prove me wrong. hint: you can't
>>16866712Define "think."
atoms can not thinkprove me wrong. hint: you can't
>>16866735>>16866726are you guys retarded or what?
>>16866741Are you?Define your terms or gtfo.
>>16866744do you not have access to a dictionary you absolute fucking moron
>>16866754There are multiple definitions. Which one are you using for the sake of this argument?
I remember playing chess against the CPU, and the prompt read "thinking..."
>>16866766i don't care which one you pick>>16866771damn, completely blown away by your absolute retardation
>>16866777>i don't care which one you pickhttps://www.dictionary.com/browse/think>10: (of a device or machine, especially a computer) to use artificial intelligence to perform an activity analogous to human thought./thread
>>16866779doesn't say it is thinking does it you fucking retard. it says "analogous". use that dictionary to figure out what that means and then get back to me with an actual proof. hint: you can't.
>>16866784You said "computers cannot think" and said I mat use whatever definition I wish.That is a definition of the word "think" which applies specifically to computers. What any other word means is irrelevant to the discussion. Computers can, indeed, think by the definition provided.
>>16866786i said prove that computers can think and you came back with a definition that says a computer can do something that is analogous to thinking. i knew you were retarded the moment you asked for a definition. go shit up another thread with your retardation
>>16866789It says "analagous to *human* thought."Just take the L, bro.
>>16866796being analogous to something isn't the thing you piece of shit moron. i already told you go shit up another board with your low IQ retardation
>>16866799Yeah. It's obviously not human thought because a human isn't doing it. Can you not read?
>>16866712Humans cannot think. They can only react.
>>16866786\threadOP outed as brainlet. SAD!
>>16866726>Define "think."If there's anything to learn from language models, it's that effective use of language has nothing to do with definitions. Granted, this was obvious even before LLMs and isn't news to anyone except for the sub-120s. If by "thinking" OP meant reason and reflection, his claim has been demonstrated empirically a thousand timeso ver.
>>16866779What kind of vaccine definition is this?Of course this argument has an easy defeater. In what way is it analogous?
>>16867066As far as AI-believing golems are concerned, token slop IS analogous to human texts and some variation of Skinnerianism IS correct, therefore token slop (or any other mindless computational output, for that matter, so long as it gets the "AI" marketing designation) is analogous to thought.
>>16867043>it's that effective use of language has nothing to do with definitionsLinguists have always known this.The math just caught up. Finally.
>>16866712here's the kicker, neither can humans
>>16867261>here's the first row of the corporate talking point database>it says... uhh>humans le also bad
>>16866712The human brain is composed of matter and energy subject to the laws of physics. Therefore, whatever algorithm is implemented in it must in principle be possible to implement in another substrate.
>>16867268>The human brain is composed of matter and energy subject to the laws of physics.Ok.>Therefore, whatever algorithm is implemented in it...>algorithm is implemented in itThis does not follow from your premise. Try again.
>>16867270Do you think that it contains some magical uncaused causer such that whatever process happens in it cannot be modeled mathematically like the rest of the universe?
>>16867272>immediately devolves into psychotic ramblingConcession accepted.
>>16867273Answer the question. Why do you believe the human brain cannot be modeled mathematically like the rest of the universe?
>>16867278>psychotic patient questioning points apparently made by voices in his headThere's no need to sign your concession, I already accepted.
>>16867281Okay, let's back up then: Why exactly do you think it's impossible for computers to think?
>>16867286Quote where I said it's impossible for computers to think. Since you can't, I guess we're back to the part where you have to explain how you get from "brains are subject to physics" to "there's an algorithm for thinking". :^)
>>16867294OP said "computers cannot think". If you're not arguing for OP's position, then what exactly is your position?
>>16867305That's 4 concessions in a row. Don't make mongoloidal claims you can't defend, or at least don't use the word "therefore" when there's no connection between your premises and conclusions.
>>16867309You have failed to make clear what position you are actually arguing for.
>>16867314I've made my position extremely clear: your mongoloidal belief doesn't follow from your premise.
Computers think they just have extreme autism like DATA from Star Trek
>>16867316What is your actual position on whether computers can think?
>>16867327>5 concessions in a rowAlso note this kike's insane desperation to avoid its burden of proof.
>>16867336unbelievable ownage. good work
>>16867268>The human brain is composed of matter and energy subject to the laws of physics. The Human brain doesn't think, the Human mind does.
>>16867451Can you demonstrate that there's a difference?
