Re: What does the future of computing hold?

Ben C wrote:

It is a brilliant book, but you should try also the later Philosophical
Investigations by the same author, who himself later took more
sophisticated views about boiling language down or not.

I know the books, that's why I used the Tractatus as example for failure.
Wittgenstein himself had this opinion in his later years.

[snip]
In the end it it come down to a question of believe: do you think,
humans have some metaphysical soul that can not be simulated by
deterministic physical machines, or do you follow Turing and think,
there is no metaphysical soul and our brain is all we have, which
might be very complex to simulate but there is no natural law that
forbids it. If the latter is the case, then there will be some day
computers with intelligence which perfectly understand humand language
and can act reasonably following the meaning of humand words. - The
question may be, what are they good for, and if it makes sense to
build such machines. Do we _need_ them, or do we just want them,
because we _can_ build them...

And how long will they take to program (about 20 years, at good
schools?)

We may have metaphysical souls, but the fact that computers are lousy at
natural language recognition is absolutely no evidence for it.

And conversely if we did have a computer that could speak our own
language, that wouldn't prove we didn't have metaphysical souls either.

So I personally think it's a bit of a mad jump to metaphysical souls,
although you're not the only person to think that way.

I think, we have a little misunderstanding here. I did not claim that we
have metaphysical souls or not, I just mentioned the question (and excused
myself afterwards for being offtopic), because it depends on the answer to
it, if you believe, that machines can be really intelligent in the same way
humans are (well, I heard rumours that some exist...;-). If humans have
those souls, there is no way to achieve the same effect with deterministic
machines. If humans have no soul, then there is no good argument why it
should not be possible, to implement the same mechanics which creates the
effects of our thinking as a processing of 1-and-0-streams.

But even then, the question remains, if this is what we want. And if it is a
good idea, both economically and technically. IMHO we do not need and want
them. What we want is having machines that act reasonably in given
situations where they are built and trained for. Which is a much less
pretending task. Think of these telephone dialog systems, and we already
have the first generation of such machines.

What I was talking about, was not, if it is possible to build machines, that
behave reasonable on human language input (I'm sure, this is possible for a
restricted set of tasks). I fully agree to you that currently having no
such machine (and maybe never having one) which can process human language
and react reasonable in any kind of situation is no prove pro or con
metaphysical souls. I was referring to the more philosophical term of
"understanding" which IMHO involves some (sub)conscious processing. And if
this processing is twisted with and depending on metaphysical souls, then
there is no chance to achieve _real_ _understanding_ with machines. But I
did not give an opinion, if this is the case or not in my world picture.

If you were referring to really intelligent machines (assuming that they are
possible) with your question how long it would take to program or train
them, then I think 20 year is a very optimistic estimation. But if you have
one, you have millions in the same moment, because when it is not more than
ones and zeros, you can copy the first functional modell and its
intelligence-database unlimited times. But to create the first one would be
an enormous and unimaginable expensive process. Which reminds me on
something which J. Weizenbaum said some years ago to the question, if we
really want to (and should) create artificial intelligence: "Have sex, get
babies - thats more fun and much cheaper." (These are not his words because
he spoke german and surely used other words, but mine, but in my
remembrance he said something similar in the lectures when he was at our
university for one semester that time) So that was a good argument to stay
with real intelligence instead of artificial, I think. Nevertheless,
machines that act reasonable on human language input and to a limited set
of situations are surely very usefull and worth to be developed. - And
regarding to the OP: if you can ever build one, I'm sure you can make much
money with them, which is why they are definitely part of the future of
computing.

Regards
Stephan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What does the future of computing hold?
    ... sophisticated views about boiling language down or not. ... deterministic physical machines, or do you follow Turing and think, ... We may have metaphysical souls, but the fact that computers are lousy at ... For ethical reasons, you cannot grow human babies to ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Is sentience an emergent brain behavior?
    ... some special property has just emerged from the rock. ... because they were taught a totally bogus language to ... they use to describe humans with is different than ... the language they use to describe machines with, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
    ... to be used by humans to give instructions to a computer. ... Who created the language? ... to be used by machines to give instructions to a computer. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
    ... it is a language devised by humans. ... a machine language is a language devised by machines ... to be used by machines to give instructions to a computer. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: New Cobol compiler written in Cobol
    ... machines at the time were the IBM 7090 and similar 7040. ... the 14xx line had grown to become the dominant business computer. ... Programmers won't put up with cryptic languages like C++ ... They'll use a language they can understand at a glance. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)