Neurologist outlines why machines can’t think

[Justatruthseeker]

Rather believe in spirit (of people who have a living spirit).

As Yahweh's fellowship with us and our worship/ service to Him is in spirit and in truth.

Why? The same word for spirit is applied to animals as well.

What do we have they don't? What made us really into the image of God?

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" Genesis 3:22

So yes, our service to Him is in knowledge and in truth. Without knowledge, one can never make that choice....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why? The same word for spirit is applied to animals as well.

What do we have they don't? What made us really into the image of God?

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" Genesis 3:22

So yes, our service to Him is in knowledge and in truth. Without knowledge, one can never make that choice....

"Why?" No, the animals do not have the risen Christ in them as Ekklesia do. Not even close.

"(some kinds of) Knowledge puffs up" seems rather important, eh?

Experiential Knowledge in union with Jesus is Perfect, all the time, every day.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Why?" No, the animals do not have the risen Christ in them as Ekklesia do. Not even close.

"(some kinds of) Knowledge puffs up" seems rather important, eh?

Experiential Knowledge in union with Jesus is Perfect, all the time, every day.

Your misconceptions about what the Bible says is astonishing.

The exact same word for spirit is applied to the animals. Were animals given a soul as well?

And just who are you to say what will or won't happen with animals?

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21

"19For the fates of both men and beasts are the same: As one dies, so dies the other—they all have the same breath. Man has no advantage over the animals, since everything is futile. 20All go to one place: All come from dust, and all return to dust. 21Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and the spirit of the animal descends into the earth?…"

Do you claim to know? If you do all I can say is "get thee back......"

But I do know there will be sheep and a lion that eats straw lying next to them.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Your misconceptions about what the Bible says is astonishing.

Thank you for your posts. For you to reject truth, though, tch tch, so you don't live up to your username !? Shame on you.
The more you say, the more you prove yourself in error.
That helps a lot so I don't have to question you any more for information about your false ideas... (not all are false, no, but significant important ones are, yes) .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you for your posts. The more you say, the more you prove yourself in error.
That helps a lot so I don't have to question you any more for information about your false ideas... (not all are false, no, but significant important ones are, yes) .

Why is it every time someone claims I'm wrong, they can never provide supporting evidence, instead just make claims?????

But I do have a Bible, and my Bible says that lions will lay next to lambs, does yours not say the same thing? Are you reading a different Bible than I am?

Isaiah 65:25 Isaiah 11:6

Oh, and I better add wolves too, and goats and cows and leopards. As for any other I make no claim, but I suspect they'll be animals galore.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why is it every time someone claims I'm wrong, they can never provide supporting evidence, instead just make claims?????

So, you've been wrong before, and could not understand why ?
Hmmm..... seems to be a recurring problem, both being wrong, and lacking understanding....

Perhaps soon Yahweh will provide understanding and clear this up ? Let us hope and pray He does.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, you've been wrong before, and could not understand why ?
Hmmm..... seems to be a recurring problem, both being wrong, and lacking understanding....

Perhaps soon Yahweh will provide understanding and clear this up ? Let us hope and pray He does.

Yes, its a recurring problem people make claims of wrongness, then never seem to be able to back up those claims. Just like you are failing to do now.....

Maybe because you prefer to ignore the versus I gave you and admit it is you that is wrong? Just a thought....

Oh, I am capable of error, just not in this when my Bible confirms exactly what I said....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

p.s. some of the clarification needed is found in "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee, or there are other proven true in line with Scripture men of God (and one or two women of God) with teachings available (for now) online.
"The Spiritual Man" is quite long, but some of the chapters are available by themselves, particularly describing "spirit" "soul" and "body" (which is sorely lacking around the world in most groups) ,
and can help understand easily, simply , if one is willing
why Yahweh made man and animals different.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Oh, I am capable of error, just not in this when my Bible confirms exactly what I said....

Almost all religions claim this, so it doesn't 'work' as you think.

Yes, you are correct to trust God and to trust Scripture completely. This is excellent for all who trust God and trust His Word by faith in Jesus, as God reveals to all who are His.

Always completely in harmony with all Scripture, and with God's Spirit, God's Plan and God's Purpose in Jesus for salvation and life abundantly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

p.s. some of the clarification needed is found in "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee, or there are other proven true in line with Scripture men of God (and one or two women of God) with teachings available (for now) online.
"The Spiritual Man" is quite long, but some of the chapters are available by themselves, particularly describing "spirit" "soul" and "body" (which is sorely lacking around the world in most groups) ,
and can help understand easily, simply , if one is willing
why Yahweh made man and animals different.

Who cares what some other man wrote? God tells me to search the scriptures diligently and to ignore human wisdom.

We weren't discussing "why" He made them different, but "how" He made them different. How He made them different is by giving man the ability to understand beyond mere learning and instinct.

It was the act of "knowing" that made man like unto God. The Bible told you that. So why should I believe anything any other human says, unless you are claiming he is one of the last two prophets to come?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Who cares what some other man wrote? God tells me to search the scriptures diligently and to ignore human wisdom.

You don't have to care what anyone wrote.
You apparently don't understand what God wrote, so what difference does it make anyway ?
You seem now today to ignore God and ignore truth...... not a good combination.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Almost all religions claim this, so it doesn't 'work' as you think.

Yes, you are correct to trust God and to trust Scripture completely. This is excellent for all who trust God and trust His Word by faith in Jesus, as God reveals to all who are His.

Always completely in harmony with all Scripture, and with God's Spirit, God's Plan and God's Purpose in Jesus for salvation and life abundantly.

A gift can not be given if one already possesses it. That's why the gift of eternal life is a gift. We have no immortal soul in us.

It's like the heresy of hell. As in the wicked also receive the gift of eternal life, just in a different place.... heresy..... blasphemy....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't have to care what anyone wrote.
You apparently don't understand what God wrote, so what difference does it make anyway ?
You seem now today to ignore God and ignore truth...... not a good combination.

Teach me how I am wrong then. So far I just see mere claims.....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Teach me how I am wrong then. So far I just see mere claims.....

I'm backing you up on this one. Although, it is generally considered unclear exactly what happens to animals in general when they die, as far as the bible is concerned, I am pretty sure there aren't any verses that contradict the "animals have spirits" ones that explicitly state that animals don't have spirits.

 

[Silmarien]

That seems reasonable, as the brain is a learning system, so while it uses numerous algorithms at a low level, they are the tools of a flexible, adaptive higher level.

The standard computing analogy is not really appropriate, except in the broadest general terms, but we do have neuromorphic network learning systems that are analogous, and are also functionally non-algorithmic.

Yes, I was trying to explain the view of the author of the article, as he seemed to be running with the standard dualistic approach, and they do resist the notion that thought is computational. You can't answer dualistic objections if you don't first understand them, and there seemed to be a disconnect there.

I see no reason why neural network learning systems could not have intentional states, and I suspect some already do, in a limited way. However, the difficulty in establishing such claims is that 'intentionality' is poorly defined in functional terms; i.e. what are the observable distinguishing characteristics of intentionality?

The same limitations apply to other high-level abstractions, such as consciousness, and free will.

I specified "simple algorithm" because I think it's hard to argue that a piece of traditional computer programming possesses intentional states. I'm considerably more open-minded about modern learning systems, though I would be interested in hearing why you think some already do have limited intentional states.

I am not sure what you mean by "poorly defined in functional terms," though. If you mean that these issues are hard to approach empirically, I agree, but that's the nature of the beast when dealing with the subjective side of theory of mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm backing you up on this one. Although, it is generally considered unclear exactly what happens to animals in general when they die, as far as the bible is concerned, I am pretty sure there aren't any verses that contradict the "animals have spirits" ones that explicitly state that animals don't have spirits.

I've spent 20 years studying the Bible, both in Hebrew and Greek. No, I don't speak those languages, but I have always looked up words that we take for granted in the Hebrew and Greek to see how they thought of the words.

Both the word Ruach (breath, wind, spirit) and nephesh (a soul, living being, creature, etc) are applied to both man and animals. Not to plants ever.

Since they are applied to both man and animals, then I figure they can not be what uniquely made man in God's image. How can they be if the animals posses it too?

The only verse that applies something unique to man, and only man is Genesis 3:22 where yada (to know) is applied in relation to man has become (hayah) like unto God.

Which also is why I argue against a young earth creation view, as hayah (here everyone translates it has become) but in verse 2 of chapter one they translate it "was". So the earth "became" desolate and waste..." But that's another subject and I digress.

But yada in relation to becoming like unto God is the only unique occurrence of any usage in the Bible of relating man to God. So no, I don't believe we have a soul, or anything special apart from the animals except in our ability to reason or understand. To make a conscious choice in how we live our lives and to believe or not to believe. Hence Jesus called "teacher" by the disciples, or the Word. Logos denotes Knowledge, wisdom, thought. An idea.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/logos.html

I mean a computer is technically smarter than me, but it can't understand. It can analyze, but it can't understand or even know as we use the term. Computers and animals can not yada.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, I was trying to explain the view of the author of the article, as he seemed to be running with the standard dualistic approach, and they do resist the notion that thought is computational. You can't answer dualistic objections if you don't first understand them, and there seemed to be a disconnect there.



I specified "simple algorithm" because I think it's hard to argue that a piece of traditional computer programming possesses intentional states. I'm considerably more open-minded about modern learning systems, though I would be interested in hearing why you think some already do have limited intentional states.

I am not sure what you mean by "poorly defined in functional terms," though. If you mean that these issues are hard to approach empirically, I agree, but that's the nature of the beast when dealing with the subjective side of theory of mind.

Perhaps I might consider some states to be intentional, but who's intent? The programmers? Even if two humans were to only see the same data their entire lives, they would never have the same intent or outlook on life. A program on the other hand would produce with the same data the same response on any computer. So I don't see a computer yet as having self-intent. Perhaps the intent programmed into it, but it's not making self-choices, just programmed responses. A computer programs biggest flaw is that it has no awareness of self as unique.

 

[Strathos]

Perhaps I might consider some states to be intentional, but who's intent? The programmers? Even if two humans were to only see the same data their entire lives, they would never have the same intent or outlook on life. A program on the other hand would produce with the same data the same response on any computer. So I don't see a computer yet as having self-intent. Perhaps the intent programmed into it, but it's not making self-choices, just programmed responses. A computer programs biggest flaw is that it has no awareness of self as unique.

Only if you limit your view to deterministic programs.

 

[Silmarien]

Perhaps I might consider some states to be intentional, but who's intent? The programmers? Even if two humans were to only see the same data their entire lives, they would never have the same intent or outlook on life. A program on the other hand would produce with the same data the same response on any computer. So I don't see a computer yet as having self-intent. Perhaps the intent programmed into it, but it's not making self-choices, just programmed responses. A computer programs biggest flaw is that it has no awareness of self as unique.

Intentionality doesn't mean an outlook on life. It means that when you see an apple, that image comes attached to conceptual meaning. It isn't just pixels on a screen. I would say that even simpler animals display intentionality--I've got some fish that display somewhat odd feeding habits because of associations that they make. If you've got the genuine ability to learn without supervision and associate objects with concepts or feelings, I would say that you possess intentional states.

I don't know all that much about modern machine learning, but I do know that artificial neural networks draw their inspiration from the brain and work very differently than traditional task-specific algorithms, and it's the latter that critics of Artificial Intelligence tend to cite when talking about its impossibility. We can wonder how a machine might have a unique sense of self, but the same question applies to the biological brain as well.

I'm not sure there's any theory of mind that would rule out AI entirely. Even a theistic substance dualist really ought to grant the possibility that God in his goodness might bestow a transcendent mind upon sufficiently advanced artifical life. Some of the more biologically based naturalistic theories have serious problems allowing for AI, but I don't know if they're completely insurmountable.

 

[Strathos]

Intentionality doesn't mean an outlook on life. It means that when you see an apple, that image comes attached to conceptual meaning. It isn't just pixels on a screen. I would say that even simpler animals display intentionality--I've got some fish that display somewhat odd feeding habits because of associations that they make. If you've got the genuine ability to learn without supervision and associate objects with concepts or feelings, I would say that you possess intentional states.

I don't know all that much about modern machine learning, but I do know that artificial neural networks draw their inspiration from the brain and work very differently than traditional task-specific algorithms, and it's the latter that critics of Artificial Intelligence tend to cite when talking about its impossibility. We can wonder how a machine might have a unique sense of self, but the same question applies to the biological brain as well.

I'm not sure there's any theory of mind that would rule out AI entirely. Even a theistic substance dualist really ought to grant the possibility that God in his goodness might bestow a transcendent mind upon sufficiently advanced artifical life. Some of the more biologically based naturalistic theories have serious problems allowing for AI, but I don't know if they're completely insurmountable.

Well that is true; God could have made humans out of metal instead of flesh and blood if He had chosen to, and then doubtlessly there would be some foolish metal humans arguing that meat could never think like they can.