Watson - I think we are onto something here again- in verbosity there can be found errors!!
Wait till Realist shows again. We will all be put in our places.
:shock::shock::twisted:
and when he returns we will hang on his every cyber bleep!! try not to be true real realist - it doesn’t suit you - we have the “cut of ya jib”:-p:-p
Yes indeed Holmes 
Not moi … I is a GIRL
We is untouchable
God we know - and it’s driving us crazy!
reminds me of David Nivens joke:
The prawn fell in love with a crab
And it was mad about this crab.
And it said, “Look, I’m mad about that crab that lives up round the big rock at the end.”
And the prawn’s father was furious. He said, "You can’t be seen with a crab! Ridiculous! They go sideways!
“Tell the crab it’s finished.”
The prawn went to the crab and said, "Crab, I’m terribly sorry, it’s off.
“My father says you look ridiculous going sideways, and as a matter of fact, you do!” The crab was furious.
It said, “I’ll be down this evening. I’ll have a seaweed and soda with your father.” And went off.
Now, at 6.00pm the prawns were all sitting around their rock. The weed opened and in came the crab.
To everybody’s amazement it came in straight, like that. The prawn said, “Crab! You’re going straight!”
The crab said, “Shut up, I’m pissed!”
Right but such a definition is meaningless to this discussion since your earlier gambits were along the lines of robots evolving “magically” to some higher state of being that their human creators would no longer understand them. Taking the definition as a simple change/improvement is a big come down.
I add 4GB RAM to my PC and it has fundamentally changed, altered so you want to define that as having “Evolved”. Ok if that floats your boat go ahead.
This is just nuts but I guess one’s perceptions of how computers function is somewhat dependent on experience and practical knowledge. To a simply user a PC can seem like a miracle machine that does fabulous things almost like magic. A software developer on the other hand knows it is just a box of nuts and bolts which is governed by an operating system and one or more development languages which have been used to code programmes.
I fall into the latter camp. I have 30+ years practical experience of developing computer systems and making computers do things. Consequently I know that every computer, no matter how powerful in it’s make-up and architecture, is nevertheless as dumb as the programmer that programmed it.
The computer that is deemed a “chess genius” is nothing of the sort. It is a dumb machine following orders, working within limits and boundaries imposed upon it by it’s creators. When we watch it in action it APPEARS to the uninitiated as an incredibly sophisticated and clever machine but to the programmer it is just a dumb machine doing what it is told. It is simply PROCESSING information according to sets of rules. Nothing more, nothing less. Processing is NOT THINKING. Computers do not think. They just process.
As many times as you trot out the same romanticised statements about computers “thinking” does not make that a true statement.
Computers do not think.
Thinking is a mental act and it involves something called primary intentionality which I’m not going to go into now. Computers simply compute and do so according to their programming. However there will always be people readily fooled by what a computer does and who will incorrectly conclude that the computer thinks.
This is neatly demonstrated by philosopher John Searle’s “Chinese Room” analogy. In this analogy he imagines a sealed room with just a letter box opening. Inside the room is an English speaking human who speaks no other language. He is given a book containing 200 Chinese questions which have the corresponding Chinese answers. Not being able to speak Chinese he has no idea at all what the book says.
Outside the room are Chinese people. They select a question to ask this pseudo computer, they write it down and post it through the letter box. The English man looks at the question and simply compares the Chinese symbols with those in his book. When he finds the page in the book where the symbols match he writes down the Chinese symbols representing the answer to the question and posts it back through the letter box.
He has no idea what the question was nor what the answer was, but to the Chinese people outside, this sealed box appears to be able to think and answer questions. They are of course mistaken and fooled.
Computers do not think. They process and do so according to rules they have been given.
Even if you programme a computer with the ability to perform 1 million functions or actions and set it off to randomly perform those actions at any random point in time, it is still simply computing/processing, not thinking.
Everything it does it ultimately predictable except of course for the random sequence that spills out.
No that is simply impossible. The computer can only ever do what it has been programmed to do. Your office desk calculator will never ever start displaying words instead of numbers when you use it to calculate a sum (yes I know you can turn it upside down and interpret numbers as words !)
