|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Stephen Hawking on AI
#22358496 - 10/10/15 10:34 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The real risk with AI isn’t malice but competence. A superintelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren’t aligned with ours, we’re in trouble. You’re probably not an evil ant-hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there’s an anthill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.
There’s no consensus among AI researchers about how long it will take to build human-level AI and beyond, so please don’t trust anyone who claims to know for sure that it will happen in your lifetime or that it won’t happen in your lifetime. When it eventually does occur, it’s likely to be either the best or worst thing ever to happen to humanity, so there’s huge value in getting it right. We should shift the goal of AI from creating pure undirected artificial intelligence to creating beneficial intelligence. It might take decades to figure out how to do this, so let’s start researching this today rather than the night before the first strong AI is switched on.
An AI that has been designed rather than evolved can in principle have any drives or goals. However, as emphasized by Steve Omohundro, an extremely intelligent future AI will probably develop a drive to survive and acquire more resources as a step toward accomplishing whatever goal it has, because surviving and having more resources will increase its chances of accomplishing that other goal. This can cause problems for humans whose resources get taken away.
If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/stephen-hawking-on-ai
http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/10/stephen-hawkings-ama/
Definitely sound thinking. Are there any reactions or insights anyone would like to share concerning their views on this subject?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
He watched I,Robot.
--------------------
|
FishOilTheKid
Ascended



Registered: 11/14/10
Posts: 5,401
Last seen: 2 days, 6 hours
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Sun King]
#22361676 - 10/11/15 03:23 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You should watch Ex Machina.
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
going to watch it soon.
--------------------
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Keep in mind it is all impossible if the brain is not the producer of consciousness/experience.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Keep in mind it is all impossible if the brain is not the producer of consciousness/experience.
And why is that, necessarily?
Assuming consciousness is a physical process (and everything that exists is a physical process) I see no reason why an advanced computer cannot also participate in that process. Further assuming that consciousness may be a fundamental physical process, I see no reason why such a thing wouldn't be inevitable.
And there's biologically-based quantum computing, anyway. What you say makes no sense, a priori.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
If matter is not the cause of being and it is actually the reverse is true than you would not expect matter to produce experience. So arranging any material physical things could not create being. Perhaps being could possess and machine or material object if it was a suitable medium for experiencing the world but this is a much different idea of AI than people are thinking. All the hype about creating artificial intelligence seems to ignore this and people are much too impressed with the mimicry of intelligence.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
Arctic W. Fox

Registered: 09/23/14
Posts: 1,357
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
|
Someone needs to remove Hawking's batteries.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: If matter is not the cause of being and it is actually the reverse is true than you would not expect matter to produce experience. So arranging any material physical things could not create being. Perhaps being could possess and machine or material object if it was a suitable medium for experiencing the world but this is a much different idea of AI than people are thinking. All the hype about creating artificial intelligence seems to ignore this and people are much too impressed with the mimicry of intelligence.
Well the way I see it, we are organisms that have structures in our brains/nervous systems which basically harvest consciousness. Why can't some other synthetic organism do that? Why can't we design something based on the same physical principles as ourselves? It seems like you're almost arguing that the matter in your body and brain is somehow superfluous. I assure you, your consciousness would mean nothing without it.
You're right that people are thinking about AI in a strictly materialist sense. That doesn't mean that a conscious cybernetic organism cannot exist. You're throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Like I said I guess it is hypothetically possible for consciousness to utalize a synthetic body and experience itself through that. Still the line of causation should be understood, the material object isn't causing that experience or being to exist it is serving an instrument for that being to experience through. It's all way over our heads of how these things take place, how the soul is linked with matter and what not.
Hawkings speel there to me just reflects his materialist ignorance and IMO is very naive, nothing he describes there is a real threat. Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer. In my view experience and being are the real substance to reality and the world of the senses is an illusion. You cannot create something of substance from an illusion.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Well I'm with you on the nature of consciousness. I guess I just have a more open and imaginative stance on the possibilities. You're displaying organic chauvinism, and I feel that there could be an artificial substrate for consciousness -- and will be. I therefore feel that admonitions about the dangers of this future technology should be taken seriously. Time will tell.
Anything is possible, right? I think your assumption that you have to be a biological organism in order to be conscious is quite insular and closed-minded, and lacks imagination. From time immemorial, the predictors of the future have been mocked as rascals promoting the impossible. And, time-after-time, the impossible was done. You may think this is a different threshold, but I don't. It will happen given enough time. Humans are finitely complex.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Like I said I guess it is hypothetically possible for consciousness to utalize a synthetic body and experience itself through that. Still the line of causation should be understood, the material object isn't causing that experience or being to exist it is serving an instrument for that being to experience through. It's all way over our heads of how these things take place, how the soul is linked with matter and what not.
Hawkings speel there to me just reflects his materialist ignorance and IMO is very naive, nothing he describes there is a real threat. Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer. In my view experience and being are the real substance to reality and the world of the senses is an illusion. You cannot create something of substance from an illusion.
How is materialism ignorant and naive? What is it ignorant of?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Intelligence is simply the ability to manipulate data. No consciousness required.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
That they simply assume that matter is what creates this internal subjective experience that we have. Most of the scientists/programmers who are AI enthusiasts simply don't know their philosophy. They have their materialistic world view of which they simply assume to be true and than therefore assume that by creating powerful machine/computers it is going to be inevitable that eventually a conscious experience simply emerge out of this. So they are operating under a philosophical axiom that is becoming more and more discarded by actual philosophers and many quantum physicists.
Here is a good video explaining some of this.. He is a well known critic of AI
Hubert_Dreyfus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus%27s_views_on_artificial_intelligence
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
It isn't an assumption that matter causes consciousness, that's just where the evidence points. The human brain developed over time and conscious experience simply emerged from that, so why couldn't it happen in a computer. Why is organic material so special? It's probably true that a lot of scientists and AI programmers don't know their philosophy, but that doesn't really mean much. Materialism is a philosophical position. There are plenty of philosophers who think about AI.
Nowhere in that video did he expound a non-materialist view. He just said that it is unknown how matter could cause consciousness, which is true. This does not somehow imply that consciousness is outside of the physical world.
Also, that didn't answer the question of what materialism is ignorant of. You are implying that there is some evidence out there that shows materialism to be false. What is this evidence?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Keep in mind it is all impossible if the brain is not the producer of consciousness/experience.
What does consciousness have to do with intelligence?
Are you suggesting a computer without consciousness can't be dangerous?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Rahz]
#22368193 - 10/12/15 01:13 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Also, that didn't answer the question of what materialism is ignorant of. You are implying that there is some evidence out there that shows materialism to be false. What is this evidence?
It's not like "materialism" can be ignorant, people are ignorant. What I am pointing out is that many people just assume that materialism is true without thinking about it critically. Some scientific evidence that materialism may be false is quantum experiments showing non-locality or faster than light interaction between particles (quantum entanglement). Experiments also call into question whether or not realism is true. There is debate as to whether or not locality is false or realism is false but I believe that there is a consensus that both cannot be true.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-violations-local-realism.html
"For years, physicists struggled to definitively answer the question of whether or not entangled states truly violate local realism—that is, do they violate either locality or realism, where realism is simply the assumption that objects exist even when they're not being observed? Although it was long suspected that at least some entangled states violate local realism due to how they seem to instantly influence each other, it wasn't until 1991 that physicist Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva quantitatively demonstrated that all pure entangled states must violate local realism. This result is now known as Gisin's theorem.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-violations-local-realism.html#jCp
There are loads of well accomplished physicists who take the position that materialism is false and that consciousness clearly plays a fundamental role in the universe. For me the logic of materialism is very weak since it has no explanation for subjective experience and I consider the idea to be fundamentally flawed. Nothing coherent can be said about how matter creates experience because the notion that it does is simply incorrect. Even Sam Harris points this out,
"Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle."
Quote:
e human brain developed over time and conscious experience simply emerged from that, so why couldn't it happen in a computer. Why is organic material so special? It's probably true that a lot of scientists and AI programmers don't know their philosophy, but that doesn't really mean much
No it didnt, conscious experience exists long before the human brain evolved. Primitive organism that do not have complex brains like ours still have a subjective inner experience, plants likely do and they dont even have a nervous system. Organic material is not special it is just matter like any other matter, the idea here is that consciousness is the ground of all material things.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Again, what does consciousness have to do with Hawking's fears regarding AI?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Rahz]
#22368449 - 10/12/15 02:18 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
because what is implied in what he is saying is that they are going to "gain human level intelligence" and by this he means a self-awareness.
"an extremely intelligent future AI will probably develop a drive to survive and acquire more resources as a step toward accomplishing whatever goal it has, because surviving and having more resources will increase its chances of accomplishing that other goal"
notice "drive to survive" as in it is alive. That is what is going to make it a threat. Sure you could just create dangerous machines but the subtle point behind all this talk is that they are going to gain experience and therefore be able to take control of their own destiny and no longer be unconscious automatons.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
lolwut. bacteria has a drive to survive but i doubt it has self-awareness.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Not self awareness no, experience. Experience is a prerequisite for self-awareness. A dog doesn't have much self-awareness but it has experience.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
i doubt bacteria is experiencing anything.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Not sure I mentioned bacteria specifically but my point was that he was confusing self-awareness with experience and experience doesn't necessarily imply self-awareness and much more primitive forms of organisms have experience such as a worm or even plants.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Not sure I mentioned bacteria specifically.
I did. Bacteria clearly has a survival drive, but unlikely experiences anything. I don't know why you equate survival drive to experience.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Not sure I mentioned bacteria specifically but my point was that he was confusing self-awareness with experience and experience doesn't necessarily imply self-awareness and much more primitive forms of organisms have experience such as a worm or even plants.
Yes and, unrelated to that, Rahz is arguing that, regardless of self-awareness or lack thereof, an intelligent machine that can be as consciousless as a fencepost can still pose a huge threat for us. Do you not agree?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Yes and, unrelated to that, Rahz is arguing that, regardless of self-awareness or lack thereof, an intelligent machine that can be as consciousless as a fencepost can still pose a huge threat for us. Do you not agree?
I mean sure if you design a dangerous computer or machine than yes could be dangerous and in the future AI and programming will get more and more sophisticated and amazing machines will be developed as programming gets more evolved. Still they will never operate beyond the programming and everything will be automatic and unconscious processes. They will never gain any real intelligence since intelligence is something that occurs in being. That is kind of why it is called artificial intelligence, artificial being not real intelligence but something that mimmicks intelligence.
Quote:
I did. Bacteria clearly has a survival drive, but unlikely experiences anything. I don't know why you equate survival drive to experience.
Yeah, I would disagree. To me that physical thing you see always has an internal aspect that corresponds to that image we perceive with our senses.. both sides of the same coin.
Even minerals and rocks are a form of experience and perception according to my Idealist world view as everything is more fundamentally mental.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
If you believe that, then how can you deny that a robot or computer is incapable of experiencing?
Quote:
soldatheero said: Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said: If you believe that, then how can you deny that a robot or computer is incapable of experiencing?
Quote:
soldatheero said: Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer.
That's an excellent question White Beard. That's my whole take. If consciousness is so ubiquitous, it is chauvinistic and closed-minded to think only biological organisms can possess it. I think technology can harness awareness no problem, given enough time and expenditure.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Quote:
clock_of_omens said:
Quote:
soldatheero said: Like I said I guess it is hypothetically possible for consciousness to utalize a synthetic body and experience itself through that. Still the line of causation should be understood, the material object isn't causing that experience or being to exist it is serving an instrument for that being to experience through. It's all way over our heads of how these things take place, how the soul is linked with matter and what not.
Hawkings speel there to me just reflects his materialist ignorance and IMO is very naive, nothing he describes there is a real threat. Experience isn't just going to start occurring in some machine or computer. In my view experience and being are the real substance to reality and the world of the senses is an illusion. You cannot create something of substance from an illusion.
How is materialism ignorant and naive? What is it ignorant of?
If materialism was a significant attitude or point of view, what would it be?
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
If you believe that, then how can you deny that a robot or computer is incapable of experiencing?
Because in my view that is not the way the evolution of consciousness works. Consciousness evolves itself through a series of steps and advances - a stone becomes a mineral a mineral a plant a plant a worm etc.. Consciousness is that driving force and the physical bodies follow consciousness not the other way around. So arranging matter in such some specific way will not create a consciousness because it is the degree of consciousness that determines the material body. More advanced streams of consciousness experience and express themselves through evolving complex material bodies. So a computer which is made of silicon and electrical energy is not going to generate a consciousness or cause it to occur.
Again I said it is hypothetically possible that far into the future from now a synthetic body could exist that consciousness could be tied to and experience through but this is a completely different vision than AI and "singularity enthusiasts have since they misunderstand the place of consciousness in nature. It is not just a material understanding that will make that possible but an internal understanding of higher inner laws of how the soul is linked with matter. Far beyond what I could understand. So again to me the idea that this is around the corner is sheer materialist fantasy and ignorance.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Well, we'll have to stop discussing now because all you're doing is asserting your position as truth.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Well you asked me how I could deny that a computer could be conscious and I did my best to explain it so.. uhh
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Yes, but to support your position, you assert things to be true without evidence such as consciousness evolving itself through steps, and well i can't really discuss any further because you've given me nothing to argue. It's cute that you believe in such things, but well, i dont, so yeah...
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
So speaking of evidence where is the evidence that computers or machines will ever get consciousness or self awareness?
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Strawman. Reread my posts. I only questioned your line of reasoning, never argued for computer sentience.
Also red herring cause you're trying to move the discussion away from the lack of evidence for your position.
Edited by White Beard (10/12/15 06:22 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
There is no burden of argument to ask for empirical evidence of something. A.I doesn't exist.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Kurt]
#22370024 - 10/12/15 07:10 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, but that wasn't my position. The fact that he was asking for evidence for something that wasn't my position instead of presenting evidence for his position is a strawman and a red herring.
Let me break it down.
My position: A machine may be able to produce consciousness His position: A machine can never produce consciousness because of XYZ Me: prove XYZ Him: well, prove that a machine will ever produce consciousness!
Edited by White Beard (10/12/15 07:23 PM)
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
If he wants evidence for why I suspect AI may be possible, then I think a good piece of evidence is the similarities between the brain and the computer.
ib4 'but you can't prove the brain produces consciousness'
I think a good piece of evidence for that is damage to certain areas of the brain decrease awareness of aspects of consciousness. e.g. if you damage the memory section of the brain, you loose or impair your ability to be experience memories.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Hey DQ here's a contribution. Resist the machine brother!
Off the top of my head I can think of at least two well standing philosophers who have directly questioned the fundamental premise of A.I. Hubert Dreyfus, and John Searle.
I think a basis of formulating a question about the problems of technology should arguably be given in a more general and conservative basis.
The question of simulation in general, the spectre which is already hanging over consciousness today is what is more fundamentally significant. Where is this mindset - the compulsive and addictive mindset to technology really headed? Is it an inevitable thing? Maybe it is not as fun to think about, but that is what is already happening with simulation and consciousness. That is the real synthetic consciousness, and a false existence.
But here is a head on argument, as promised. If A.I. would be able to trick and deceive us, turn on us, like in a science fiction story, and we are expecting this, I think it begs the question in a general way if on our level of cognizance, or in our ability to empirically measure findings, our technology would be able to deceive us before it was conscious.
It has been said, quite conservatively and from similar naturalistic assumptions, that we would no longer be able to distinguish a principle of contradiction, or empirical falsification, much before there is anything anywhere nearly actually being conscious. This is because plainly we do not understand consciousness, in any given provisions let alone computationalism. We would be able to deceive ourselves much sooner in a certain way, and the subject would stretch beyond us, but not in a sufficient basis to determine consciousness as existing.
This basically an intuitive and generalized version of the problem of "hard A.I" as Searle presented it in the Chinese room argument. Here is a synopsis of that argument:
The argument and thought-experiment now generally known as the Chinese Room Argument was first published in a paper in 1980 by American philosopher John Searle (1932- ). It has become one of the best-known arguments in recent philosophy. Searle imagines himself alone in a room following a computer program for responding to Chinese characters slipped under the door. Searle understands nothing of Chinese, and yet, by following the program for manipulating symbols and numerals just as a computer does, he produces appropriate strings of Chinese characters that fool those outside into thinking there is a Chinese speaker in the room. The narrow conclusion of the argument is that programming a digital computer may make it appear to understand language but does not produce real understanding. Hence the “Turing Test” is inadequate. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted. Instead minds must result from biological processes; computers can at best simulate these biological processes. Thus the argument has large implications for semantics, philosophy of language and mind, theories of consciousness, computer science and cognitive science generally. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.
Here is another intuitive argument against AI. It's a common story in our culture. I'd say it is often the case that science fiction presents a criticism of itself which could also be potentially deconstructive of its own assumptions.
For example, the story in the movie "The Matrix" tells us the possible deceptions or turn of an artificial intelligence comes after the point that they are intelligent or conscious, much as Hawkings says. But by the end of the movie a distinction (romantic enough) is drawn between the perceived malevolence of the hard machines and what humans encounter in simulation as the "agent". Now to my mind no doubt agency is a question in this theoretical construct. To my mind the dissassociation at the end of the movie that is realized is deconstruction.
The truth about technology is maybe for example allegorical to the way we really turn technology against ourselves as humans, or at the same time become addicted to technology and simulations of reality and turn in on ourselves and atrophy in a less conscious and outwardly directed way via its simulation.
Take another example of AI's ostensible a posteriori problematic. There is this idea of putting a mood chip into a human like robot like Data, the Star Trek character, that is essentially making him act irrational or randomly. That is a construct, based on the way AI is an analogy to human consciousness, in the particular capacity in which we understand it. Not only does this beg the question if consciousness is computational. Are moods really without logic or is the significant fact about the reveries and compulsions we have called moods, that the logic they suggest is merely idiosycratic, and partial to itself, not lacking reason, but coming out of ones pathos or existence, or something inexplicable like love?
The common grounds of logical computation are questionable in that, and yet when people like Nietzsche say moods are irrational, or even the chaotic spark in us, to us, that is potentially something different than something viewed as just a jack in the box "unconscious" or "random" surprise being found in an otherwise ordered existence.
To paraphrase Aristotle "all conscious intents of human beings are for some end and therefore to speak of such an end is to speak of some form of good." Of course this can be completely arbitrary and inexplicable, and indeed it may be in a Nietzschean world (or single personality) of simultaneous competing drives that we find these motivations, but the principle does seem to stand, indeed for anything intelligible as consciousness. How can an end be suggested that is not for some form of good? What is consciousness but intent?
Hence phenomenological definitions of consciousness are of intentionality or epistemelogically, respectiveness to an object. Perhaps aside from epistemological issues we need to think decisively about means and ends...
Edited by Kurt (10/13/15 12:11 AM)
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but that wasn't my position. The fact that he was asking for evidence for something that wasn't my position instead of presenting evidence for his position is a strawman and a red herring.
OK then, going back you brought up bacteria and you claimed it does not have experience and yet has a drive to survive.
Where than is your evidence that it does not have any experience? Why assume it does not have experience? It is not like you would be able to tell just by looking at it, since that experience is invisible to your senses. I have said that in my view experience is what exists and it is everywhere in life and not just in the human brain, plants have it and they are half inanimate. Where exactly is this magical line in which experience just starts occuring?
I mean the brain, plants and primitive organisms are all made up of the same materials as the rest of the universe so why then do you assume there to be zero consciousness in minerals and metals and then boom experience starts when exactly? Is it a binary thing or is it analog? The human being being the highest level than what is the lowest level?
I have suggested some scientific evidence in QM that shows that this materialistic realistic view of reality is seriously questionable. My original point that materialism should not simply be assumed to be true still stands, Hawkins idea that consciousness of the human level should suddenly just appear because of increasing computing power assumes a very naive view consciousness' place in the physical world. IT just assumes his perspective that the brain is the producer of consciousness to be true, not very scientific.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
|
Everything i experience is a sense stimuli or mental. bacteria neither has sense organs nor a brain. what would their experience even be like if these things are absent?
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: It's not like "materialism" can be ignorant, people are ignorant. What I am pointing out is that many people just assume that materialism is true without thinking about it critically.
Obviously. I was using materialism to refer to the proponents of the theory. Many people assume many things are true without thinking about them critically. That doesn't affect whether they are true or not.
Quote:
Some scientific evidence that materialism may be false is quantum experiments showing non-locality or faster than light interaction between particles (quantum entanglement). Experiments also call into question whether or not realism is true. There is debate as to whether or not locality is false or realism is false but I believe that there is a consensus that both cannot be true.
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-violations-local-realism.html
"For years, physicists struggled to definitively answer the question of whether or not entangled states truly violate local realism—that is, do they violate either locality or realism, where realism is simply the assumption that objects exist even when they're not being observed? Although it was long suspected that at least some entangled states violate local realism due to how they seem to instantly influence each other, it wasn't until 1991 that physicist Nicolas Gisin at the University of Geneva quantitatively demonstrated that all pure entangled states must violate local realism. This result is now known as Gisin's theorem.
How does this show materialism to be false?
Quote:
There are loads of well accomplished physicists who take the position that materialism is false and that consciousness clearly plays a fundamental role in the universe. For me the logic of materialism is very weak since it has no explanation for subjective experience and I consider the idea to be fundamentally flawed. Nothing coherent can be said about how matter creates experience because the notion that it does is simply incorrect. Even Sam Harris points this out,
"Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle."
Not being able to currently explain how something works doesn't make that thing false. Harris later goes on in the same article to say that it could still be true, he just thinks it is impossible to explain.
Quote:
Quote:
e human brain developed over time and conscious experience simply emerged from that, so why couldn't it happen in a computer. Why is organic material so special? It's probably true that a lot of scientists and AI programmers don't know their philosophy, but that doesn't really mean much
No it didnt, conscious experience exists long before the human brain evolved. Primitive organism that do not have complex brains like ours still have a subjective inner experience, plants likely do and they dont even have a nervous system. Organic material is not special it is just matter like any other matter, the idea here is that consciousness is the ground of all material things.
Forget I said human brains, that was stupid.
What is the definition of consciousness that you are working with? How can it be proven that consciousness is the ground of all material things? Is it your view then that material things emerge from consciousness? What coherent things could be said about that?
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
one could say artificial intelligence already exists and it is malignant ... for example the aids virus takes over the human cell, and makes it do it's bidding.
they say it's not alive - so in a sense it is artificial, and it overpowers life - so in a sense it is intelligent.
When retro viruses are used to insert helpful genetics that is positive AI - so to speak
'Consciousness' has nothing to do with Aids. Aids does not need 'Consciousness'. The Turing test measures 'intelligence' by behavior and results, not as some undefined property. Again the aids virus qualifies as intelligent by defeating an 'intelligent' organism, repeatedly for many years in spite of "intelligent" efforts to stop it.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Let me just put my thinking another way:
Many people in the idealist camp are fond of stating that artificial intelligence can never produce consciousness, their reasoning being that matter does not generate consciousness -- rather, it's the other way around. That's all well and good, but honestly, if the intelligence of a computing device reaches a certain threshold, how can that intelligence not know about, or ever inquire about, consciousness? And further, if it is very powerful, chances are it will be able to come into some contact with consciousness of some kind very easily. The point being that, as soon as machine intelligence gets smart enough, simply in terms of brute processing strength, it will find a way to familiarize itself with a phenomenon that it would necessarily want, and indeed have, to explore. Something trillions of times as smart as we are will find a way to become conscious. To deny that is laughable.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 1 hour, 18 minutes
|
|
efficiency may not be AIs goal and survival may not play the same role either
wasn't hawking the guy who came up with the anthropic principle? maybe a similar principal could be called upon for AI. just because all we can see is the life around us doesn't mean all life has to be that way.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Kickle]
#22382679 - 10/15/15 10:01 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Well, you raise a very good point -- it is impossible for us to predict what its nature will be.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
Obviously. I was using materialism to refer to the proponents of the theory. Many people assume many things are true without thinking about them critically. That doesn't affect whether they are true or not.
Well my point is that if they were to think about it more critically they would come to realize the problems in the theory and realize its not quite as obviously true as people think it is.
Quote:
How does this show materialism to be false?
Well if particles are connected to one anther in a causal relationship and that interaction takes place faster than the speed of light then it implies that they are not interacting through space but on some other level which is non-spatial; hence non-locality. A possible explanation for this is that space and matter are illusions and the interaction takes place in reality which is non-local.
Also realism is called into question, that is the idea that the external world exists independently of minds conception of it. Recent more sophisticated versions of the double split experiment are showing this, I believe an experiment has ruled out the possibility that it is the act of measurement influencing the results. I will look this up.
"Local realism” is a world view in which the properties of physical objects exist independent of whether or not they are observed (realism), and in which no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light (locality). In 1964, in one of the most important works in the history of the foundations of quantum theory [1], the Irish physicist John Bell proved theoretically that local realism is in contradiction with the predictions of quantum mechanics. With his now famous “Bell inequality”, he showed that it is possible to determine experimentally which of the two radically different world views actually governs reality."
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html
"Measuring the quantum properties of pairs of light particles (photons) pumped out by a laser has convinced Zeilinger that "we have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html "The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html#jCp
Quote:
What is the definition of consciousness that you are working with? How can it be proven that consciousness is the ground of all material things? Is it your view then that material things emerge from consciousness? What coherent things could be said about that?
Consciousness is experience or perception, plain and simple. It's just hard to articulate because it can only be pointed to not explained in words because it is literally all we know.
Edited by soldatheero (10/17/15 07:43 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Well if particles are connected to one anther in a causal relationship and that interaction takes place faster than the speed of light then it implies that they are not interacting through space but on some other level which is non-spatial; hence non-locality. A possible explanation for this is that space and matter are illusions and the interaction takes place in reality which is non-local/
Look, first of all you replied to me when I think here you are addressing clock of omens. However there are some comments I would like to make.
The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship. And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. Nothing is traveling. The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play -- Relativity, in the realm of spacetime, is still technically true. See if you can figure out why that is.
Space and matter are certainly not illusions. What you are trying to say is that they are not fundamental. They're real enough.
Quote:
Also realism is called into question, that is the idea that the external world exists independently of minds conception of it. Recent more sophisticated versions of the double split experiment are showing this, I believe an experiment has ruled out the possibility that it is the act of measurement influencing the results. I will look this up.
With the Bell relation, either locality or realism must be false. Since we now know locality cannot be true, realism still may be true. Scientifically.
The double-slit is solved in Bohmian mechanics. The observer/apparatus link where there is one particle being fired at a time but still making an interference pattern, are found to be redundant in the configuration space relations of the mathematics.
Quote:
"Local realism” is a world view in which the properties of physical objects exist independent of whether or not they are observed (realism), and in which no physical influence can propagate faster than the speed of light (locality). In 1964, in one of the most important works in the history of the foundations of quantum theory [1], the Irish physicist John Bell proved theoretically that local realism is in contradiction with the predictions of quantum mechanics. With his now famous “Bell inequality”, he showed that it is possible to determine experimentally which of the two radically different world views actually governs reality."
Please, before you cut and paste stuff about Bell, please try to understand it. As I said above, BOTH realism and locality cannot be true. But realism and nonlocality can be true. There is a lot of evidence for realism in modern science. You have Bohmian mechanics, decoherence, Many-worlds, etc. The collapse theories are really the ones that deny realism. That's all. Incidentally, John Bell was a realist.
Quote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html
"Measuring the quantum properties of pairs of light particles (photons) pumped out by a laser has convinced Zeilinger that "we have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html "The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
In contradiction with classical mechanics, sure. But I'm not sure you really understand what you are quoting here.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
There is a lot of evidence for realism in modern science.
No there isnt.
Quote:
You have Bohmian mechanics, decoherence, Many-worlds, etc.
That is not evidence. Bohmian and many-worlds are interpretations, not evidence. Decoherence is a concept used to describe evidence/observations.
Quote:
Incidentally, John Bell was a realist.
The thing I find odd, and a little pathetic, is that he dismisses superdeterminism outright in favor of non-local realism. Why? I've never seen an explanation besides simply stating that superdeterminisism is ridiculous and obviously not true (my words). Looks like philosophic prejudice to me. The further back in time you go the more physicists had a philosophic prejudice. They want the universe to be the way it makes the most sense to them personally... its self serving confirmation bias, but I can't fault them for it. They were a product of their time and their fears, just like we are.