>>16867455Near death experiences where people were physiologically dead, no blood was being pumped to their brains, no neuronal activity was detected in their brains, yet they had vivid thoughts and experiences, their consciousness expanded from their physical bodies, and they were able to perceive things that they couldn't possibly perceive from their physical bodies. https://youtube.com/watch?v=NVsBFOB7H44&pp=ygUOVm9uIExvbW1lbCBuZGU%3D
>>16867460>no neuronal activity was detected in their brains,Not one person has ever survived this.And even if such a case occurred, you wouldn't know if they were experiencing anything at the time or the events they recall were experienced before or after the cessation of brain activity because their perception of time would be distorted.>youtube linkKek. Also take the tracking shit off
>>16867464>you wouldn't know if they were experiencing anything at the time or the events they recall were experienced before or after the cessation of brain activity because their perception of time would be distorted.NDErs were able to perfectly recount the events that were occurring around them as they were having the NDEs, what the people around them were saying and doing, while they were in the verge of death and their brains shouldn't have even been able to maintain consciousness, yet many NDErs described their experiences as being HYPER-real, even more vivid than their everyday waking experience.>Kek. Also take the tracking shit offEdit the link however you want, I gave you the name of the video
>>16867470Before I even begin to cross examine what you're claiming, address the fact that not one person has ever survived a complete cessation of brain activity. No, youtube, or any video for that matter, is not acceptable.
>>16867473>not one person has ever survived a complete cessation of brain activity.When did I say otherwise, I said that "no neuronal activity was detected in their brains", giving rise to the possibility that one or two dozens of neurons out of more than 100 billion were still active, still not enough to be DETECTABLE, and certainly not enough to maintain consciousness.
>>16867475>still not enough to be DETECTABLE,That's not true either. Nobody's ever suvived loss of detectable brain activity.>certainly not enough to maintain consciousness.What makes you so sure?
>>16867492>Nobody's ever suvived loss of detectable brain activity.Someone who is clinically dead, with zero pulse, and no blood reaching their brain, has no detectable brain activity, they are considered physiologically dead, but sometimes they can get revived, and in a few instances they have NDEs during the time they were physiologically dead.
>>16866712Electricity and water can not think.prove me wrong. hint: you can't
>>16867492forgot to respond to>What makes you so sure?It would go against everything in neuroscience, if just a few dozen neurons were capable of maintaining consciousness, especially when comatose patients who aren't conscious, still have more active neurons than a few dozen, yet NDErs have had vivid, "realer-than-real" experiences when their brains had less neuronal activity than that of comatose patients.
>>16867496Brain death can be declared even with a non-flat EEG (not to mention it isn't even required to make the declaration).The things you think are true are just not true.>>16867499Neuroscience does not make any claim about how many neurons are required for consciousness.
>>16867514>Brain death can be declared even with a non-flat EEG (not to mention it isn't even required to make the declaration)Yes, it 'can' be, that doesn't change the fact that NDErs had no detectable brain activity.>Neuroscience does not make any claim about how many neurons are required for consciousness.Neruoscientists who subscribe to materialism believe that consciousness comes from neurons, this goes against what NDErs have reported, they were more conscious than comatose patients despite having less brain activity.
>>16867497shifting the burden of proof is not an argument you absolute fucking piece of shit scum retard
>>16867531Find me a published case where soneone had no detectable neuron activity and survived.
>>16867104I concede a bunch of monkeys and type-writers put out more inspiring work than the goyim, I contest either the output and activity are analogous to thought or thinking. 1 All thoughts are thoughts, 2 not all words are thoughts, 3 not all thoughts are words1 identity, 2 example, word generators 3 example, impressionsYou may doubt three, but processing can be applied to any of the sensations. Color is easiest to demonstrate for a match-like process to recall things which are of that color. Still another example is pitch or tempo adjustment of a song you presently recollect or even focusing on the different instruments in the arrangement. There are no proprietary activities of the wordcel except for the larger thought poverty of the alternatives. Now onto the special cases of words and symbols in general. If it is the case that some string contains a thought by itself then 1 one can suppose a transformation and invent a language which holds that all such strings could be such, given some specific processing criteria. 2 This sets up a condition of thought as relations, perhaps mathematical or beyond. This is naively invalid. If such things are 'relations' than this signifier is also which is tautological instead of elucidating. Instead of getting to the destination, the car is in some ditch along the side of the road. This almost exactly describes AI, except for a crucial element of training data, the driver trying to get back to the road. 1. reduce languages to some universal binary form and construct any arbitrary mathematical map2. the formulation permits any arbitrary definition of meaning to be any string, this general equivalence implies some kind of morphism as underlying meaningThe peculiarity of thought is not found in its expression. But I am speaking of an analogy where relations point to essential character. And in each side is an object that is real and one that is not. The man is thinking and illuminating, but not shining? No.
he's actually right, the biggest limiting factor in AGI is architecture, not even compute speed.
>>16867628Have you been on reddit?
