Computers learn much faster and deeper than humans

[Jacob]

The whole point of this thread was that the "empty AI", which only knew the board, the pieces and the laws of motion learned on its own how to play the game on an unheard of advanced level, surpassing not just the best humans, but also the best computer programs. And to add "insult to injury" it performed this mindboggling task in a few hours! The point is that the AI taught itself. Of course we, humans can do the same thing, not necessarily as fast as the AI, but that is not relevant. The AI performed the human task (learning!), and did it faster and better than the humans could. The reason for this thread is to "rub the nose" of those people (into their own stinking excrement ) who are so haughty and assert that the computers only know hat they are programmed to do.

When the chess program performs a stupendously awesome move, is it able to award itself a couple of exclamation points behind its move (e.g. 34. Bc8!!)?  Is it able to savor the greatness of the Immortal Game?

[cgraye]

Again, you bypass the question of "what is intellect"?

What?  I provided a precise definition just above this.

Severely autistic people cannot fathom the concept of a "dog". When they hear the word "dog", their mind creates a continuously running internal "film" of all the dogs they encountered during their life. For them there is no abstract dog. Newborns and toddlers are unable to conceptualize at all, until they learn the process. Seriously mentally handicapped people cannot learn it at all. Some "primitive" people can only conceptualize the numerals "one" and "two"; everything else is "many" for them. They simply cannot understand the difference between "three" and "four" apples.

You cannot possibly know what the purely subjective experience of an autistic person is.  But it is also completely irrelevant to this discussion.  Even if some people are so damaged or underdeveloped that they are completely unable to realize their potentials for intellectual activity, they still possess those potentials, and computers do not.

It is true that the board and the pieces are composed of matter themselves, but the rules are not. The rules are directives to describe the legal motions of the pieces. As such they are immaterial, but that does not make them "supernatural".

I did not say anything about anything being supernatural.

The whole point of this thread was that the "empty AI", which only knew the board, the pieces and the laws of motion learned on its own how to play the game on an unheard of advanced level, surpassing not just the best humans, but also the best computer programs. And to add "insult to injury" it performed this mindboggling task in a few hours! The point is that the AI taught itself. Of course we, humans can do the same thing, not necessarily as fast as the AI, but that is not relevant. The AI performed the human task (learning!), and did it faster and better than the humans could. The reason for this thread is to "rub the nose" of those people (into their own stinking excrement ) who are so haughty and assert that the computers only know hat they are programmed to do.

The AI never knew the board, the pieces, the laws of motion, or anything else.  Nor did it learn anything, in the human sense.  It transformed some symbols into some other symbols.  That syntax never had any semantic content to the computer.  No one ever argued that a computer program could not perform the task of transforming some symbols into some other symbols better than a human being.  But those symbols only have meaning to a human being.  I suspect it is in that sense that your group of people were claiming human superiority over computers.  But if they said that computers only know what they are programmed to do, they were mistaken - they don't even know that.  They just do.

You use the word "immaterial" without a proper definition.

What are we doing, here?  If I have to include the definition of every word I use in a post, we are going to be here for a very long time.  I trust you can look up the definition of anything you need to know.

Of course the objective physical reality also contains many immaterial aspects of it. There are the "attributes" (like heavy, light, near, far, and zillions of others). Then there are the "relationships" between the physical objects (like before, after, in between, next to, and other zillions of others). Then there are the "activities" performed by the physical objects (like thinking, walking, growing, and yet another zillions of others). None of these are composed of material building blocks, so they are "immaterial". But none of them can exist without a physical framework. There is no such "thing" as heaviness without a physical object AND someone who wishes to lift that object. There is no such "thing" as "between" without three objects residing on straight line. There is no such "thing" as motion without a physical object changing its physical location.

The reality is more nuanced than that.  A form can exist as the form of a specific thing or as an abstraction in the intellect.  If there are many triangular things in the world, and you see them, and you abstract the form "triangularity" from them and possess it in your intellect, but then all of those triangular things are destroyed or changed into non-triangular things, does triangularity no longer exist?  It still exists in your intellect, in the same way it did when there were triangular things in the world.  But your intellect is not triangular, and neither is anything else in the world.

I suggest that you ALL devote some time to understand the concept of "material" vs. "immaterial" and "natural" vs. "supernatural" (more correctly called "unnatural"), because these are not usable interchangeably. Without a clear definition between these categories there cannot be a meaningful conversation about them. Example is this thread, where I have to correct your erroneous assumptions over and over again.

Again, I never said anything about anything being supernatural, nor do I think it is particularly relevant to this discussion.  And you don't even have the definition right - supernatural does not mean unnatural.  Something supernatural would be something above or additional to nature but not contrary to it, while something unnatural would be something contrary to nature.  But I also didn't say anything about anything being natural or unnatural, either.

Your brain is also fully material. It consists of neurons (and some auxiliary stuff, like I/O organs, blood vessels, etc.) and the networks of neurons, which processes information via electro-chemical interactions among them. Of course the AI running on a silicon based hardware does the same thing - processing the information. Obviously Aristotle et al. had no idea about this. All they could do is perform some speculations about the reality.

That is correct, but neither my brain nor the computer is the thing that performs intellectual activity.

Another unsubstantiated "proclamation". First you need to show that there is a fundamental difference between the "emulation" and the "real thing". What argument can you provide for this? And you also need to present some argument that the emulation is always "deficient" in some significant aspect.

What is going on here?  Are you expecting me to give a defense of the entirety of classical metaphysics here before I invoke it to comment on the subject at hand?  If so, I think you're in the wrong subforum, and also way outside the scope of a forum post.  Emulation is by definition something different than the "real thing."  And I did not say emulation is always deficient in some significant aspect from the thing it is emulating.  It may be, if the difference is what is significant to you.  However, the emulation of thought by a material thing will always be deficient in one significant aspect - determinacy.  All formal thinking is determinate, but no physical process is determinate.  And yes, I am aware that those terms need to be defined and those claims need to be defended, and no, I am not going to do it in this forum post.  You can start by reading James Ross, who gave an argument for the immateriality of the intellect on those grounds, or Edward Feser who develops and defends that argument here: http://www.newdualism.org/papers/E.Feser/Feser-acpq_2013.pdf

How many people have no sense of humor? There are no "jokes" and especially "puns" that are funny for everyone, even if they happen to speak the language. It is true that the AI of Alexa is still very simple and rudimentary. But you are not qualified to make assessments for the future development of AI. "Never" is a very long time.

The capacity for humor is inherent to human nature, even if it is not realized (or not realized particularly well) in some individuals.  Since it involves intellectual activity, which no AI will ever be capable of for reasons I have already explained, I can definitely tell you that no AI will ever have a sense of humor.  Now, does that matter?  Not if you just want something to play a laughing sound that corresponds to some symbols and probably get it right most of the time, maybe.  Though frankly I don't understand why anyone would even want that.

What is your point? Of course we cannot "eat" or "drink" the emulation of food and water, and no one suggested otherwise. But a majority of our actions do not happen on the fields, growing wheat etc... The fastest growing endeavors happen in the information processing and the service sector. And those are ripe for automation. The simplest existing example is the AI called Watson. Originally designed to be a Jeopardy contestant, and it could beat the living daylight of the best humans. Of course that was only the first step. Today Watson consults thousands of physicians worldwide, providing diagnoses for thousands and potentially millions of patients. That is serious work, diagnosticians are very important part of the medical profession. And it is performed by never "tiring" AI-s, "who" (yes, who!) are always attentive, who do not bicker about pay-raises, who do not backstab their colleges... and, of course "who" do not need some undefined and unspecified "soul" to perform their tasks. That is what will happen, and the AlphaZero is but the first step on this road.

What is your point?  That some tasks can be better performed by automated machines than human beings?  No one has ever argued to the contrary.  That there are no differences between human thought and a computer emulation of human thought?  Obviously not, because you started with the premise that one was superior to the other in some sense.  That the differences between human thought and a computer emulation of human thought are not important?  That entirely depends on what the mind considering the question considers important, doesn't it?