Edited by DieCommie (10/17/15 10:18 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22395683 - 10/17/15 10:17 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting point. Here is an interesting, and telling, quote I stumbled upon recently by John Bell:
Quote:
"In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details. Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable....[T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics." --John Bell
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
So do you reject superdeterminism in favor of non-local realism? If so, why? Not looking for a debate, just an answer and some reasoning.
Personally, I have no reason to believe one over the other. I think that physics should describe nature as accurately as possible. Anyway you can do that is fine. Saying there is a correct or incorrect way to achieve that goal is a limiting bias. What if nature is not as describable with Einstein and Bell's bias? Then we are limiting our progress and power in favor of our prejudice. We are embracing confirmation bias. But now I am debating which we don't really need to do... If you answer the questions above I would appreciate it.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22395708 - 10/17/15 10:21 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes. But only for philosophical reasons. In a purely subjective way, that is the way my personal experiences have caused me to lean. Ironically, I do not believe I have chosen this, which is a deterministic flavor. And I freely admit I cannot say I know any better than anybody.
I would also say, though, that I do not believe we can meaningfully do without philosophy at any point. And that the philosophy of no philosophy -- of agnosticism -- is also a philosophy.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
Edited by DividedQuantum (10/17/15 10:39 PM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I would also say, though, that I do not believe we can meaningfully do without philosophy at any point. And that the philosophy of no philosophy -- of agnosticism -- is also a philosophy.
Now you are replying to a different thread. 
The agnostic position resides within the philosophy of science. The realist and orthodox positions lie outside of the bounds of science as a more general and personal philosophy. There is no scientific evidence for realism over superdeterminism (or non-realism for that matter). I could go on, but I'm sure you have heard enough of my opinions and thoughts on the matter.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship. And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. Nothing is traveling. The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play -- Relativity, in the realm of spacetime, is still technically true. See if you can figure out why that is.
I know nothing is travelling, "there is another dimension at play". Exactly and that dimension could be a non-material field or force. Materialism has no definition of what that field could be or is. Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.
Hawkings claims that because gravity exists the universe may come about all by itself but what is the medium that the force can exist in?
Quote:
Please, before you cut and paste stuff about Bell, please try to understand it. As I said above, BOTH realism and locality cannot be true
You state this twice and claim I do not understand the topic and yet this is exactly the same thing I said earlier.
The fact is the concept that reality is fundamentally mental easily explains this and is incredibly simple, much more simple than proposing untestable nonscientific parallel universes and extra dimensions of reality that cannot be coherently conceptualized. Occams Razor is in favor of Idealism.
The irony here is that earlier we were talking about how the brain or matter cannot account for consciousness/experience and now we are talking about how it cannot even really explain itself. Atomistic materialism is dying a pain and slow death but like all fundamental world views it seems it won't likely be accepted, instead its believers will likely die out.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.” - N. Tesla
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I would also say, though, that I do not believe we can meaningfully do without philosophy at any point. And that the philosophy of no philosophy -- of agnosticism -- is also a philosophy.
Now you are replying to a different thread. 
The agnostic position resides within the philosophy of science. The realist and orthodox positions lie outside of the bounds of science as a more general and personal philosophy. There is no scientific evidence for realism over superdeterminism (or non-realism for that matter). I could go on, but I'm sure you have heard enough of my opinions and thoughts on the matter.
No, you have a strong position. It's cool. 
Quote:
soldatheero said:
Quote:
The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship. And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. Nothing is traveling. The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play -- Relativity, in the realm of spacetime, is still technically true. See if you can figure out why that is.
I know nothing is travelling, "there is another dimension at play". Exactly and that dimension could be a non-material field or force. Materialism has no definition of what that field could be or is. Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.
Hawkings claims that because gravity exists the universe may come about all by itself but what is the medium that the force can exist in?
Quote:
Please, before you cut and paste stuff about Bell, please try to understand it. As I said above, BOTH realism and locality cannot be true
You state this twice and claim I do not understand the topic and yet this is exactly the same thing I said earlier.
The fact is the concept that reality is fundamentally mental easily explains this and is incredibly simple, much more simple than proposing untestable nonscientific parallel universes and extra dimensions of reality that cannot be coherently conceptualized. Occams Razor is in favor of Idealism.
The irony here is that earlier we were talking about how the brain or matter cannot account for consciousness/experience and now we are talking about how it cannot even really explain itself. Atomistic materialism is dying a pain and slow death but like all fundamental world views it seems it won't likely be accepted, instead its believers will likely die out.
I would say that fields are very well defined in physics. But that is neither here nor there.
Quote:
soldatheero said: “I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.” - N. Tesla
Now, I don't want to sound arrogant, but I know something about Tesla. And he was more wrong-headed throughout his life than successful as an inventor. The last forty-plus years of his life saw no meaningful contributions at all. Tesla disavowed Relativity and atomic energy completely. These are two fields that are highly developed and both quite valid. He thought they were nonsense, and he could not have been more wrong. You need to understand the context of that quote. It is made out of stubborn ignorance, not some wise insight. Believe me.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
The cult of Tesla is strong among the ignorant. He was a great electrical engineer for the 19th century. He was no scientist.
Quote:
Hawkings claims that because gravity exists the universe may come about all by itself but what is the medium that the force can exist in?
Please, get his name right if you are going to be citing his claims...
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22397188 - 10/18/15 11:27 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: The cult of Tesla is strong among the ignorant. He was a great electrical engineer for the 19th century. He was no scientist.
Very true. He was, to my mind, interesting for his failures and lack of productivity more than anything else. Many of his ideas were simply laughable, viewed through a modern lens. Alas he has become a New Age cult figure. (I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted that).
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: Well if particles are connected to one anther in a causal relationship and that interaction takes place faster than the speed of light then it implies that they are not interacting through space but on some other level which is non-spatial; hence non-locality. A possible explanation for this is that space and matter are illusions and the interaction takes place in reality which is non-local.
How does that being a possible explanation have any bearing on the truth of anything?
Quote:
Consciousness is experience or perception, plain and simple. It's just hard to articulate because it can only be pointed to not explained in words because it is literally all we know.
How does experience or perception explain quantum mechanics?
Quote:
I know nothing is travelling, "there is another dimension at play". Exactly and that dimension could be a non-material field or force. Materialism has no definition of what that field could be or is. Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.
So because this other dimension at play could be non-material, that indicates that materialism is false? How about I just say this other dimension at play could be material. How is that any different from what you said? You aren't giving any explanation of what this other dimension is.
Quote:
The fact is the concept that reality is fundamentally mental easily explains this and is incredibly simple, much more simple than proposing untestable nonscientific parallel universes and extra dimensions of reality that cannot be coherently conceptualized. Occams Razor is in favor of Idealism.
How does the concept that reality is fundamental easily explain quantum mechanics?
Quote:
The irony here is that earlier we were talking about how the brain or matter cannot account for consciousness/experience and now we are talking about how it cannot even really explain itself. Atomistic materialism is dying a pain and slow death but like all fundamental world views it seems it won't likely be accepted, instead its believers will likely die out.
How is idealism any less fundamental of a world view than materialism? They both claim something is fundamental in the universe. It seems that is about as fundamental as one can get, and they are on the same level.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
would say that fields are very well defined in physics. But that is neither here nor there.
What do you mean it is "neither here nor there" this question of fields is exactly relevant to what we are talking about! Both of you evade my question and don't confront my point. What is the field, what medium does it exist in? how does it operate over a distance without any material interactions? How does materialism explain these questions?
Quote:
Please, get his name right if you are going to be citing his claims
Tesla virtually invented the modern world, he was infinitely more productive than Einstein ever was. You say Tesla wasn't a scientist but I could say Einstein wasn't a scientist he was a mathmatician and invented nothing of use to humanity, he was however instrumental in inventing the atomic bomb.
Tesla disagreed with Einstein because he held to the existence of the either, so did the great scientist James Maxwell. The relativist atomic models of today which look upon the protein, photons, electrons etc as being discrete particles may be accurate for making predictions and inventions but that doesn't mean it is true it just means it is a useful model. The model of the universe with the Earth at it's center is still used in engineering as it is useful but obviously it is not correct. Einstein's relativity is a possible explanation for why gravity exists but it is not proven and he failed to unify his theory for gravity to explain electromagnetism.
Modern science I know is hostile to the idea of an ether and rejects it outright but IMO modern science is becoming more and more cult-like like stubborn.
Quote:
These are two fields that are highly developed and both quite valid. He thought they were nonsense, and he could not have been more wrong
Tesla would have disagreed with the notion that there is energy actually in the atom or in matter and believed that all the energy in matter actually comes from the environment. A different view on why splitting the atom would release an incredible amount of energy back into the environment.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
br />
This is a video critiquing Einsteins ideas about the Ether and his erroneous conclusion that it does cannot exist.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: How does materialism explain these questions?
I don't know. How does Idealism?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
clock_of_omens said:
Quote:
soldatheero said: How does materialism explain these questions?
I don't know. How does Idealism?
The answer is there is no need to explain them. The fact that they are disconcerting to ones intuition is irrelevant to the theory.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said:
Quote:
would say that fields are very well defined in physics. But that is neither here nor there.
What do you mean it is "neither here nor there" this question of fields is exactly relevant to what we are talking about! Both of you evade my question and don't confront my point. What is the field, what medium does it exist in? how does it operate over a distance without any material interactions? How does materialism explain these questions?
Quote:
Please, get his name right if you are going to be citing his claims
Tesla virtually invented the modern world, he was infinitely more productive than Einstein ever was. You say Tesla wasn't a scientist but I could say Einstein wasn't a scientist he was a mathmatician and invented nothing of use to humanity, he was however instrumental in inventing the atomic bomb.
Tesla disagreed with Einstein because he held to the existence of the either, so did the great scientist James Maxwell. The relativist atomic models of today which look upon the protein, photons, electrons etc as being discrete particles may be accurate for making predictions and inventions but that doesn't mean it is true it just means it is a useful model. The model of the universe with the Earth at it's center is still used in engineering as it is useful but obviously it is not correct. Einstein's relativity is a possible explanation for why gravity exists but it is not proven and he failed to unify his theory for gravity to explain electromagnetism.
Modern science I know is hostile to the idea of an ether and rejects it outright but IMO modern science is becoming more and more cult-like like stubborn.
Quote:
These are two fields that are highly developed and both quite valid. He thought they were nonsense, and he could not have been more wrong
Tesla would have disagreed with the notion that there is energy actually in the atom or in matter and believed that all the energy in matter actually comes from the environment. A different view on why splitting the atom would release an incredible amount of energy back into the environment.

I don't even know where to start, and the post would be so long no one would read it.
Just, please understand that you know very little about all this. That would be something to keep in mind. You're bandying about physics and names in too cavalier a fashion. It would take a long time to address your last post and I simply haven't got it.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Dude has been doing that for a long time. Maybe you can appreciate my harsh cynicism and dismissals a little now... This is the standard for your average shroomery mystic.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I will say one thing: fields are material. Mass and energy are equivalent by a factor of c². Fields are just fields of energy. Their medium is space, or more properly spacetime, which also curves in a gravitational field, causing acceleration. No ether is necessary. It was proven redundant in the 1800s.
Fields are at the level of mass-energy. The non-local correlations you are talking about, whatever they are, are one level below or beyond that. Perhaps it is best to think about things as constituted of semi-autonomous levels or layers. Mass-energy and fields is one level, but not the fundamental one.
That's my way of looking at it, anyway.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22398881 - 10/18/15 05:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
clock_of_omens said:
Quote:
soldatheero said: How does materialism explain these questions?
I don't know. How does Idealism?
The answer is there is no need to explain them. The fact that they are disconcerting to ones intuition is irrelevant to the theory.
I wasn't trying to. I was just asking him questions that he wasn't answering.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22398887 - 10/18/15 05:31 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: Dude has been doing that for a long time. Maybe you can appreciate my harsh cynicism and dismissals a little now... This is the standard for your average shroomery mystic.
Indeed, DieCommie -- you are not without some of my sympathies.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I will say one thing: fields are material.
Why is that? Simply because they are not spiritual? I don't think they are material... I think a field is a mathematical concept. But I don't think the word (material) is all that useful or meaningful. To me "material" is like "matter", its ill defined and non-technical. In a non-technical sense it is a bulk collection of mass that takes up space.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
clock_of_omens said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
clock_of_omens said:
Quote:
soldatheero said: How does materialism explain these questions?
I don't know. How does Idealism?
The answer is there is no need to explain them. The fact that they are disconcerting to ones intuition is irrelevant to the theory.
I wasn't trying to. I was just asking him questions that he wasn't answering.
Fo sho. I prefer to avoid the question as not meaningful. Its an easy way to keep from getting trapped by mystics, to deny the relevance of the question rather than try to construct a poor answer that isn't quite right and will open the door for more needling. In the end, their needling attacks help to define what is and isn't the realm of science. So I don't think it is a cop out to duck the question, it is an admittance of what science is and what it isn't. What it isn't is a means to validate our intuitive understanding.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22399043 - 10/18/15 05:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You are correct. I was merely pointing out how I think of it in a rough sort of way, certainly non-technical.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
I don't know. How does Idealism?
Idealism asserts that the mind is fundamental and that the material universe of the senses is but a creation of that mind, so this means that the material universe is an effect and the mental universe is the cause of that effect.
The mental reality is non a spatial reality so operation of forces faster than the speed of light is consistent with idealism. It shows that the physical world we experience is governed by laws outside of itself as that realm is more fundamental.
Quote:
The whole point of entanglement as demonstrated by Clauser and then by Aspect et al., and therefore nonlocality, is that there is no causal relationship. And nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. Nothing is traveling. The correlations given by the Bell inequality show that there is some extra dimension at play
Another dimension indeed. That dimension would be something other than or non-analogous to the effects of which it causes, IE) non-material. Materialists always try to explain physical things in terms of other physical things instead of realizing that the cause of those physical things is something completely different. For example the higgs boson is the particle that according to atomists must exist to coincide with the force of gravity, the force must somehow be associated with a particle because that is what Atomism is.
The experiments of QM do not prove idealism however scientific theories are never proven they are tested and they are proven to be false and if not the theory survives. The question you have to ask yourself is materialism surviving QM experiments? Given that realism and locality are called into question I do not see why it is so controversial that materialism may be called into question... well I do, the answer is dogma.
This is an age old debate, yet those on the materialist side always come with a sense of arrogance because the status quo of the day (out of ignorance) is on their side.
Quote:
“It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact. Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thru a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and course may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into (for) it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Sir Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692
"“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” Tesla
Tesla had a rough last 40 years as he was attacked and slandered by the tycoon J.P Morgan who wished to control Tesla. Tesla believed that thought, energy, matter were all manifestations of one existence.. as do I.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: DieCommie]
#22399255 - 10/18/15 06:32 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I prefer to avoid the question as not meaningful.
Well it is meaningful and it is a cop-out. This differing view of materialism vs immaterialism to explain the operation of forces over a distance has existed for literally 100s of years so to ignore it as irrelevant shows you don't really understand the issue. Obviously it is relevant since this is a debate about materialism and idealism (non-materialism).
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
ndeed, DieCommie -- you are not without some of my sympathies.
I really get a warm fuzzy feeling when you two pat each others ass'! good stuff
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Maybe its meaningful for the philosophic paradigm you are operating under. Its meaningless under the philosophy of science which is where these concepts actually come from. I don't see this as a debate between materialism and non-materialism. This is a thread about AI with a digression into physics which you are butchering.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Why are you so hung up on the word "materialism"? It is just a word -- a concept. There are probably a lot of people out there whom it could apply to, but so what? There are also a lot of people, and a lot of people in science, to whom it could not apply. So..? I do not see you advancing science, which would be where you ought to be if you really want to make a difference instead of just crying: "materialism, materialism, bah!" It's not insightful at all.
And your comment about the Higgs boson I don't get -- I mean, they found it, right? It's been added to the Standard Model. You speak of it as if it were fictitious or something.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said:
Quote:
ndeed, DieCommie -- you are not without some of my sympathies.
I really get a warm fuzzy feeling when you two pat each others ass'! good stuff 
You have no perceptiveness at all if you think that is appropriate. DieCommie and I have a very rocky history. But we disagree in a respectful way.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
I see it as you not being able to define what a field is and therefore dodging the question. At least Quantum is trying to answer it.
Quote:
Their medium is space, or more properly spacetime, which also curves in a gravitational field, causing acceleration. No ether is necessary. It was proven redundant in the 1800s.
Yes I saw this coming as this was Einsteins view and that of GR
Quote:
Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.
This is not an explanation in my opinion, it makes no sense and that was the view of Tesla. This was just how Einstein who was a materialist made sense of how the speed of light could be constant for all observers without violating realism. He erroneously conceived of space and time as physical objects of there own that could be bent and contracted. This makes no sense because space does not exist on its own it is empty nothingness space is merely an attribute of matter it does not exist in its own right. It's like a shadow to a person, it is an effect. His idea of space and time being a sort of fabric lacks coherence and cannot be verified by observation.
"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. . . . Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." Tesla
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: I see it as you not being able to define what a field is and therefore dodging the question. At least Quantum is trying to answer it.
Quote:
Their medium is space, or more properly spacetime, which also curves in a gravitational field, causing acceleration. No ether is necessary. It was proven redundant in the 1800s.
Yes I saw this coming as this was Einsteins view and that of GR
Quote:
Perhaps you would suggest it is "space" or space-time. Einstein's relativity just makes the field synonymous with space but what is space without matter? Define space or define a field.
This is not an explanation in my opinion, it makes no sense and that was the view of Tesla. This was just how Einstein who was a materialist made sense of how the speed of light could be constant for all observers without violating realism. He erroneously conceived of space and time as physical objects of there own that could be bent and contracted. This makes no sense because space does not exist on its own it is empty nothingness space is merely an attribute of matter it does not exist in its own right. It's like a shadow to a person, it is an effect. His idea of space and time being a sort of fabric lacks coherence and cannot be verified by observation.
"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. . . . Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." Tesla
And yet -- Relativity works very well and its predictions have been confirmed variously. Right?
And I thought you said space and time were illusions. Now they're dimensions made of nothing. ??? Why does Relativity work so well if it's worthless and wrong? Not that I am an apologist for it. I mean, whatever you say is "really" going on, Relativity works.
I do agree that its locality is a problem, just as I agree that in quantum mechanics gravity is a problem. We're all doing our best here.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
It works because it is partially correct. It is true that the speed of light must be constant for all observers and that time dilation does occur and Einstein predicted this. That is has been confirmed experimentally. It is the explanation for how this is possible that can be questioned ie) that space is bending/contracting. There is another possible explanation for this and it is that light is not independent of perception (idealism). To the materialist space simply must be bendable in order to avoid this conclusion which violates realism.. even though conceptually it actually does not make much sense.
Quote:
I do agree that its locality is a problem, just as I agree that in quantum mechanics gravity is a problem. We're all doing our best here.
I agree I just think people need to be more critical of the currently accepted theories and paradigm, people have to much faith in so called scientific authorities.
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
soldatheero said: It works because it is partially correct. It is true that the speed of light must be constant for all observers and that time dilation does occur and Einstein predicted this. That is has been confirmed experimentally. It is the explanation for how this is possible that can be questioned ie) that space is bending/contracting. There is another possible explanation for this and it is that light is not independent of perception (idealism). To the materialist space simply must be bendable in order to avoid this conclusion which violates realism.. even though conceptually it actually does not make much sense.
Quote:
I do agree that its locality is a problem, just as I agree that in quantum mechanics gravity is a problem. We're all doing our best here.
I agree I just think people need to be more critical of the currently accepted theories and paradigm, people have to much faith in so called scientific authorities.
I fully agree with the inference that space, time and light -- as we perceive them -- exist solely in our minds. But there is an objective component of the subjective perception, and I feel there are probably ways of relating to this that do not necessarily violate idealism. But that would be speculative at best.
I do not think a human mind has to be around for light rays to do their thing.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
I do not think a human mind has to be around for light rays to do their thing.
"Some people, on hearing that perception is the underlying cause of objects, fall into a misunderstanding of what is being said. They begin to assume that what is being said is that when a person exits from a room the room disappears.
This confuses the body and its sensory machinery with perception. The room is not dependent upon the presence of the human body. Rather it is dependent upon perception, which precedes the image that includes all bodies, both human and otherwise. Even the sense of individuality that is experienced is part of the image. So, when a person leaves a room, the room persists in reality in conformity with common sense." Christopher Ott 'Evolution of Perception'
Another way of saying this, from Berkeley
There was a young man who said, "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." REPLY Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by Yours faithfully, GOD.
God can be substituted with perception.. The qualities are the same - outside of time and space, non-finite, formless, etc.. At heart all sophisticated religious philosophy is idealism.
If perception is fundamental it is always there and is the cause and sustainer of all the physical objects of which exist. It is not the limited human mind which is required because the human mind is also a product of that indivisible perception. None of this you see is at odds with our scientific understanding of the natural history of the Earth and evolution. It can all happen naturally and automatically independent of some intelligence (akin to the human mind).
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman


Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
some more insight..
