What resolution do people see? - Page 9 - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

What resolution do people see?


exXxTreAm

Recommended Posts

^^^ So wait, did you ever learn to write, and you just forgot?

: Lol: : Lol: : Lol: : lol: I'm really happy about the spam, there are some really funny girlfriends here! : screwy:

One thing that I do not understand is who is the idiot who thinks about the comparison between a computer and a human being. It is clear that a person can do innumerable things from a computer (one and perhaps the main 1 is abstract thinking that involves whispering in a way that includes things that I have not seen or "grasped" before) The imagination is built in the form of a new vision that you could not see in reality.)

Moreover, because computers are limited by humans, they will never be able to function as fully as they do in unstructured parts of the brain today, such as emotions that do not concern survival. What distinguishes humans and animals from a machine like computer.

Beautiful, you raised beautiful questions, and many philosophers tried to answer them, I sing:

The materialists - philosophers who claim that man is but a sophisticated machine, a collection of electro-chemical reactions. So it can be compared to a future computer. One can ask - is it possible to build a computer and write an algorithm that played the human brain?

The second philosophical question is, is intelligence, capable of creating an intelligent machine like that? Here, too, opinions are divided - some say that a computer will never reach the level of man because there is a universal difficulty here - intelligence is incapable of creating intelligence equal to or higher than it.

In my opinion, this is an interesting din ...

I quote Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who was professor of philosophy, doctor, doctor of physics, taught chemistry, neurophysiology, philosophy of science, calculates And much, nothing 5 languages, won the award And a short hand caresses all his works ... a man of real clusters. He argues, and the classical philosophy with him in this position is that the mind is separate from the body and is not the result of chemical electro-photochemical and physical reactions in the brain. This problem is called the problem of body and mind, or the psychophysical problem, which can not be solved.

When asked how I recognize an object, he replies:

"The opening process in the illuminated object, which is visible and ends at the center of the primary vision in the cortex, is a sequence of physical events (electromagnetic radiation), photochemical events (in the retina) and electronic and chemical events, But the evidence itself is a psychotic event, which occurs only in the sense and consciousness of the person who sees.

The primary center does not transfer "information" to the secondary cortical center (WERNICKE) but only a neuronal current, which is purely electromagnetic. But identifying the item is a psychic event that happens in you !!! "

Free translation, Leibowitz argues that object identification is not derived from physical reactions and interactions, but is metaphysical (beyond physical) and origin in the soul. Hence, according to him, a computer will never recognize an object because it has no soul.

In response to the question, why does the animal or plant have a strong desire to look for water and food, since in fact the person who needs them is the single cell, he replies:

"Aspiration is a concept that relates to desire aware, And therefore does not understand about animals and plants, but only for man. On animals, and on man To the extent that he is an animal The rule applies - "Against your will (because of biological mechanisms) you live" (quote from the Bible) The mechanism has no purpose. In other words, nature has no purpose. No living or flora is doing things (to ask) to build or survive. "

It is related if you notice, the issue of the baby who knows how to suckle - it is nothing but a biological mechanism - and therefore pointless, unconsciously - without previous thinking. Therefore, we can not count as knowledge and certainly not as information!

To the more relevant question, the professor was asked by an electronics engineer, that the person is allowed from the machine?

He asks (the engineer): "You say that there is a fundamental difference between man and machine that the machine has no will and it does not think ..." and adds "... what is the defect in your opinion, on the grounds that there is no difference in principle, Which is "designed" by evolution so that it has "interests" that are usually directed at self-existence ... "

As for the thought: "What is the thought, if not the highest level of manipulation of the data derived from sensory sensory and memory, that is, what is wrong with the assumption that there is no fundamental difference between the human brain and a very sophisticated computer capable of learning on its own, making associations and finding new ways to solve problems? On machines that can improve algorithms according to "learning" activities (I am concerned with such machines). "(Please note BURTON ;))

Admit that this is a good question ... This is exactly the approach of the Metarists (and I am very attracted to this approach)

Leibowitz replies:

"Desire" and "thought" are not found in any natural and no defined function in the categories of the natural sciences (physics and chemistry), including the biology of man and animal. Evolution, which is occurring in natural reality, does not reflect only the chemical factors (genotypic) which, in essence, can not reveal psychological phenomena (such as thought) or even the very phenomenon of life (embodied in phenotypus). Think and intend - Plan and program them -

And they only work according to your programming. If they learn "adaptively" it is the opposite of a person who does not adapt to the conditions and the parties. His "interests" are not anchored in objective data of natural reality because they exist only in human consciousness (not in human biology!) In man's awareness of himself, and he forces natural pleasures to his will and intentions. It does not correlate itself with the eating of wild plants, but rather from manure and sowing, and produces an unnatural crop. We do not live in a cave but build houses, and all human culture is nothing but a takeover of the will and consciousness of nature and its forces. Desire and human qualities as an expression of inner programming for existence, this is utter nonsense. What would you say about my opinion that it is good to die for Kiddush Hashem, or is it good to die for our country? I am get a call Let's get out of the occupied territories, me get a call In the cake with sweet whipped cream, I thinking That the Lebanon War was a combination of evil and stupidity, me thinking That quantum theory does not explain quantum mechanics ...

"Try to translate this into a computer language!"

And judge me alone ... In this answer, he did not convince.

"I wanted to ask you Professor Leibowitz" and there are many, many questions of simple people about a lot of everyday matters and scientific matters.

We went out for a long time, but I hope we have.

Link to content
Share on other sites

  • תגובות 121
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

TOPGUN see Exactly harmless. Reading and seeing still images shortened everything you focus on.

I read forums here and there I got a vision, so I lowered the dosage forums. I know to see Even relaxing eyes after forums, do not squeeze blood vessels, like the veins of the sting when standing on your hands.

To be an observer as in ancient times stood towers, sure knocked sight.

You will see all the religious who are in the Bible most of the day From a young age, and I'm not talking about the birth defects because of a pairing of blood relatives, and anyone who reads at least 2-3 books a week. Glasses .

As for the relaxation he mentioned, look similar to the example I brought, just because in fact as long as your eye is open and you look at it is strenuous, you drive in a bus car looking sideways you effortlessly. So it's a bit strange when you've looked most of the day under stress and add relaxation exercises which is another effort that sounds strange. What is certain is that as you close your eyes while you are traveling by bus or train they will really rest.

Reading TV subtitles is like seeing a book.

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site