[Aquila]

Scowler, IMO, is making a lot of false assumptions as to how a computer "thinks". For example, one might say that a robot that picks up an object and puts it down "knew" how to pick up the object. In a very broad sense, that is true. However, when the robot executes those instructions, that's not what it is doing. IOW, that is not the "subjective experience" (to borrow a phrase from cgraye) that the robot has. The robot simply follows a list of instructions, line by line. This is a very simple example, in one language that I know (with a little pseudocode thrown in for clarity), of how you might do this:

Code Select Expand


IF ObjectPresence = 1
CALL Pick_Up_Piece
[Pick_Up_Piece]
!Move to perch position
J P[1] 100% CNT50;
!Move to approach position
L P[2] 1000 mm/s FINE;
!Move to clamp position
L P[3] 100 mm/s FINE;
CALL Clamp
!Retreat to approach position
L P[2] 200 mm/s TA 0.5 CALL Check_Part_Presence;
!Return to Perch
J P[1] 100% CNT50
END
ENDIF


Now, one might say that by this, the robot "knows" how to pick up the part. The problem is, it doesn't! It simply executes each instruction, without understanding the whole and, more importantly, without understanding the purpose. A robot has no sense of purpose; nor is this something that can be programmed. Even the most complicated software doesn't have the level of understanding that a human has; by it's nature, it simply executes each instruction, in turn. This is a very simple example, but it illustrates, I think, the fundamental distinction between software and humans. Humans don't think, when they are walking, "I will now execute line 45. Line 45 instructs me to lift my left leg. I lift my left leg. I will now execute line 46. Line 46 tells me to move my left leg forward 0.56 meters. I move my left leg forward 0.56 meters", etc. But that is how a computer operates.

Even if you make software that passes the Turing test, that doesn't mean that the computer has self-awareness. This is the key thing people misunderstand about what the Turing test is. Turing didn't mean that if a computer passed the test, that is was self-aware and therefore, intelligent. He postulated that it didn't matter; that the simulation was as good as the real thing. Of course, people who believe in more traditional understandings of the intellect (especially more theological understandings) would disagree, as I do. However, if a computer were to pass the Turing test today, I wouldn't think that it was actually "intelligent" in the way that a human is, because that's not what the Turing test is supposed to show!

[Gardener]

It all makes sense now.

[Scowler]

When the chess program performs a stupendously awesome move, is it able to award itself a couple of exclamation points behind its move (e.g. 34. Bc8!!)?  Is it able to savor the greatness of the Immortal Game?

How many people can savor the greatness of the "immortal game"? I did not make this thread to show that computers can replace humans in every respect, only that AI can learn and develop new abilities just like humans can. Though the question is still the same. How can you decide if someone else is a "real" human, or an emulation? Too perfect, maybe? Too good to be "true"? Maybe an AI will develop into a "super-human", with higher intelligence, but without emotions. But if he could emulate the emotions convincingly, why should anyone care if they are only emulations? Excellent actors can be very convincing in portraying emotions, without feeling them inside.

Suppose you tell "jokes" to someone on the other end of a telephone line. The other party laughs a certain number of times. How can you decide if he understood the punch line or not? Not every human appreciates humor. I could present many jokes, which are hilariously funny to some people, but you would only feel insulted, since those jokes poke fun at your most deeply held beliefs. That would not mean that you are not a human, not even that you have no sense of humor. It only means that not all humans can appreciate certain kinds of humor... or any humor at all.

[MilesChristi]

When the chess program performs a stupendously awesome move, is it able to award itself a couple of exclamation points behind its move (e.g. 34. Bc8!!)?  Is it able to savor the greatness of the Immortal Game?

How many people can savor the greatness of the "immortal game"? I did not make this thread to show that computers can replace humans in every respect, only that AI can learn and develop new abilities just like humans can. Though the question is still the same. How can you decide if someone else is a "real" human, or an emulation? Too perfect, maybe? Too good to be "true"? Maybe an AI will develop into a "super-human", with higher intelligence, but without emotions. But if he could emulate the emotions convincingly, why should anyone care if they are only emulations? Excellent actors can be very convincing in portraying emotions, without feeling them inside.

Suppose you tell "jokes" to someone on the other end of a telephone line. The other party laughs a certain number of times. How can you decide if he understood the punch line or not? Not every human appreciates humor. I could present many jokes, which are hilariously funny to some people, but you would only feel insulted, since those jokes poke fun at your most deeply held beliefs. That would not mean that you are not a human, not even that you have no sense of humor. It only means that not all humans can appreciate certain kinds of humor... or any humor at all.

In that case, for the sake of the species, you cannot suffer such a thing to live. It will take us over, at that point, it is kill or be killed.

[Scowler]

Scowler, IMO, is making a lot of false assumptions as to how a computer "thinks". For example, one might say that a robot that picks up an object and puts it down "knew" how to pick up the object. In a very broad sense, that is true.

I don't make any assumptions. We have a "black box", without any access to the internal architecture. All we have is an input-output device, and a conversation with the "black box".

However, when the robot executes those instructions, that's not what it is doing.

And that is the same thing as you do. Except that your activity happens in the subconscious. But again, the robot runs many "threads" in a time-sharing manner. Especially if it has several CPU-s. It can examine the input received from a physician, who submitted the test results for diagnosis. The thread, which is responsible for picking up the object has a much lower priority. I don't know about you, but it happened that I was driving home and I simply found myself at my house... and had absolutely no recollection of the drive itself. I drove totally on auto-pilot. Just like a robot.

Now, one might say that by this, the robot "knows" how to pick up the part. The problem is, it doesn't! It simply executes each instruction, without understanding the whole and, more importantly, without understanding the purpose.

So what? What is "understanding"? And what is the "sense of purpose"?

A robot has no sense of purpose; nor is this something that can be programmed. Even the most complicated software doesn't have the level of understanding that a human has; by it's nature, it simply executes each instruction, in turn.

You must be pretty darn intelligent if you can foresee the future and already know what is or is not possible in the next hundreds of thousands of years. Can you foresee the winning numbers for the next Powerball draw? No? I thought not. Every time some self-proclaimed "prophet" tried to make a prediction about the future, all they achieved is a sizable blunder.

Even if you make software that passes the Turing test, that doesn't mean that the computer has self-awareness.

How do you know that the conversation partner, who might be a human or an AI - has self-awareness or not? The only way to know is to observe the responses and determine that the other party correctly uses the "I" and "WE" and "YOU" at the proper places.

This is the key thing people misunderstand about what the Turing test is. Turing didn't mean that if a computer passed the test, that is was self-aware and therefore, intelligent. He postulated that it didn't matter; that the simulation was as good as the real thing.

And he was correct. "Stupid is as stupid does" said Forrest Gump. You have no access to the "black box" who is your conversation partner. All you can do is observe the responses, and draw your conclusions based upon them.

Of course, people who believe in more traditional understandings of the intellect (especially more theological understandings) would disagree, as I do.

I would be VERY glad to entertain your understanding, IF you could present a coherent definition for it, AND some argument. Go for it. But this is the point when all the proponents of the "more traditional" (especially theological) understanding invariably "shut up". Are you different? I would be very happy to see what you will propose.

However, if a computer were to pass the Turing test today, I wouldn't think that it was actually "intelligent" in the way that a human is, because that's not what the Turing test is supposed to show!

It might not be intelligent in the same way as a human might be... just like an intelligent car does not perform the locomotion as a human does. But it DOES get there. The important thing is that it DOES what it is supposed to do. The internal workings are irrelevant. It might be fully "silicon-based", or completely organically grown in a vat, or a hybrid of those. What does it matter? The point is information processing, where the "hardware" or "wetware" along with the "software" performs the task.

[Scowler]

What are we doing, here?  If I have to include the definition of every word I use in a post, we are going to be here for a very long time.  I trust you can look up the definition of anything you need to know.

Unfortunately we seem to use different vocabularies. There are very simple, everyday concepts which you use differently. I merely want to understand what you try to say.

That is correct, but neither my brain nor the computer is the thing that performs intellectual activity.

What else, then?

The capacity for humor is inherent to human nature, even if it is not realized (or not realized particularly well) in some individuals. 

I am afraid that you cannot even define what "humor" is. To the best of my knowledge there is no rigorous, scientific definition for it.

Since it involves intellectual activity, which no AI will ever be capable of for reasons I have already explained, I can definitely tell you that no AI will ever have a sense of humor.  Now, does that matter?  Not if you just want something to play a laughing sound that corresponds to some symbols and probably get it right most of the time, maybe.  Though frankly I don't understand why anyone would even want that.

Another omniscient person? So many of you who proclaims that something cannot be done, now or ever.

What is your point?  That some tasks can be better performed by automated machines than human beings?  No one has ever argued to the contrary.  That there are no differences between human thought and a computer emulation of human thought?  Obviously not, because you started with the premise that one was superior to the other in some sense.  That the differences between human thought and a computer emulation of human thought are not important?  That entirely depends on what the mind considering the question considers important, doesn't it?

Actually the question was (and is): can you tell the difference between the "real thing" and a "good emulation"? All you have access to is the black box, and the conversation via some I/O device.

[cgraye]

What else, then?

The intellect, which is something necessarily immaterial.  It is the thing that has the power of receiving a form without instantiating it.

I am afraid that you cannot even define what "humor" is. To the best of my knowledge there is no rigorous, scientific definition for it.

We are going to run into that problem with any word.  I could give you a dictionary definition like, "The quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech."  And you might then ask, "What is the definition of amusing?" and so on.  Even mathematics, in its most formal expression, rests on things that are ultimately undefined.  So we might accept "amusing" as being undefined, but we both still understand it, so we might just go on to ask what makes something amusing.  And there are many theories.  But ultimately, all of them talk about things that boil down to intellectual activity.  So humor for these purposes is just one expression of the intellect.

Another omniscient person? So many of you who proclaims that something cannot be done, now or ever.

I can state that for the same reason I can state that no one will ever combine hydrogen and oxygen and make Coca-Cola - the proper ingredients simply are not there.

Actually the question was (and is): can you tell the difference between the "real thing" and a "good emulation"? All you have access to is the black box, and the conversation via some I/O device.

Yes, given enough time, I could.  There will always be a way given the indeterminacy of physical processes.  Even Turing said that in this Turing test scenario, an expert might be able detect the machine, and that the questioner should therefore not be an expert.

[Scowler]

The intellect, which is something necessarily immaterial.  It is the thing that has the power of receiving a form without instantiating it.

And where is that "thing"? How is its power manifest itself? How does it receive the "form" without instantiating it?

If the intellect IS the activity of the brain, then there is no problem. (And activity is NOT composed of quarks and electrons - so it IS immaterial) If that intellect IS NOT the electro-chemical activity of the brain, then, WHERE is it? And how does in communicate with the physical brain?

I can state that for the same reason I can state that no one will ever combine hydrogen and oxygen and make Coca-Cola - the proper ingredients simply are not there.

To do that you need to know what the proper ingredients are. Describe them.

Yes, given enough time, I could.  There will always be a way given the indeterminacy of physical processes.  Even Turing said that in this Turing test scenario, an expert might be able detect the machine, and that the questioner should therefore not be an expert.

That is pretty weak. The question is extremely generic: "what is the difference between an emulation and the real thing"?

[james03]

It is true that the board and the pieces are composed of matter themselves, but the rules are not. The rules are directives to describe the legal motions of the pieces. As such they are immaterial, but that does not make them "supernatural".

And the computer did not invent the rules.  It had to be shown the rules by an intellect.  How did it know what "winning" was to learn how to win?  An intellect had to show it what winning was.

If the intellect IS the activity of the brain, then there is no problem. (And activity is NOT composed of quarks and electrons - so it IS immaterial) If that intellect IS NOT the electro-chemical activity of the brain, then, WHERE is it? And how does in communicate with the physical brain?

Interesting you mention electrons and electro-chemical activity.  How does charge, which is immaterial, impart force on the material electron?

Perception and intentionality can not be material.  Electrons in logic gates or neural connections are not perception.  The fundamental basis for reality is information, which is immaterial.  It can be abstracted further to Truth.

[cgraye]

And where is that "thing"? How is its power manifest itself? How does it receive the "form" without instantiating it?

If the intellect IS the activity of the brain, then there is no problem. (And activity is NOT composed of quarks and electrons - so it IS immaterial) If that intellect IS NOT the electro-chemical activity of the brain, then, WHERE is it? And how does in communicate with the physical brain?

Being immaterial, it does not have a location in physical space the same way a material object does.  (Although not even material objects, if you look at a small enough scale, necessarily have a well-defined position.)  But in another sense, being the form of a human person, you could say that it is located where the person's body is located, since it is the form of that particular body.

As to how it functions, we should be careful not to think of it as some other thing - a ghost that inhabits the body and drives it around.  It is the form of the body.  A human being is as much its body as it is its intellect.  And intellectual activity, under normal circumstances, requires the use of the body - the senses and the brain.  Brain activity is not sufficient, but it is necessary.  The intellect does not move the body, except through the appetite.

To do that you need to know what the proper ingredients are. Describe them.

The missing ingredient is the (immaterial) intellect, which I have already described.  It receives forms without instantiating them.  Computers cannot do this.  They cannot possess the forms "triangularity," "man," "dog," etc.

That is pretty weak. The question is extremely generic: "what is the difference between an emulation and the real thing"?

The difference between an emulation and the real thing is that they are different things.  Even when you simply emulate one computer with another, they are different things.  Now, being the same kind of thing, one computer might be able to perfectly emulate another computer in the sense that if one only looked at the inputs and outputs, one might not be able to tell the difference.  But if the machine being emulated has some special piece of hardware, like a special I/O device, the emulating machine might not be able to emulate this perfectly, because not all I/O devices are equivalent, nor are they reducible to other parts of a computer, such as the memory or CPU.  So an expert with these machines could tell the difference by focusing his attention on that aspect of the emulation.

[Scowler]

Well, let's review the conversation.

Me: "Your brain is also fully material. It consists of neurons (and some auxiliary stuff, like I/O organs, blood vessels, etc.) and the networks of neurons, which processes information via electro-chemical interactions among them. Of course the AI running on a silicon based hardware does the same thing - processing the information. Obviously Aristotle et al. had no idea about this. All they could do is perform some speculations about the reality."

You: "That is correct, but neither my brain nor the computer is the thing that performs intellectual activity."

Me: "What else, then?"

You: "The intellect, which is something necessarily immaterial.  It is the thing that has the power of receiving a form without instantiating it."

Me: "And where is that "thing"? How is its power manifest itself? How does it receive the "form" without instantiating it? " If the intellect IS the activity of the brain, then there is no problem. (And activity is NOT composed of quarks and electrons - so it IS immaterial) If that intellect IS NOT the electro-chemical activity of the brain, then, WHERE is it? And how does in communicate with the physical brain?

You: "The missing ingredient is the (immaterial) intellect, which I have already described."

In other words, you speak in circles. Where is that "intellect"? How does it communicate with the physical brain?

You: Being immaterial, it does not have a location in physical space the same way a material object does.

The question is still unanswered: "where is it, then?" and "how does this undescribed, mysterious intellect interact with the physical brain?" There is the physical environment. There is the physical matter, which interacts with the physical receptors. The receptors transmit the information to the brain. The brain processes the signals. It uses the memory (encoded in the neural network) and creates some new neurons (and neural connections). Then you assert that there is some interface with this mysterious "intellect". The intellect does something that no one can describe. It then transmits the new information (understanding) to the physical brain. The physical brain then performs the task of transmitting the information to the I/O device of the mouth/tongue/etc. Is this what you want to present as an argument?   

