We're just very good pattern-matching engines!

by AlmostAtheist 18 Replies latest jw friends

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    I was playing with my 5 month old in her walker. I put her doll on one side until she spotted it. Then I slowly pulled it down below her vision and popped it back up on the other side. Sooner or later, she'd look over and there it was! This process repeated a few times and pretty soon she started looking to the other side as soon as the doll started to descend. She recognized the pattern.

    When I was a teenager, I was fascinated with artificial intelligence. I wrote a program that would accept facts in the form of thing = thing (like "Doll = Toy") then compare the new fact against everything else it knew. I told it Doll=Toy and Barbie=Toy at which it prompted me, "Is Barbie a Doll?" It recognized the pattern. (No, it didn't know what any of those words meant and it was by no means 'intelligent'. Any programmer on this board could write a similar program in an hour or less.)

    It dawned on me that we are all just very good pattern matchers. That could very easily be "it". Everything else we experience is just the emergence of the recognition of all of these patterns. As a baby, you notice that when you cry, they feed you. But when you cry all the time, they get frustrated. So you cry until you recognize the pattern of "they are preparing to feed me", and you stop crying. You're getting fed! You know this pattern!

    Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I think not. The whole basis for thought and everything must be something simple that a series of connected neurons could pull off. Crack open a computer and you've got specialized doo-dads all over the thing. Crack open a brain and you just get grey goo. There's gotta be something simple happening there.

    Wuddaya think?

    Dave of the "admits something simple is happening in his brain" class

  • Odrade
    Odrade

    hahahahahahaha!

    um...

    bwahahahahaha!!!!

    well.......

    whoooohhhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

    *whew* you sound like a logical computer programmer trying to understand a baby. It's okay. When she's thrown up on your shoes enough times for no good reason, you'll get over it.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Interesting thoughts!

    My favorite definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to adapt to one's environment".

    When it comes to artificial intelligence and robotics that is the definition I keep in the back of my mind in order to evaluate the "intelligence" of the program or robot.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    lmao @ ordrade!

    Yup... organic systems can be very messy!

  • Odrade
    Odrade

    on a more serious note... now that my laughing has subsided, and my left brain is once more reasserting its geekiness... Humans are the only animal known to "fast-track." It's thought, (but not proven) that other animals, due to their ability to problem solve and "guess" at voice commands, have some rudimentary fast-tracking ability. Fast-tracking is basically the ability to make deductions based on limited information, then "leap" to the correct conclusion. I think the term is used almost exclusively in reference to spoken language.

    My point, no computer program in the world has the ability to fast-track. Some programs may appear to do so, but if the data isn't there, the computer cannot make the "leap." Likewise with most of the lower animals. So, no, IMO the processing done in the grey matter is of an entirely different sort.

  • Scully
    Scully

    You're discovering a really neat stage of your baby's development. It won't be long before she thinks that all four-legged creatures are either "doggy" or "kitty".

    You can do some really mean things to mess them up at that age. We had a family friend growing up who convinced his little brother that animals make different sounds than what they actually make. Cows saying "baa" and dogs saying "moo", for instance. It's funny when you're 8 years old to see people do that, but it really messes up a toddler. Fortunately, most of them have no recollection of being brainwashed like that.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    I've been thinking of this recently myself. Since I'm not computationally minded, I thought of it in terms of humans being lifelong compare-ers. Comparing, judging, one thing vs another from the day we are born.


    Unfortunately, we are so instinctively good at simple comparison, that we often are failures at making accurate comparisons of more complex things/issues simply because of hubris, especially as adults.

  • bikerchic
    bikerchic

    LOL @ Scully:

    You can do some really mean things to mess them up at that age. We had a family friend growing up who convinced his little brother that animals make different sounds than what they actually make. Cows saying "baa" and dogs saying "moo", for instance.

    I guess I did a mean thing to my first born, new Mom so eh I just thought it was funny, sad thing is my son still remembers I did this.

    Gosh he was just a bit over a year old, maybe younger I can't remember. After teaching him all about animals, ears, noses, eyes, fur, 4 legs and oh yes they have tails! While giving him a bath one night I had him looking for his tail, he would spin around in the tub trying to see it and I would pretend to grab at it but miss........he was really fascinated and kept insisting for a long time he had a tail too. Awww shuck I was a bad Mommy.

    At some point I think he thought his tail was in the front not the back of himself..........

    Okay get yer minds outa the gutter, do not go there!

    Kate

  • Gretchen956
    Gretchen956

    Hahahahaha!!! Yes, I told my nephew his nose was his toe, and when my youngest brother was 2-1/2 and still nursing I taught him to say "titty mommy." So he embarrased her so bad she weaned him! Which was my intent because at 16 that was as embarassing as hell.

    They are very fun to watch grow up and learn all this stuff, its a good thing they don't grow up holding grudges!!

    Sherry

  • ColdRedRain
    ColdRedRain

    We are pattern-matching engines, especially us here at JWD. We know that the WT decries free thought and we know that it claims not to be a cult. We also know cults tend to say that they're not cults and they also tend to restrict free thought.

    It's sad that our JW friends can't seem to add 2+2 together.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit