Prove beyond a doubt and without circular assumptions that you can in fact think - Page 2

**John01** · 06-17-2012, 01:52 PM

One must think to communicate.

I have lengthy conversations with myself.

Therefore, I think.

**Tocsin** · 06-17-2012, 01:53 PM

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Prove that I can think?

Sorry, not a clue -
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**pure potential** · 06-19-2012, 08:56 PM

In my view, thinking is an ability.. a tool. One that works in a spiral pattern, rather than circular. Though I think the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is a great representation of thinking's process. On that note..

"I am curious, therefore I think."

Proving anything is a similarly complex discussion.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Paul Siraisi** · 06-25-2012, 08:26 PM

Axioms are inherently circular. Axiom: I think. So I think.

**Grave** · 06-28-2012, 01:03 PM

Like Monte has said, it is impossible to prove to you that my thinking is possible. Consider this: a proof to you lies in your very perception, you cannot perceive me thinking so I cannot prove to you that I'm thinking. Furthermore, I cannot say that I arrive at the understanding of certain concepts, like god, by my thinking because this may have been derived from someone else's thinking and I may just be some machine programmed to say these things. Something predetermined must happen before I can prove that I think and that is the belief of what I say to be true, but this very thing is contrary to the notion of proof.

**Kisai** · 06-28-2012, 02:30 PM


	I may just be some machine programmed to say these things

Machines programmed to mimic humans perfectly do not exist, so I think its safe to say you are not one.

Proof of your intelligence can be shown by giving you a novel task to accomplish, a small puzzle. For a control group we'll use a bunch of rocks. I guarantee that you'll be able to outperform the rocks in cognitive ability.

**Grave** · 06-28-2012, 03:10 PM

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Machines programmed to mimic humans perfectly do not exist, so I think its safe to say you are not one. Proof of your intelligence can be shown by giving you a novel task to accomplish, a small puzzle. For a control group we'll use a bunch of rocks. I guarantee that you'll be able to outperform the rocks in cognitive ability.

Yeah I know that, but I'm speaking in text so I may not necessarily be mimicking a human in any aspects besides what you can tell from these texts. So there's really no intelligence in typing just the right words to communicate an idea you understand, though I may not. Think of it like the cleverbot, maybe I'm just a cleverbot
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Kisai** · 06-28-2012, 03:19 PM

I could still give you a text based cognitive puzzle, like the Tower of Hanoi, using brackets and numbers to represent the disks and the posts. We could do this over IRC.

You could solve it, or at least give an indication that you were attempting to solve it. Cleverbot could not.

**Grave** · 06-28-2012, 03:26 PM

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I could still give you a text based cognitive puzzle, like the Tower of Hanoi, using brackets and numbers to represent the disks and the posts. We could do this over IRC. You could solve it, or at least give an indication that you were attempting to solve it. Cleverbot could not.

I'm sure that's questionable considering all the actions taken in the puzzle could be predetermined along with a specific conclusion of solving it or not. But I'm not sure about it because I don't know too much about computer programming, but it really is an interesting thought.

**Kisai** · 06-28-2012, 03:30 PM

It doesn't have to be the Tower of Hanoi. Like I said, it would be novel. It would not have to be complicated. All that's required is to show that one has to possess a measure of cognitive ability in order to solve the test.

**Grave** · 06-28-2012, 03:39 PM

Yes, but you're asking to be sure that the person completing the puzzle actually has cognitive capabilities, but I believe that you cannot know unless you actually saw a human being sitting down and attempting to solve the puzzle in which case it's already clear that it is a human. However, in the case I'm explaining all these texts and my puzzle solving skills may very well just be a computer simulation predetermined and designed to do all these things. So the person asking for proof of actual thoughts though a computer cannot expect an explanation that convinces him, with certain evidence, that it is a cognitive based explanation.