The calculator simply does what it has been programmed to do, as does every robot. It has no idea whatsoever that 5 X 8 = 40. It has no knowledge of the meaning of what it is doing. The calculator is nothing more than flows of electricity, current, electrons which have been programmed by a human.
No that can not be true. A computer can not “alter a design” unless it has been programmed with the ability to “alter a design”. Everything will always come back to the original set of programming.
This is flawed thinking I’m afraid. Just because a computer operates/computes millions of times faster than a human can, does not make it unpredictable. The “computer” called “ERNIE” that spits out the random numbers for the Premium Bonds each day is entirely predictable in what it does. The fact that we don’t know what number will be produced doesn’t make the computer unpredictable. It has been coded to generate a random number between given limits and that’s what it does. That is all it will ever do unless its programming is changed.
Sigh. The CPU can only do what it has been programmed to do. It will never think, never learn, never know anything about what it is doing. It is a mechanical man-made object that uses electrical currents and does whatever it has been designed and programmed to do.
British neurologist and neurosurgeon Geoffrey Jefferson puts it well:
"Not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain—that is, not only write it but know that it had written it.”
All I can say to that lot is you are behind the times.
Can’t be arsed to take this any further.
Let the future sort this discussion out.
Spouting some philosopher’s analogy at me is a sign of weakness. That is the province of the indoctrinated and mentally inflexible. Usually get it from the religious types that knock on doors.
I’m still trying to figure out how you can tell an ugly crab from a non-ugly crab - He seems to be ignoring that one.
[scratches head - ugly crab?? - I remember going to the doc once and he said - drop ya caks - oh my he said they ARE ugly crabs!]
there are films that tell us different :
The Others
Blade Runner
etc etc - these are far more stimulating and convincing than Realist’s ‘theories’
I think I will go along with Stephen Hawking rather than Mr Realist. Mental inflexibility is a science / progression killer.
PLUS … they have pictures 
in COLOUR :!:
MKJ
Once again, when faced with reasoned argument which challenges your views your response crumbles into insults and disparagement.
This is NOT a contest. It’s simply an exchange of views and an exploration through facts and experience.
Your entire argument here is based on the misguided notion that computers “think”. I’ve explained why that notion is not correct but you grasp to it like a life line. We can not hold a debate if you limit your thinking in this way.
It’s like trying to have a debate about how we solve world hunger and you trying to maintain that there is no problem because fundamentally the moon is made of cheese and we can just send astronauts up there to shovel it all into a barrow and bring it home.
Both great films and Blade Runner in particular rates in my top 10 films of all time. I wonder how many on this forum actually understand it’s hidden elements and know the deliberate clues put in there by Ridley?
Aside from that though, the robots in this case were top of the range Nexus 6 whose programming had gone awry.
You are doing it again - trying to make a point using parables.
I find your points infantile in some respects and sorely lacking in others. The points you have raised were very relevant 10 years ago but hold no water anymore.
I thought you had something to offer but I can see that you haven’t now. I’ve gone from being somewhat annoyed to nice and calm, even passive.
You can read all you want but your opinion displays your level of intelligence. I find yours is flawed in lots of respects - as is mine though so you are not alone.
In my opinion you have spread your mental wings too wide and should have stayed focused on relevancy - philosophy and who knows what else is flowing though that brain of yours and infecting your thoughts. Too late now I should think.
Oh well, back to fixing my mate’s laptop .
Sebastian is the only true human ?
Maybe … maybe not
erhmm - I don’t think we need you to explain all that R ; it will take up to much space and there are not unlimited bytes.
ps: how DO you tell if a crab is ugly ??
My points are based on real knowledge and experience in the field of computers. You assert that computers “Think” yet you have not put up one shred, one iota of evidence to back up this precept. You want us to just accept it so that the rest of your “argument” on which it is founded, doesn’t simply collapse in a pile of rubble.
I’m sorry sir. I don’t accept your basic precept. It is in every sense incorrect and unless you provide evidence to the contrary you are not going to influence people’s mind sets. Computers do not “think”, they compute and process.
As for the rest of the continuing insults and disparagements, water off a ducks back. I have tolerated far more condescending people on numerous other forums. They go with the territory unfortunately.
PMSL :~)…reading back I was hoping to really learn something of interest…instead it’s just a couple of Guys having a pis---- contest…hey ho!..moving on ;~)