Hi Phillip,

>>>I have been trying to connect that statement with human undrestanding. What makes you think that we understand? The human brain is, for the most part, an ever changing thought processor. Our programming is constantly changing. Our program is programmed to change under varius circumstances. We do not yet know what most of these circumstances are, nor do we know why the brain changes so drastically. We may think of something one for most of our lives, but at any time that thought may change, we learn. Computers can learn as well.>>H: I keep hearing this complex argument, but this is not how computer programs work. They must be programmed for specific tasks. You don't download a whole bunch of code from off the internet and hope it somehow performs the task better, right? Someone must review the tasks that you wish to obtain from that software and design it according to those needs. The person must understand what you need, and then they program so that those needs are met (and then you can download it from the internet). P: This can be solved with learning programs. It has actually been shown in experiments that you do not have to pregram a computer. A fast computer was put together with many sensors(some hooked up directly to the computer, and some were for monitoring progress) on it, all of the sensors were hooked up and everything was ready to go. When the power was hooked up and turned on, they said that it began making sense of everything. In the "Guiness World Records Millenium Edition" the record for the smallest robot was made from "the remains of a walkman". When its legs were held it tried to get loose, and it did not have a pattern to its movements. It tried different combonations, until it was freed. It had no programming. Did it know what it was doing? In a sense yes, but it did not know what it was doing by human standards. But it did know what it was doing.

• Harwey, it seems you don't know what you are talking about. - alexander - December 17, 2001 - 22:58 UTC