TPOI and Thinking Machines

[krinndnz]

Just two nights ago I had a fairly pleasant evening at the Langton Labs. Lunging into social situations like that is something I should do more often, on balance. I found out about the get-together via circuit_four, who's a friend of raxvulpine and her pal eredien, who are in turn acquainted with baxil. So there was a basis for acquaintance, but precious little. I had a pretty

Comments

[ribbin]

Good points, all.

Socialization- this is very true. I, from the get-go, had to consciously pick up socialization. I still do knowingly, though not always consciously. I think you're very right that this will help people go further with it- like all things, those people who are talented have a very easy time of it, until they reach the limit of their talent. Those who are passionate will hang on, no matter how hard, until they get what they want.

Computers as thinking machines- yes and no. Computers are reasoning machines. Thinking is made up of reasoning, memory, subconscious associations, and is primarily represented in our head by the ability to synthesize it- which is why, when I say, "imagine Tom Cruise playing Batman" you can take Cruise' mannerisms and voice, and meld them with a classic Batman look. Computers can only recall and reason- they can only meld, not truly synthesize, and they have no subconsciousness to get "gut feelings" from. Together, these things form the basis for philosophy, personality and culture, which computers do not have.

"Something more"- I think the something more you're talking about is just that- the act not of reasoning, but of synthesizing and thinking- philosophy, original scientific research (let's face it- if scientific breakthroughs were the random combination of thoughts, we'd never get anywhere- it takes gut feelings to have intelligently designed experiments! And yes, those were intentionally references). In short, you're looking for learning and philosophy.

Hope this helps.

[krinndnz]

You make a very good distinction between "thinking" and "reasoning." Thank you. I agree with the distinction, but I'd like to clarify - I meant to portray computers as "thinking machines" in the same way that an electric screwdriver is a "building machine." It's a tool, which is why I made the parallel with pens. I'm looking forward to "machines that are capable of thinking," but right now we haven't got them, just machines that are adjuncts to our own thinking. Naturally, the set of of tools that are available for a task, especially a big abstract one like thinking, change the way that you go about the task and how you think about the task itself. I like how Cory Doctorow and his pals call one's personal data and computer habits the "extended brain."

However, I think you've grasped the essential point of the post, which is that it's a big sloppy love letter to the humanities.