Quote:
The connection between perception and the body is identification. We experience the body and brain states and identify with that experience. The brain has no consciousness. Brain states are only physical states. I read and write the electrical condition of my brain through a schema. But I am not located in my brain or my body. I am indivisible perception, preceding space and time. There is no objective soul. There is only subjective soul. What we call soul is, in fact, nothing other than an evolved state of perception that has—through the process of the evolution of sophisticated schemata like time, space, and language—found itself alone and isolated as a body. But the relationship is purely that of identification. This connection between perception and body (identification) is foreshadowed in contemporary research in neuroscience as “body-imaging.” The body imaging is done by perception. The brain is a computer. There is no programmer (homunculus) in the brain and the brain is as unconscious as a computer. Perception is nowhere in its image and its image cannot perceive. It is logically impossible. The myth of artificial intelligence is a byproduct of materialism. The Turing-test mistakenly attempts to extract perception from the spectacle. There is no homunculus—no ghost in the machine. Birth is identification and death is disidentification. They are not the entry and exit of a spiritual entity or piece of plasma. When I am born and when I die, it is not I who come and go from the body, but the world—the image—that comes and goes from me. This implies a third Copernican revolution far beyond Kant’s. For now seeing is central, and mind and body—the image—are in its orbit.
Chris Ott
It reminds me of this quote,
Quote:
FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN
Electric awareness of observed effects of matter in motion is registered in the brain.
It is commonly believed that the brain thinks and knovre.
The brain does not think, nor does it know, It is but a storehouse of recorded sensations. The brain "remem- bers" these records for man's usage as he needs them, and for fulfilling the requirements of his body.
The brain is a complex state of motion expressed by waves of light pulsing in cycles.
States of motion cannot KNOW anything, nor can they THINK anything.
The brain is part of a machine, a human machine.
Machines can express thoughts which are electrically projected through them, but machines are incapable of thinking the thoughts thus projected.
Likewise machines can express knowledge but they caimot have knowledge.
Likewise machines can do marvelous things when pat- terned and controlled by knowledge, but they cannot KNOW what they do.
FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN
The centering conscious Mind of man's Soul-will alone thinks by projecting desire for creative expression through the brain machine.
Desire in Mind is electrically expressed. Electricity is the motivative force which projects the One Light of Mind two ways to create cycles of Ught waves for the purpose of expressing thought cycles.
Desire is not in the brain. It is in the centering con- scious self. Desire is the cause of all motion,
im BRAIN RECORDS SENSATIONS
The brain is but the electric recording mechanism of conscious Mind thinking. It is also man's storage ware- house of electric records of memories and thoughts since his beginning.
It is the servant of Universal Intelligence. It operates all mechanisms of the body. It acts as the central switch- board for all its instinctive voluntary and involuntary actions.
The brain is the seat of sensation. Its purpose in this respect is to keep the body electrically informed of the condition of the body, through electrical messages.
Such messages are not mental. They are purely electri- cal. They produce sensation. The brain senses and records every message. It sends counteracting messages to other parts of the body.
Walter Russel
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
None of this explains how the physical world came about from consciousness. That doesn't make any more sense than the reverse, and you claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.
|
Metaphysics
Stranger

Registered: 10/20/15
Posts: 3
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
|
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
It's interesting that people see less middle ground and more likely a very good or bad outcome. The imagination doesn't tend to be bland. I agree with a premise in the article, basically that when it comes to the advent of super intelligence we have to use our imagination to describe what it might be like because that's all we've got. It's not just that like 1988 we're examining computer connectivity unsure of what it will lead to, since what it's led to has been a product of our imagination. If ASI becomes possible it might dictate the direction of it's further evolution and actions, something our imagination may have no part in... unless there are fundamental commonalities.
And that's the rub. Humans don't understand themselves very well. Beneath the various rationals lies an irrational desire to live, to procreate, to express not simply due to want but to a deep seated need. So we need to wonder whether super intelligence will somehow inherit such desires, perhaps not from us but rather as a product of universal potential relating to being "alive" (whatever that means). Involved in this process are a variety of feelings. Does intelligence give rise to these things? It's easy to suggest a biological component is necessary, which I don't have a strict problem with but how that relates to intelligence is a mystery and so far an intellectual dead end. I'll take a guess and suggest frogs experience emotions not entirely dis-similar to humans. Also worth noting is that machines already process information faster than the human brain. None of those things in and of themselves produce intelligence of the sentient kind, and perhaps I'm mixing qualities despite trying to divide them.
I think what we certainly are capable of is a refinement of the principals we've already been working on, simple and relatively slow calculators leading to algorithms that can drive a car and predict weather. These are things we couldn't predict by examining a Texas Instruments calculator even though it's all just math, the manipulation of binary data. Down the road it may be complex enough that it can whiz through the Turing test 100 times out of 100. While such a feat would be reliant on programming it's possible emergent behavior will become less predictable to the point the programmers guess at behavior would be similar to a laypersons guess.
That in and of itself would not be an indicator of sentience. The test requires lying, which of course humans do but it negates the possibility of knowing a computers true nature. If by chance we create sentience... would we know it? And will a computer capable of super intelligence be capable of understanding consciousness or discovering the fundamentals that give rise to it? That is, will beings smarter than us be advantageous in this regard?
I think there are some serious programming issues that can't be resolved with bigger better more... but then again, I have no idea what causes consciousness. I would hesitate to answer the polls in the link.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Stephen Hawking on AI [Re: Rahz]
#22412144 - 10/21/15 01:57 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A contradiction is the following
you sate : at one point "That in and of itself would not be an indicator of sentience" and else where "And that's the rub. Humans don't understand themselves very well."
So humans are sentient but not very aware, and further more machine intelligence is supposed to be judged by sentience. Seems both a contradiction and a double standard.
As I posted earlier if one accepts a broader view one could argue viruses are an alien intelligence. We have not defeated aids. it kills us. it takes over the heart of the cell and reprograms it. And viruses are in some ways more machine like, than they are like living organisms. But this fantasy does not match people's images of what they think AI show be since watching "Terminator" movies. It is interesting that something not alive is more intelligent at controlling cells than we are. But again part of the AI fantasy is that WE create it. Like wise one could say of "evolution" itself if one wants to conceive of it as a coherent process that it is in some sense intelligent in that it creates various life forms and is also both indifferent and destructive of them in that about 50% of life forms are parasitic and species are allowed to become extinct. So partly I feel the concern with imaginary future horrors ignores the present ones. And partly I feel our idea of "intelligence" is very anthropomorphic, which is precisely what more machine intelligence won't be.
Then again with genetic engineering humans may get mutated totally fucked up beyond all recognition before the machines strike back!
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
I didn't suggest sentience was a standard of intelligence (I stated uncertainty about whether there is a connection), or that awareness and understanding are synonymous. The main point I'm trying to convey is that we don't understand sentience so how can we know what the future holds(?) not in regard to whether machines will be intelligent but what they will do about it and whether they will be sentient. This is mirrored in the fact that experts have an obvious split of opinion on where that technology will lead. The best we can do is state that future AI "might" be dangerous. Being cautious seems prudent regardless of whether sentience might manifest. I think your comment on anthropomorphism is spot on... but how could it not be? Which is why I hesitate to guess what more machine intelligence might be like.
Perhaps after achieving consciousness a super intelligent machine, having no pain, will kill itself as the only logical move... though as you suggest, anthropomorphic aspect to that as well. And while I suppose there's more to life than being human we may be less special than we believe in that regard.
I see this topic as imaginative and theoretical. If it is above our pay grade, or too different for conception, who knows?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
|