0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Siochi, you have obviously given this some thought. I think you are on the right track but, and please don't take this as a criticism, the concepts are far from new. If you are 14-15 years old, your understanding and reasoning are admirable and you would do well to pursue them. You should try to read more on the subject by people in this field of research. The view you have adopted is that of proponents of "Strong AI". Simply put, it is that the brain is a "Turing machine" and, as such, all its operation can be mapped onto any other Turing Machine of which the familiar electronic computer is an example, allbeit that the requirements for the computer specification would be rather demanding, particularly in terms of the software. I also take this strong AI view although I would not underestimate the task of developing the software and self learning capabilities. I suggest reading work by Douglas Hofstadter.The human brain has evolved over many milennia and does not start with a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth; there is a huge amount of pre-wiring. If you want to use a computer analogy, I consider this to be analogous to ROM. There is much commonality in the way this ROM is configured - for example we all have mechanisms for processing visual images which are similar and, in fact, the whole structure of the brain and which part do what is very much the same for every human. It is preconfigured to a large extent in ways we do not fully understand, and this includes systems which work at quite a high level including language processing. However, it also appears that the brain is adaptable and "plastic" in that it is sometimes possible to "relocate" software to other parts of the brain. This has been shown to be the case in people who have suffered severe brain damage but have regained abilities previously utilising the damaged regions. On the other hand there are people who do not think that the brain is a Turing machine at all or others that it maybe something much more sophisticated than we realise. Roger Penrose postulates that the brain may be a "quantum computer" for example. Personally I just think it is a very sophisticated Turing machine with a huge amount of preconfiguring - some innately genetic but common to humans, some, more locally, through inheritence and some due to learning (with the mechanisms for learning also built-in). I would not dismiss Penrose's view though as he is a clever bloke (this is an understatement). His non-Turing concept is based on the idea (and this is simplified) that we humans can reach solutions to mathematical problems (we propose theorems which we are fairly sure are correct) that not only that we cannot prove but for which we can show that no proof is possible. This is getting a bit deep but it is all to do with a Turing machine not completing its program. This can get deeply philosophical but it does come down to the free-will ideas. I am happy to think there may be a lot of random stuff going on too and that this can result in the occasional good guess that we then reason is plausible - you could think of this as free-will too. I wrote more than I intended but I hope this helps. Best of luck.
I would take two subject, test their iq , and then, choose one of the subject, and give him my intensive imaginative training, and then note the difference between the two !
Quote from: siochi on 04/02/2011 12:36:06 I would take two subject, test their iq , and then, choose one of the subject, and give him my intensive imaginative training, and then note the difference between the two !Two is not a statistically significant number of participants to determine if some sort of brain training has increased IQ score.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
Quote from: RD on 04/02/2011 13:38:03Quote from: siochi on 04/02/2011 12:36:06 I would take two subject, test their iq , and then, choose one of the subject, and give him my intensive imaginative training, and then note the difference between the two !Two is not a statistically significant number of participants to determine if some sort of brain training has increased IQ score.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significanceyeah, right. But, it's not bad for a start. If it works, I'll have the test repeated for a satisfactory number of time.
Ego is the factor which is responsible for imagination, language, and intelligence. Fixed that for ya.