Ethics & The Future of Brain Research

On Feb 24, 4:33*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
casey wrote

Rod Speed wrote
I just looked back over our exchanges to see if I should
have expressed myself differently or better and clearly
we aren't going to be able to have an constructive
exchange take place.

Yeah, you don't have a ****ing clue about anything
at all to do with computers and can't even manage
to work out what I think about them either.

It doesn't interest me to work out what you think
it would be polite for you to just tell me.

I understand computers all the way down to their
logic gates and how to wire them up to make a general
purpose computer. I also have a good understanding
of AI and try and keep up with the latest discoveries
in neuroscience.


Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about
computers.
Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange.

Your mindlessly silly claim about what I think
about the capability of computers in spades.

?


The ability to make your thoughts and views
clear to others is the hallmark of a good writer.

You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like that.

Clearly something we do have in common


A bad writer will of course blame it all on the reader.

And that is precisely what *you did.

No I don't blame you for not understanding. Sometimes I think
I state things in a clear easy to understand way but other
times my sentences are awkward and the views need to be
expanded out with more detail to clarify what is written.

On Feb 23, 2:15*pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:22:32 -0800 (PST), casey





wrote:

It is the human tasks they cannot match that you need to look at.

Why? * *As I expounded below, being humanoid is only useful if that is
our goal.

Well in order to do the things we do a machine needs a sensory
input and a motor output regardless of how that is implemented
but I was really talking about cognitive tasks - such as the
ability to invent and use mathematics. Machines that add are
not smarter only faster. And a good memory is not the same as
the ability to make use of that memory in a intelligent way.

In other words computers do not surpass human brains when it
comes to cognitive tasks they *mindlessly* carry out tasks
invented by humans - we use them because the do it faster not
because they do it smarter.

What will happen when a general high-level programming instruct is
given to a highly complex computer network to "look after yourself"
remains to be seen... under this general rule, computers can take
defensive strategies and be successful in the real world to the extent
they can manage their sensors and motors.

Which doesn't mean those cognitive tasks have to be modeled after
human thinking. * *Just as smart cars don't have to be driven by
humanoid robots, and computer playing chess don't have to think the
way people think, there is no reason to suppose that the optimal
thinking machine finding the answer to life, the universe, and
everything has to be modeled on human thinking.

The machines will just do, without caring for what they have done.
What they have done, right or wrong, useful or useless, is up to those
humans who use the machines.

Unless humans have the ultimate perfect brains for all thinking tasks,
which obviously we don't.


Only too obviously, I am afraid. So long as they have the brains to
pull the plug, they should be okay.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I just looked back over our exchanges to see if I should
have expressed myself differently or better and clearly
we aren't going to be able to have an constructive
exchange take place.

Yeah, you don't have a ****ing clue about anything
at all to do with computers and can't even manage
to work out what I think about them either.

It doesn't interest me to work out what you think

Yeah, it was obvious that all you were interested in doing was
mindlessly jumping to the conclusion that I worship them.

it would be polite for you to just tell me.

I did when you made such a spectacular fool of yourself
when you stupidly claimed that I worship them.

I understand computers all the way down
to their logic gates and how to wire them
up to make a general purpose computer.

But haven't got a ****ing clue about
what is possible with learning systems.

When little kids of say 2 clearly can learn
something as complex as english etc, its
very far from clear what might be possible
with computers that take that sort of approach.

I also have a good understanding of AI and try and
keep up with the latest discoveries in neuroscience.

But clearly don't have enough viable between the ears to be
able to grasp what might be possible with learning systems.

Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about
computers.

Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange.

Your mindlessly silly claim about what I think
about the capability of computers in spades.

?

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

The ability to make your thoughts and views
clear to others is the hallmark of a good writer.

You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like that.

Clearly something we do have in common

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

A bad writer will of course blame it all on the reader.

And that is precisely what you did.

No

Fraid do.

I don't blame you for not understanding.

I understood your pathetic excuse for a coat trail fine.

Sometimes I think I state things in a clear easy to understand way
but other times my sentences are awkward and the views need to
be expanded out with more detail to clarify what is written.

It was always perfectly obvious that you don't have a ****ing
clue about what learning system are about and couldn't bull****
your way out of a wet paper bag.

If you 'think' you are actually fooling anyone with that pathetic
excuse for a nick, 'think' again.

Casey, you should be aware of two things:
(1) Rod has a mad-on at everybody smarter than him.
(2) The last three words in that sentence are unnecessary.


Kip W
rasfw

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:08:37 -0800 (PST), casey
wrote:

Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about
computers.

Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange.

The ability to make your thoughts and views clear to
others is the hallmark of a good writer. A bad writer
will of course blame it all on the reader.

In this sub-thread, he was agreeing with me. But his style makes me
want to back off so that I'm not associated with such rudeness.

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

On Feb 24, 8:58*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
casey wrote
[...]
It was always perfectly obvious that you don't have a ****ing
clue about what learning system are about and couldn't bull****
your way out of a wet paper bag.

Well I hope that is not true as the subject has interested
me since the first book I read on the subject many years ago,
"Pattern Recognition, Learning and thought" - Leonard Uhr
and I have tried to keep up with it ever since.

On Feb 25, 12:54*am, Kip Williams wrote:
Casey, you should be aware of two things:
(1) Rod has a mad-on at everybody smarter than him.
(2) The last three words in that sentence are unnecessary.

I figured I gave offence to him but not much I can do about it now.



Kip W
rasfw

On Feb 25, 3:03*am, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:08:37 -0800 (PST), casey

wrote:
Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about
computers.

Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange.

The ability to make your thoughts and views clear to
others is the hallmark of a good writer. A bad writer
will of course blame it all on the reader.

In this sub-thread, he was agreeing with me. * But his style makes me
want to back off so that I'm not associated with such rudeness.

And I suspect he would agree with me as well assuming he
knows as much about AI as he suggests he does.



--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

"casey" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
casey wrote
[...]
It was always perfectly obvious that you don't have a ****ing
clue about what learning systems are about and couldn't bull****
your way out of a wet paper bag.

Well I hope that is not true

It is anyway from your silly comment that computers
can only do what they are programmed to do by humans.

With a learning system, just like with little kids, you can't
predict what the smarter ones will manage to learn for themselves.

Some of the smartest little kids have even managed to work
out how to read for themselves, and have surprised their parents
when they did. The same thing could happen with a computer.

as the subject has interested me since the first book
I read on the subject many years ago, "Pattern Recognition,
Learning and thought" - Leonard Uhr and I have tried
to keep up with it ever since.

You either failed dismally to understand any of it, or are just
mindlessly trolling and fooling absolutely no one at all.

casey wrote

I figured I gave offence to him

Yes you did when you made such a spectacular
fool of yourself when you stupidly claimed that
I worship computers.

but not much I can do about it now.

You could have the balls to apologise for that
terminal stupidity/pathetic excuse for a troll.