**Kisai** · 06-28-2012, 05:16 PM


	you cannot know unless you actually saw a human being sitting down and attempting to solve the puzzle in which case it's already clear that it is a human.

It doesn't matter if its a human. The question is to prove that the subject can think. A rational agent capable of novel problem solving fits that criteria.


	my puzzle solving skills may very well just be a computer simulation predetermined and designed to do all these things

Novel: adjective, from the Latin adjective novus: new. If I present a new problem, never seen before, and you solve it, you couldn't predetermine a response to it. Ergo, you must be using a cognitive ability to solve the problem. Solve multiple novel problems and it'll be highly unlikely that its just dumb luck. Ergo, you can think.

**Grave** · 06-29-2012, 01:59 PM

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Novel: adjective, from the Latin adjective novus: new. If I present a new problem, never seen before, and you solve it, you couldn't predetermine a response to it. Ergo, you must be using a cognitive ability to solve the problem. Solve multiple novel problems and it'll be highly unlikely that its just dumb luck. Ergo, you can think.

Oh, right you are! Though using that way to affirm cognition is more demanding than I was expecting.

06-17-2012, 01:52 PM	#26
John01 Core Member [112%] MBTI: INTx Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,517	One must think to communicate. I have lengthy conversations with myself. Therefore, I think.
John01 is offline post a comment

06-17-2012, 01:53 PM	#27
Tocsin Core Member [118%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,730	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Prove that I can think? Sorry, not a clue - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tocsin is offline post a comment

06-19-2012, 08:56 PM	#28
pure potential Member [36%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,459	In my view, thinking is an ability.. a tool. One that works in a spiral pattern, rather than circular. Though I think the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is a great representation of thinking's process. On that note.. "I am curious, therefore I think." Proving anything is a similarly complex discussion. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
pure potential is online post a comment

06-25-2012, 08:26 PM	#29
Paul Siraisi Veteran Member [65%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 2,600	Axioms are inherently circular. Axiom: I think. So I think.
Paul Siraisi is offline post a comment

06-28-2012, 01:03 PM	#30
Grave Member [07%] MBTI: INFP Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 305	Like Monte has said, it is impossible to prove to you that my thinking is possible. Consider this: a proof to you lies in your very perception, you cannot perceive me thinking so I cannot prove to you that I'm thinking. Furthermore, I cannot say that I arrive at the understanding of certain concepts, like god, by my thinking because this may have been derived from someone else's thinking and I may just be some machine programmed to say these things. Something predetermined must happen before I can prove that I think and that is the belief of what I say to be true, but this very thing is contrary to the notion of proof.
Grave is offline post a comment

06-28-2012, 03:19 PM	#33
Kisai Core Member [353%] MBTI: XXXX Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 14,154	I could still give you a text based cognitive puzzle, like the Tower of Hanoi, using brackets and numbers to represent the disks and the posts. We could do this over IRC. You could solve it, or at least give an indication that you were attempting to solve it. Cleverbot could not.
Kisai is offline post a comment

06-28-2012, 03:30 PM	#35
Kisai Core Member [353%] MBTI: XXXX Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 14,154	It doesn't have to be the Tower of Hanoi. Like I said, it would be novel. It would not have to be complicated. All that's required is to show that one has to possess a measure of cognitive ability in order to solve the test.
Kisai is offline post a comment

06-28-2012, 03:39 PM	#36
Grave Member [07%] MBTI: INFP Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 305	Yes, but you're asking to be sure that the person completing the puzzle actually has cognitive capabilities, but I believe that you cannot know unless you actually saw a human being sitting down and attempting to solve the puzzle in which case it's already clear that it is a human. However, in the case I'm explaining all these texts and my puzzle solving skills may very well just be a computer simulation predetermined and designed to do all these things. So the person asking for proof of actual thoughts though a computer cannot expect an explanation that convinces him, with certain evidence, that it is a cognitive based explanation.
Grave is offline post a comment