modelling IQ

John H John at faraway.com.au
Thu Jul 5 00:00:14 EST 2001


> I am a programer, not a philosopher and the way I see it, machines will
> eventualy get to do all the things that humans can do, that's when you
> will see there is nothing left and that even the almighty human mind is
> just another machine. A neural network to be precise

www.synapse-solutions.co.uk

Machines intelligence just took a big leap forward.

John H.

Jure Sah <jure.sah at guest.arnes.si> wrote in message
news:3B43223C.4995C3B at guest.arnes.si...
> Brian wrote:
> > > I didn't do anything NEW. I meerely processed the formulas that have
> > > been droped into my brain from a magazine.
> >
> > If you used the equations in a new way, you've indeed done something
> > new................
>
> Then my parents must have been responsible for it. ;]
>
> > > I am only saying that there is more to it and finaly, you will be
> > > counting braincells as for providing a value for IQ.
> >
> > Not likely to the last statement, at least not yet.
> > Killer-whales have bigger brains, but how intelligent are they ?
> > More than humans ?
>
> Hey, there is no way you could test it anyway.
>
> ...And guesswork isn't exactly scientific.
>
> > > > A computer is just a tool, a glorified pencil, nothing more.
> > > > Without YOU behind the keyboard, it's just so much junk.
> > > > And you should know this !!
> > > > Did you understood what I said ?
> > >
> > > Indeed I have. And indeed you should know of Artificial Inteligence.
The
> > > inteligent pencil does quite a lot on it's own. And I could tell
noting
> > > about it if I wasn't devoloping it.
> >
> > Any AI would not reach the level of consciousness as we have.
>
> Oh, but of course. The holy consciousness. I should have expected this.
>
> Do you have any more of such pseudo-facts??
>
> > They're tools, machines and even if they were left to their own devices,
> > what would they do ?
>
> Exactly what humans do: Practicaly nothing.
>
> > Ohhh, and I think there will be built in fail-safety into their software
to
> > ensure their cooperation (the three laws of robotics - Isaac Asimov).
>
> I am a programer, not a philosopher and the way I see it, machines will
> eventualy get to do all the things that humans can do, that's when you
> will see there is nothing left and that even the almighty human mind is
> just another machine. A neural network to be precise.
>
> > > I'll put it like this: A server hasn't got anybody behind a keyboard
and
> > > it is working. The same goes for just about any microcontroler (these
> > > devices are quite fond of not seeing a human being within their
> > > lifetime; an ABS is quite a nice example).
> >
> > A server is nothing but junk in selfrunning mode.
>
> Indeed very usefull junk. What do you say about microcontrolers?
>
> > The difference is that Einstein stole the formulaes and gave the real
author
> > absolutely no credit.
> > Wasn't it somebody who said they could get the nobelprize (him and
Hilbert),
> > but that it was not released before they could ensure Einstein the
entire
> > 'authorship' after 1915 ?
>
> ...Reminds me what Feyman said. Getting a Nobel prize is the worst thing
> that can happen to you. In his book, he also explains why.
>
> > > > Reduced to insults, tsk tsk......
> > > > Humans knew that long before Einstein.
> > >
> > > What? Of spilt milk?? ;]
> >
> > No, moving stars and physics described the 'Einsteinian way'........
>
> Aye, how come then, is he credited for it??
>
>
> --
>
> Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
> reply.
>
> Direct SPAM-kill, Forward, include cuntry in subject line:
> Mailto:spamrecycle at ChooseYourMail.com They stop immediately! ;]
>
> GTSC4 -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)
> HTTP://WWW.GeoCities.COM/GTSC4/
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list