Perhaps, the answer is "not very"; it may be advanced enough now.
But, one may "lead a horse to water", but still it won't "drink".
If one thinks the science of humans is possible and one develops a science, do you really think "only we" can do it? (You can not believe, which is common, OR you can set yourself up to fail to develop a science, which is common, _OR_ what "we can do", " 'they' can do".)
[ You really did/do not think we are that 'smart' did/do you ?? (Don't worry, we're in charge -- for now; on the other hand, "how's this workin' out for us"?) ]
**FOOTNOTE (added 9:45 CST 03-14-2017) in response to a question: You can take my use of "understand" HERE to mean: 'able to replicate'.
[ Off-Topic NOTE to reseachgate.net users: I almost always have to come back to a post about a day later to take care of very strange additions and deletions to the Topics a post is placed under -- most assuredly we have one 'bad robot' here. (After redoing the Topics, about a day later -- so they are reasonable -- they then seem to stick. ) (I have informed researchgate.net twice over the last several weeks.) ]
A famous professor of mine said once to Artificial Intelligence: You have to divide that term: it can never be "intelligent" but and because it is "artificial" (human made and written down in one fix form).
So this term is like "perpetuum mobile" a term which starts never reachable phantasies.
Dear Manuela Rossini
You can take my use of "understand" HERE to mean: 'able to replicate'. Thanks for asking. (Having this more clear is important; I added a FOOTNOTE to the original post, providing this definition there as well.)
Dear Franz Plochberger
While honestly, I too have doubt over a complete simulation of a human, I would simply say (in response to your input) that we have to make the program so it is NOT "fixed". (The need for finding real process is also central in psychology, to develop the quasi-science of 'psychology' into a science, so there is something reasonable to try to replicate. How to find real process, or real patterns for that matter, still seem to be too much of a challenge for today's psychology; if you cannot take care of these problems insomuch as they have to do with your particular study in psychology, then you should STOP and take care of these matters before proceeding *. Think: empiricism; think proximate cause; think nature-AND-nurture. I could "plug" my human Ethogram Theory here again, as a good example -- but people, I think, are tired of my "plugs", no matter how relevant [; just click my name to find it, if interested ].)
*Footnote: I actually think this should be a RULE and that psychologists and researchers should show they have done this before doing -- and certainly, before publishing -- their research, (We really should not have to "read between the lines", when psychology writers and researchers leave this implicit or simply assume their view is clear to all or already-agreed-upon. They would be "hanging" their assumptions "out" for all to see with this, but THIS is exactly what we need -- even if over-and-over-and-over ! It might be good if all asked themselves: "How I am like B.F. Skinner in form and outlook?; am I?" )
Dear Brad Jesness,
I don't say that I am an Psychologist, that's a very new und important science today.
I only say that a computer is an artificial machine not a living or even "intelligent" organism. Every step behind AI-programs have to be constructed and written down before by Human Beings. If this system decides by his own, it needs the predefined human made rules. So AI is written down human intelligence; it's a complex system of rules and seems sometimes to be intelligent because it solves problems a user of this system wouldn't be able to do so fast and definitive.
My research area is "Orientation of IT towards Human Being". If you are interested look at http://www.plbg.at.
So AI is fascinating but only for people who don't know how a computer can work. But this fascinating is misleading and brings finally no real joy.
I hope we can come together..
Dear Franz Plochberger
As you re-iterated your point, I do understand what you mean and see your point. So, at least to some extent I must agree. Yet:
Still, code changes itself (of course, what I mean by this is some code changes other code), and programmers can update and improve this. Plus, can't we make it so the environment, itself, does some of this correcting? (I sure would be happy for a some insight into the answer to this last question.)
[ I never was much of a programmer, but I was one so hopefully can have a bit of a realistic perspective. BUT, on the other hand, I have no particular insight (at all) into details on how something like Watson works. I most certainly respect your view and perhaps in no way substantially "disagree". P.S. As usual, I was really "carrying on" (in my response to you) mainly regarding problems with psychologists (I use anything as a pretense for that) and I was not really disagreeing with you as much as you may have thought. ]
Dear Brad,
sorry if you disagree. Perhaps Psychologists and Information Scientist can't come together.
PS.: A computer is no mystery or wonder which can do all - it's a simple manmade machine!
After 30 years working with computers we called them sometimes "Blechtrottel" - but only if we got angry!
Dear Franz Plochberger
Part of what I tried to say with my last answer is that I do not disagree. (I did go on to make a couple of remarks and ask an additional question I hope someone like you might answer: Can't we make it so the environment, itself, does some of the correcting of computer programming ?)
Regards, Brad
P.S. Even psychologists and I (me) can't come together. You have nothing to worry about in such a regard!!
Dear Brad,
sorry for not understanding your disagree.
In your proposed environment some "automatic" software can of course solve some questions. F. i. every development of a computer program is supported by the compiler which proves the syntax of a new written program and translates it into a machine program which steers the computer hardware.
But again "intelligent" is only a human being - he can create a new problem solving in every case in a new not predefined way. A computer (Hard- and Software) can only do what a human being has written in his system programs. Self-changing systems are in intellectual human typically AI (pseudo-intellectual).
Intelligence is a human property and can't be made!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology