's the brain.
Yes that's the brain!
> > Well a computer can turn it immediately! He just need's an order:
> > Rename Pic.BMP to Pic.Wav (this tactics uses raw data that is used with brains).
I see your brain has enormous knowledge about DOS!
Ok, ok it's: Rename Pic.BMP Pic.Wav
> > You (A human) would say that that noise has no conection to the picture,
> nope. we say that we can imbue a machine to function, this way or that, in accord with
(This clone is obviously brainless)
Let me put there some feedback:
In this case your "brain" responses the same way.
Your response right now would be in accord with data. That I know!
> > but another computer would wave no problem with changing it to a picture again...
> not without special programming, done by humans, or by a meta-program, done by humans.
What would you do without your DNA?
> > Well in this case (if you understand it) the human's way of thinking has been used
> > against him.
In this case the subject did not understand it.
> > I have tried this type of DATA procession but I use a too weak
> > programing language to complete it (lack of raw info), However (!) when you surf the
> > net and use a search engine did you ever think about the fact that the a man could
> > know so many things as the net contains wouldn't he give the same answers? No? he
> > would think a little and sort the mumble-jumble... is that a problem to a computer
> > nowadays? Oh, no as well, eh?
> the differences between what 'computers' do and what Humans do are still profound...
> even though folks're stumbling over themselves to 'borrow' and emulate TD
> E/I-minimization these days.
This response shows up the "fatal" exceptions on your "program".
Yes you have much in common with Windows...
Not to mention that no useful feedback can be returned with lack of input!
Did you see "my" program with help of ranged-bio-portscan???
> > As you said: all you need is a bunch of computers working together and exchanging
> > raw data... this is the way your brains do it isn't it?
> our brains exchange enormously-processed data, in which resides both the Wonder, and the
Please don't add the defective sense of art that humans usually poses!
Our brain exchanges both raw an processed data, mostly because in the brain "OS" there is no
> the Tragedy, however, is, even now, being 'whittled'-away (AoK, Ap5).
> will machines, one day, do the same?
Ok, that's it!
If you want my "raw data" procession program then e-mail me!
> it's possible, but, Sadly, it's apparent that the Tragedy will augment-further, in a
> Greed-driven way, as has been the case for the last ~20 years. so it's not yet probable.
> the problem is that 'profits' are still 'valued' more than Truth.
That's why I hate average humans!
> K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci