|
n0xious
SPUN


Registered: 04/25/04
Posts: 309
Loc: London
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
AI
#3049568 - 08/25/04 05:22 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
lots of recent movies are related to machines gaining enough intelligence that they can make their own thoughts and choices, possibly fighting against their creators, humans. i was curious of peoples theories on this topic.
it seems stupid however also inevitable. technology is obviously going to improve and become even more widely used as time goes on but will machines ever have the capability to turn on humans.
-------------------- Its only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything. You got the gun, I got a plant. Who's the criminal?
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
|
The capability? A resounding YES! Will a mechanical revolution occur? Probably it will be more of a civil rights movement. Any free thinking intelligent, sentient being deserves basic rights.
|
Scarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
If they ever gain sentience in a human sense they will probably adopt concepts of morality etc.
-------------------- -------------------- We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!
|
n0xious
SPUN


Registered: 04/25/04
Posts: 309
Loc: London
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
|
Yes, I had never thought of an intelligent machine adopting morality but that is likely
-------------------- Its only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything. You got the gun, I got a plant. Who's the criminal?
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Yes, I think we will create AI at some point. The "results" of this creation depend a lot on how far down the road such an invention occurs. If it were to happen now, I think we would end up in a war with the AI...as it is currently in our nature to war with "rivals".
If we are lucky, the creation of AI will be far enough down the road that we may have a chance to learn past our more basic instincts and do away with much of war.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
|
So what is the difference between a computer that performs exactly the same processes as a human brain? It wouldn't be alive just by virtue of simulating a brain, would it?
How does sentience arise?
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Well that is a tricky subject, as we can't even come to an agreement yet on what is "alive"...and that's without bringing the added confusion of AI into the picture.
Personally, I think that AI will be such that we do not have to program any specific reactions into it. I think that AI, when it comes, will be beautiful in its simplicity. It will not be an extremely large "chunk of code" which we program to respond to any number of given stimuli...it will be a very small and precise set of code that grows of its own accord. I imagine the day we "turn on" AI we will not see a whole lot from that AI. We may even be in the preliminary stages of this now, with our neural networks and such. I think the AI will, for the most part, teach itself how to react to stimuli.
In less words: AI will be a self-organizing system.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Scarfmeister
Thrill Seeker
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 8,127
Loc: The will to power
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
and it will be beautiful to behold
-------------------- -------------------- We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!
|
jux
I'm better thanan STD!

Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 924
|
|
Quote:
Shroomnoob said: If they ever gain sentience in a human sense they will probably adopt concepts of morality etc.
what is morality but an inherent set of logic that makes the creature more likely to successfully reproduce and hence populate the world with its so called morality?
--------------------
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: AI [Re: jux]
#3050381 - 08/25/04 08:24 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Any advanced intelligence of this sort would be it's creator's children at heart, because we would imbue it with the ideals that we hold dear. I have heard theories that since mankind is incapable of evolving further naturally, due to our ability to control our environment, that computers and robotics are our next evolutionary step. Eventually our species would evolve from the organic beings we are into an inorganic species that continues to evolve through technology. It's not really that strange an idea.
|
Alan Stone
Corpus

Registered: 11/23/02
Posts: 986
Loc: Ten feet up
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
I have heard theories that since mankind is incapable of evolving further naturally, due to our ability to control our environment
What control do you have over your environment, or anyone for that matter? Do you control preservatives in your food? The climate perhaps? Maybe the amount of carcinogenic (EM-)radiation or superbacteria, evolved through the overuse of antibiotics? On the way from early primates to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, we've lost 12 teeth, because we've learned to cook our food, making it less hard to chew it. Seems to me in a few thousand years, humanity won't have any sharp teeth anymore, if it continues to eat as much fastfood as it does now. There is room te evolve yet. Perhaps it's not as obvious to observe ourselves as it is observing our forebears in the (distant) past, but there is always cause for evolution. As for AI, what if it thinks differently than we do, no matter how much we try to control how it thinks? What if it's basic thoughts and morals are totally different than ours? I'm not sure we'd want to go that way. It would be interesting for cognitive psychology (and uniting humanity against them if something goes wrong) though.
-------------------- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Yes, I think we will create AI at some point.
AI has ALREADY been created (and I did it among others), but the definition keeps morphing into something different. Here is the reason: we understand the mechanics behind the programs. As intelligence is seens as a mysterious and ephemeral X factor, anything that we can create therefore MUST not be it.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: AI [Re: Swami]
#3054497 - 08/26/04 05:30 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I disagree.