As to how it functions, we should be careful not to think of it as some other thing - a ghost that inhabits the body and drives it around.  It is the form of the body.  A human being is as much its body as it is its intellect.  And intellectual activity, under normal circumstances, requires the use of the body - the senses and the brain.  Brain activity is not sufficient, but it is necessary.  The intellect does not move the body, except through the appetite.

What? This is gobbledygook, word salad. If you would assert that the "form" is a "model", or "abstraction" of the physical reality, then it might make some sense. But that is not what you insinuate. If you digest a small amount of alcohol, your intellect will be impaired - for a short while. How could some alcohol influence that non-physical "intellect"? And when your body gets rid of the alcohol, the intellect "returns"? From your ideas it follows that there is a two-way communication channel between the physical brain and the immaterial intellect. How does that communication channel work?

If you would understand that the intellect (or thinking) is simply the activity of the brain, the network of the neurons - which uses electro-chemical signals to process the information, this question of "how does the intellect communicate with the physical brain" would lose its significance.

What you say is just a rehashing of the nonsensical Aristotelian idea that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood. Aristotle was ignorant, but he is not to blamed, since neuro-science was not even invented yet. You, however, cannot be excused for your ignorance.

The difference between an emulation and the real thing is that they are different things.  Even when you simply emulate one computer with another, they are different things.  Now, being the same kind of thing, one computer might be able to perfectly emulate another computer in the sense that if one only looked at the inputs and outputs, one might not be able to tell the difference.  But if the machine being emulated has some special piece of hardware, like a special I/O device, the emulating machine might not be able to emulate this perfectly, because not all I/O devices are equivalent, nor are they reducible to other parts of a computer, such as the memory or CPU.  So an expert with these machines could tell the difference by focusing his attention on that aspect of the emulation.

You missed the point. I accept that an atom-to-atom replica of the Mona Lisa is "different" from the original (because the original was touched by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, while the replica was not. That is not the question. If you cannot present a hypothetical method to decide which is which, then the question of "which is the original" is a nonsensical question.

[cgraye]

The question is still unanswered: "where is it, then?" and "how does this undescribed, mysterious intellect interact with the physical brain?" There is the physical environment. There is the physical matter, which interacts with the physical receptors. The receptors transmit the information to the brain. The brain processes the signals. It uses the memory (encoded in the neural network) and creates some new neurons (and neural connections). Then you assert that there is some interface with this mysterious "intellect". The intellect does something that no one can describe. It then transmits the new information (understanding) to the physical brain. The physical brain then performs the task of transmitting the information to the I/O device of the mouth/tongue/etc. Is this what you want to present as an argument?

I have already answered this.  In one sense, the intellect does not have a physical location because it is not a physical thing.  In another sense, a particular person's intellect is located where that particular person's body is located, because it is the form of that particular person.  The intellect and the body do not "interact," because they are not two substances - they are two principles of one substance, the human being.  They are related as the formal and material cause of the human being.  To speak of them "interacting" is a category mistake.  It is like looking at a triangular object and asking where its triangularity is located, and how it interacts with the matter that makes up the triangular object.

What? This is gobbledygook, word salad. If you would assert that the "form" is a "model", or "abstraction" of the physical reality, then it might make some sense. But that is not what you insinuate. If you digest a small amount of alcohol, your intellect will be impaired - for a short while. How could some alcohol influence that non-physical "intellect"? And when your body gets rid of the alcohol, the intellect "returns"? From your ideas it follows that there is a two-way communication channel between the physical brain and the immaterial intellect. How does that communication channel work?

The alcohol affects the brain, not the intellect.  But, as I have already stated, brain functions accompany intellectual activity, and under normal conditions are necessary for it, and so impeding them impedes intellectual activity.  To make a purely physical analogy, the eyelid is not the organ that sees, but its activity accompanies seeing, and if it is damaged and cannot keep the eye moist, vision will be impaired.

