A discussion on computers and the human mind

Ellis and Humphreys argue that these networks have a different structure or layers where they store information, i. The terms are sometimes, however, used interchangeably. Research into commonsense knowledge has focused on reproducing the "background" or context of knowledge.

After conducting initial studies in rats during the s, Nicolelis and his colleagues developed BCIs that decoded brain activity in owl monkeys and used the devices to reproduce monkey movements in robotic arms. However, once we make the appropriate adjustments, it is not clear that an obvious difference between people and digital computers emerges.

In our view, at least when The Turing Test is properly understood, it is clear that anything that passes The Turing Test must have the ability to solve problems in a wide variety of everyday circumstances because the interrogators will use their questions to probe these—and other—kinds of abilities in those who play the Imitation Game.

Turing gives the following labels to the objections that he considers: Because they lie in the grey matter, invasive devices produce the highest quality signals of BCI devices but are prone to scar-tissue build-up, causing the signal to become weaker, or even non-existent, as the body reacts to a foreign object in the brain.

In their spinal cord injury research study, a person with paraplegia was able to operate a BCI-robotic gait orthosis to regain basic brain-controlled ambulation. Invasive BCIs are implanted directly into the grey matter of the brain during neurosurgery.

However, given the limitations of storage capacity and processing speed of even the most recent digital computers, there are obvious reasons for being cautious in assessing the merits of this inductive argument.

Quantum mechanics is now struggling with these same philosophical questions, which all lead back to an understanding of consciousness. It is often referred to as a Spark of the Divine A discussion on computers and the human mind as a wave on the vast limitless ocean of the cosmic ever-present possibility of what is.

Consciousness, in fact, may create them. The idea here is very simple. And then it seems natural to hold that The Turing Test does indeed provide nomically sufficient conditions for the attribution of intelligence: Copeland argues that this contention is seriously mistaken: And it is also possible to interpret Turing as intending to say that the new game is one in which the computer must pretend to be a woman, and the other participant in the game is a man who must also pretend to be a woman.

In particular, it is worth noting that the seventh of the objections that Turing considers addresses the possibility of continuous state machines, which Turing explicitly acknowledges to be different from discrete state machines.

Lock the person into a room and have him follow the instructions on the cards. Consequently, it is difficult for coherent quantum states to form for very long in the brain, and impossible for them to exist at the scales on the order of the size of neurons.

Consider, for example, Gunderson Fodor, Fodor, and Garrett state that, according to the computational theory of mind, neural systems appear to have innate representations that refer to one property of thinking. On the other hand, a system does not cease to be quantum because it is wet and noisy.

Why, for example, should we suppose that there must be something deficient about a creature that does not enjoy—or that is not able to enjoy—strawberries and cream? The cats were shown eight short movies, and their neuron firings were recorded.

So, every neuron has consciousness or at least some structure to support consciousness. Two percent occurred in suicide attempts and 20 percent in other circumstances that included anxiety states, dreams, relaxation states, or quite spontaneously in the normal course of life.

Writing a program that exhibits one of these behaviors "will not make much of an impression. It is an interesting question whether the test that Harnad proposes sets a more appropriate goal for AI research. Whether or not we suppose that norms can be codified—and quite apart from the question of which kinds of norms are in question—it is hard to see what grounds there could be for this judgment, other than the question-begging claim that machines are not the kinds of things whose behavior could be subject to norms.

Intelligent creatures might fail to pass The Turing Test because they do not share our way of life; intelligent creatures might fail to pass The Turing Test because they refuse to engage in games of pretence; intelligent creatures might fail to pass The Turing Test because the pragmatic conventions that govern the languages that they speak are so very different from the pragmatic conventions that govern human languages.

Other people suppose that The Turing Test does not provide a useful goal for research in AI because it sets a very narrow target and thus sets unnecessary restrictions on the kind of research that gets done.

If the capacity for telepathy were a standard feature of any sufficiently advanced system that is able to carry out human conversation, then there is no in-principle reason why digital computers could not be the equals of human beings in this respect as well.A brain–computer interface (BCI), sometimes called a neural-control interface (NCI), mind-machine interface (MMI), direct neural interface (DNI), or brain–machine interface (BMI), is a direct communication pathway between an enhanced or wired brain and an external device.

An artificial intelligence project recently funded by Silicon Valley pioneer Elon Musk aims to find a new way to compare supercomputers to the human brain.

[debate] Is the human mind faster than a PC?

Page 1 of 3 - [debate] Is the human mind faster than a PC? - posted in General Tech Discussion: A lot of people like to say that a human brain is faster then a computer but I find this debatable for the following reasons.

Humans rely on computers to perform all somewhat difficult calculations in a reasonable amount of time and also computers these days can perform billions of math calculations. 2 thoughts on “ Computer vs. brain- The human feel ” klp March 1, at pm.

Kansas Parker-McKinnell. After reading your blog I feel you made some valid arguments but at the same maybe took the comparison of the brain and computer slightly too literal. A Discussion on Computers and the Human Mind PAGES 1. WORDS View Full Essay. More essays like this: computers, human mind, human brain, computers and brain.

Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University.

Computer vs. brain- The human feel

Exactly what I needed. - Jenna Kraig, student @ UCLA. computers are incredibly clever is changing, as when computers enter human specialties like conversation, many people find them more stupid than smart, as any “conversation” with a .

A discussion on computers and the human mind
Rated 3/5 based on 57 review