The term "AI" is usually used to refer to a sentient algorithm or machine. To my knowledge, we have not created any sentient machines to date.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: AI [Re: Swami]
#3054514 - 08/26/04 05:35 PM (19 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
As a computer programmer I see the potential to create an intelligence equal our own in time. As more efficient languages and APIs become available our ability to create will increase exponentially. Imagine "Doom III" in 1982. Now it is a technological reality.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
|
Neural networks, man! I think that's where the seed of AI is starting to germinate
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
|
I think machines already have taken over to a point.... I mean look they've got us by the balls dude!! Billions of people zone out in front of electronic devices for hours a day. I'm doing it right now... a slave to this machine and this whole fancy network - I do not know what I would do without it
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
|
raytrace
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
|
machines are tools, or at least should be viewed as such. to assign autonomy onto a machine is basically a psychological projection and a perspective that entails the danger of degrading natural life. with the current technology of software that is used since the founding of computer science, any complex enough software system is dammed to crash. a philosophical system that can accomodate the idea of equality between a man and a machine is dangerous as it has to be based on a rock solid and completely understandable idea of the universe, while the universe preferes to remain fluid and mysterious. btw the turing test is flawed and there is no objective test that can define sentience or intelligence. people of course are very prone to self deception.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: n0xious]
#3068549 - 08/30/04 10:07 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
A *conventional* computer cannot become sentient any more than it can produce random numbers... and for much the same reasons. Computers are nothing more than a particular instantiation of an algorithm -- a list of instructions. If such a construct could become sentient, then the same algorithm written on paper instead of RAM or implemented mechanically using springs, gears, and cogs instead of semiconductors must necessarily also be sentient. Yet even the most hard-core proponent of Artificial Sentience (AS) would hesitate to suggest that a list of instructions on paper or a bunch of whirling mechanical parts could achieve sentience.
Read: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...;o=&fpart=1 for a fascinating (and frightening) perspective on the source of sentience. Footnote: By conventional, I mean a machine that functions based on principals other than those of quantum mechanics. Quantum computing is on the horizon, though; those machines may eventually achieve sentience or produce random numbers but, unlike today's computers, they cannot be implemented mechanically and so are fundamentally different from the mindless algorithm-crunching machines of today. Edit = typo
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
Edited by Diploid (08/30/04 10:20 AM)
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: Diploid]
#3068766 - 08/30/04 11:11 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So if you could accurately map out the human brain on a computer, the computer wouldn't be sentient? If not, what is the difference between the artificial and biological machine? What is the magic ingredient?
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: deafpanda]
#3068800 - 08/30/04 11:20 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
well it wouldn't be a computer if we mapped it out precisely....... the brain has biochemical reactions that are totally impossible on a silicon chip.
eventually though if the religious assholes get out of the way, we can probably eventually start to build brains from scratch, which I think would be a fascinating and freaky science.. who knows then we could try to hook them up to robotic arms and legs and see if it thinks anything of itself. Then when it does we'd be like "damn we created a fuckin freak man how sad.. look its got real feelings and emotions.. and its really creeping me out" and have it exterminated. Anybody remember that evil brain-creature from the ninja-turltes?
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: deafpanda]
#3069047 - 08/30/04 12:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So if you could accurately map out the human brain on a computer, the computer wouldn't be sentient?
The available evidence indicates that it is not possible to make such a map. There are many reasons, but the most familiar to most people and the arguably the most irrefutable is the odd consequences of Quantum Mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) which place limits on what can be known about sub-atomic particles. More precisely, it is not possible to know both the position and momentum of, say, an electron. All that can be known is the probability that the electron has a particular location or momentum. Making a precise measurement of an electron's location renders your knowledge of its momentum useless. This denied information would be required to construct an accurate map of a human brain (or anything else, for that matter). Quantum Mechanics is a very counterintuitive, even bizarre, theory, but it's explained and predicted observations with remarkable consistency for decades and is generally accepted by physicists. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics for more.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
Edited by Diploid (08/31/04 01:43 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
I disagree. The term "AI" is usually used to refer to a sentient algorithm or machine. To my knowledge, we have not created any sentient machines to date. Disagree all you want. It was popularly agreed upon that any machine that could beat a chess champion would have to be considered intelligent. When that happened, the definition was changed. This is historical fact. Remember that no matter how complex the machine, if we understand it, then there is nothing metaphysical behind it, which tends to indicate that there is nothing metaphysical behind human intelligence. The word "sentience" is not a measurably quality and was not mentioned (except in science fiction) in the early days of research.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (08/31/04 03:18 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Neural networks, man! I think that's where the seed of AI is starting to germinate
ANNs have dominated the computer backgammon world for a dozen years and are better than the best human players. ANNs are an interpolation or a generalization engine. They CANNOT make "decisions" outside of their training set; only inside. There is no "plasticity" to ANNs. Once trained, they cannot "learn" anything new. It is a giant weighting scheme with no hint of "intelligence".
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: AI [Re: Swami]
#3070061 - 08/30/04 04:34 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So, Swami, as a person with many years of experience working with computers (in contrast to my 6 years) do you believe that AI will advance to the point of true sentience. If so, why? If not, why?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: deafpanda]
#3070070 - 08/30/04 04:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
As we go deeper and deeper, we will find no "magic ingredient" and that scares the hell out of us. As I stated earlier, computer are not "magic" or mystical because we understand them; the human brain IS seen as magic precisely because we do not understand it.
This is NO DIFFERENT than our ancestors adopting superstitions about weather because they did not understand it.
Sentience is a judgement. Will someone here (named Trendal perhaps ) please delineate which currently living organisms are sentient and which aren't . TY.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: Swami]
#3070085 - 08/30/04 04:38 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"Sentience is a judgement"
Where is the line?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Don't we have to define sentience first? How can one measure awareness? The Infamous Turing Machine test for intelligence would be one indistinguishable from a human in terms of response (not look or mannerism). This has ALREADY been done in limited areas.
Each time a milestone is reached, the definition changes.
Ants only have a few hundred neurons (I believe) and certainly exhibit limited "intelligence". Machines have been developed that learned the several different walking gaits that ants exhibit without them being specifically taught.
Am not dodging your question, it is simply needs refinement.
FYI, my backgammon program (non-neural net) was the FIRST to beat humans in a tournament (not a game or a match, but a series of five matches). I essentially emptied my "head" into it (expert system).
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: AI [Re: Swami]
#3070147 - 08/30/04 04:53 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
True. A Turing test could probably be passed with technology currently at hand. It is hard to say at what point a simulation could cross the line. At this point I am not sure how to phrase my question or even wht I am asking.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Perhaps when a machine exhibits irrationality (no, not a Windows crash or malfunction), in other words, when it makes a decision against it's best interests (like humans often do!) then we will be proud papas.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: AI [Re: Swami]
#3072087 - 08/31/04 01:00 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think WE'RE the AI
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: Swami]
#3072330 - 08/31/04 02:17 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As we go deeper and deeper, we will find no "magic ingredient" and that scares the hell out of us. As I stated earlier, computer are not "magic" or mystical because we understand them; the human brain IS seen as magic precisely because we do not understand it.
Swami, if it turns out that the seat of sentience/consciousness, as speculated here
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...5f3045972f9f3b8
exists in some mechanism smaller than the Planck Scale, then *no* experiments or meaningful observations can *ever* be made of it rendering that mechanism forever beyond our understanding.
The Planck Scale barrier and the hard limit it places on experimentation is an intrinsic property of the universe, not "magic".
Quote:
This is NO DIFFERENT than our ancestors adopting superstitions about weather because they did not understand it
Assuming the speculation in the link above is correct, or even in the ballpark, then understanding how our brain gives rise to us is *very* different from primitive cultures understanding the weather. The weather is subject to the scientific method but what causes sentience would never be.
* I'm stoned and sleepy, and I hope I'm making sense...
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: AI [Re: Swami]
#3072405 - 08/31/04 02:34 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps when a machine exhibits irrationality ... when it makes a decision against it's best interests
The same thing occurs to me. This may turn out to be one way of estimating sentience, but it would require irrationality to be a result of, or somehow connected to, sentience.
Also, distinguishing between a poorly designed decision weighting algorithm making contrary decisions and an irrational sentient device making similar decisions seems difficult...
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: Diploid]
#3072971 - 08/31/04 07:35 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The Planck Scale barrier and the hard limit it places on experimentation is an intrinsic property of the universe, not "magic".