What you say is just a rehashing of the nonsensical Aristotelian idea that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood. Aristotle was ignorant, but he is not to blamed, since neuro-science was not even invented yet. You, however, cannot be excused for your ignorance.

Aristotle's argument for the immateriality of the intellect does not depend on any facts of biology.  I suggest you review his argument, or else consult the more modern sources that I gave you earlier.

You missed the point. I accept that an atom-to-atom replica of the Mona Lisa is "different" from the original (because the original was touched by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, while the replica was not. That is not the question. If you cannot present a hypothetical method to decide which is which, then the question of "which is the original" is a nonsensical question.

Give me a hypothetical machine, and I will give you the hypothetical solution.  How am I supposed to give a specific answer without a specific question?

[Scowler]

I have already answered this. 

No, you have not. This is what you said: "The intellect, which is something necessarily immaterial.  It is the thing that has the power of receiving a form without instantiating it". That sentence is so vague that it has absolutely no informational value. "Thing"? "Power"? "Form"? What the heck are these in your vocabulary?

In one sense, the intellect does not have a physical location because it is not a physical thing.  In another sense, a particular person's intellect is located where that particular person's body is located, because it is the form of that particular person. 

What is "in one sense", and "in another sense"? Walking is immaterial, but it cannot be separated from the person's leg-muscles. Thinking is immaterial, but it cannot be separated from the person's neural network. The brain is a parallel-processing computer, composed of organic material, a neural network. The neurons interact with each other, by sending and receiving electro-chemical signals. This activity is called "thinking". If you wish to call it "intellect", then there is no problem.

But you deny this. All you said that the intellect is a vague "thing", which has the "power" to receive a "form" without instantiating it.  So my question is still pertinent - "what is the intellect" and "how does it receive a form, and how does it translate into words and sentences that we use for communication"? Describe the physical process between the brain and the intellect.

The intellect and the body do not "interact," because they are not two substances - they are two principles of one substance, the human being. 

Well, you managed to smuggle in two more undefined words: "principle" and "substance".

Aristotle's argument for the immateriality of the intellect does not depend on any facts of biology.  I suggest you review his argument, or else consult the more modern sources that I gave you earlier.

What good is it, then? If the speculation is separated from reality, it is just empty, useless speculation.

The alcohol affects the brain, not the intellect.  But, as I have already stated, brain functions accompany intellectual activity, and under normal conditions are necessary for it, and so impeding them impedes intellectual activity.  To make a purely physical analogy, the eyelid is not the organ that sees, but its activity accompanies seeing, and if it is damaged and cannot keep the eye moist, vision will be impaired.

You used the word "accompany", and that is yet another undefined word here. How does the physical network "accompany" the immaterial intellect? And what are those "normal circumstances"? What about "abnormal circumstances"? There is no need for analogies, just describe the exact, physical connection between the brain and the intellect. That would help. Your analogy does not, since we know exactly how the eyelid helps to keep the eye moist. Of course we could create a physical device to keep the eyes moist, but how could you remove the brain and keep the intellect "working"? And how would that intellect communicate with the physical organs that allow information exchange with other people?

Give me a hypothetical machine, and I will give you the hypothetical solution.  How am I supposed to give a specific answer without a specific question?

An imperfect variety already exists, it is called a 3-D printer. The question was specific: "take an atom-to-atom replica of the Mona Lisa". Once the copy process is complete, there will be two identical versions of the picture. One is the original, and the other one is a copy. Can you devise a method which can find which one is the original? You cannot, because the atoms have no "personality". Any carbon atom is indistinguishable from any other carbon atom.

I repeat what I said earlier. There is the physical reality, and several immaterial aspects of it. These are "attributes", "relationships" and "activities". None of these are composed of quarks and electrons - so they are immaterial. But they cannot be separated from the material reality. If you wish to use the Thomistic terminology, translate them into this simple set of concepts.