Incorrect. A human being is a machine with logic gates and pushing and pulling parts and chemicals and electricity, making rote calculations just like what you call a robot. Your thoughts and motivations are just a chemical and electrical brain state.
An erroneous conclusion based on a sample size of one. Prove that scientifically or shut the fuck up. Logic is well defined and no one defines it as science. Logic is the application of reason and possesses no scientific method. What exactly is the scientific test for happiness? Good luck with that. Explain to me how election results are testable using the scientific method. You can't because historical events by definition are not repeatable. I think you are trying to redefine science to suit yourself. I have mentioned the flaws in your theory quite succinctly.
This semantic argument is irrelevant. You define logic as the application of reason. That's fine. It's still fact and reality based. You are off on a irrelevant tangent. I am looking for examples of enlightenment from a source that doesn't involve rational measurable data. Also clearly I could measure happiness through the science of psychology and via neuroscience. Happiness is an electrochemical state. The extent to which we can measure that is only limited by our tools and state of e science. You are wasting my time. I was talking to their dude, I remain curious about his alternative information gathering techniques, and my questions about tarot cards and palmistry.
Purely based on insufficient computational power. In what sense do you think these traits or whatever transcend rote calculations? Are they magic?
That's not what you said. You said only science can prove something to be true. I have proved you wrong. You are misinformed. There are psychologists that study happiness but they cannot test for happiness scientifically. They believe that we can reliably and honestly self-report our state of happiness and increases and decreases in happiness. They simply ask people if they are happy or not. Actually effective, but entirely subjective. LINK and ANOTHER LINK I am wrecking your argument, chief. No one has mentioned this hogwash except you.
If reason is magic, then sure. It's not a matter of computational power, its a matter of intelligence and computers are simply not intelligent. The fact is that computers can do good mathematics. They have great repeatability and fabulous accuracy. But they are quite dumb and cannot reason or think independently of their programming. They cannot decide a goddamn thing unless it can be carefully programmed into a series of yes or no questions. They cannot even multiply. But they can add so fast that it greatly resembles multiplication. Like you they perceive no shades of gray. They cannot feel. They cannot care. They cannot grok. Are you a robot by any chance?
Horseshit. To date, no computer has made the most simple self-initiated decision and has manifested a hint of intelligence. In reality, the advanced machine is as dumb as a rock. Since computers have no feelings, opinions, or awareness of themselves, any question that touches on these issues is likely to make a computer unable to respond correctly. BRAIN VERSUS COMPUTER