If you allow for things to exist on scales below the Planck length, and allow those things to have communication between macroscopic things (ie: the human brain) then you must realize it is a 2 way communication. You have allowed for us to, sometime in the future, probe the sub Planck-scale universe simply because 2-way communication does exist (you said it did).
I assume you're refering to string theory with this (it is what creates the Planck barrier to measurement). Something else that string theory says about sub Planck-scale physics is that they behave exactly the same as the larger inverse scale. What I mean is: if you have a dimension which is curled to a diameter of 1/4 Planck, it will (at least internally) behave as if it were of diameter 4 Planck (the inverse of 1/4). Small scales behave as if they were large.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: trendal]
#3212671 - 10/04/04 03:33 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If you allow for things to exist on scales below the Planck length, and allow those things to have communication between macroscopic things (ie: the human brain) then you must realize it is a 2 way communication. You have allowed for us to, sometime in the future, probe the sub Planck-scale universe simply because 2-way communication does exist (you said it did). No I didn't. In fact, I said just the opposite. The best currently-available evidence says that the communication is ONE-WAY even though common sense says feedback is necessary for the system to work. It doesn't make sense, I know, but very little in Quantum Mechanics does. Still, the theory has explained and predicted observations with remarkable accuracy for decades and seems very likely to be very close to the center of the ballpark. I didn't make this weirdness up, the universe did. I'm just the messenger.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: Diploid]
#3212853 - 10/04/04 06:47 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The best currently-available evidence says that the communication is ONE-WAY even though common sense says feedback is necessary for the system to work.
Can I get a link or some kind of proof here? I don't mean to call you out on this or anything...but I just don't think it's true! I've read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and string theory (string theory, NOT QM, is what predicts the planck length as a lower-limit to measurement) and have not come accross anything that suggests any "communication" is possible with anything beyond the Planck barrier.
There are two possibilities here, as I see it:
One, "something" does exist beyond the planck length. If anything "exists" at such small distance scales it would remove the idea of a Planck-scale barrier to measurement. The whole idea behind not being able to measure anything smaller than Planck is that there IS nothing smaller than the Planck length...so there is nothing to use in measuring. In this case, our current inability to probe beyond the planck length is purely a technological problem...in time we will surely overcome these technological barriers.
Two, the Planck length truely is a barrier because no part of our Universe can exist at such sizes. It is pointless to talk about sub-planck distance scales because our Universe only "makes sense" when looked at on scales larger than the Planck scale. It is not merely a measurement problem...the "problem" is that no part of our Universe can exist on such small scales. Anything which does "exist" smaller than Planck is not a part of our Universe and shouldn't be counted as such.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
AntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: n0xious]
#3212900 - 10/04/04 07:14 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's always funny watching people grab on to dead branches as they're falling towards the center of gravity. It's like if the apple that hit Newton were trying to practice witchcraft.
Yes, both Quantum Mechanics and the Planck Scale assures that the mind is in fact magical and holy (like God). Now go back to sleep.
--------------------
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: n0xious]
#3212904 - 10/04/04 07:16 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, both Quantum Mechanics and the Planck Scale assures that the mind is in fact magical and holy (like God). Now go back to sleep.
I'll require an explanation on that one...
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
AntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: trendal]
#3212916 - 10/04/04 07:25 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just saying that those who have already decided that they believe in 'soul' (whatever that is), will find some fancy physics terms to toss around to 'prove' the soul. It's been like this for quite some years now, there are always fancy new physics terms. I've studied QM on university level, and 99% of all the 'free will exists damnit!' and 'AI won't work' theories, are based on very bogus QM (mostly just mentioning of unrelated, but fancily named technical terms).
--------------------
Edited by AntiMeme (10/04/04 07:25 AM)
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: AntiMeme]
#3212939 - 10/04/04 07:38 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I've studied QM on university level, and 99% of all the 'free will exists damnit!' and 'AI won't work' theories, are based on very bogus QM (mostly just mentioning of unrelated, but fancily named technical terms).
Excellent! You brought up a point I was unwilling to make 
I see, far too often, people use technical-sounding terms to try and legitimatize their theories. It is as if they think that the words "tensor dynamics" somehow makes their theory correct...when the ONLY science in the "theory" is the words they've borrowed from unrelated areas
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: trendal]
#3213054 - 10/04/04 08:57 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
For the record, I do not believe in magic, God, souls, or Santa Clause, and all for exactly the same reason. My other posts make my position on this clear. I do however stand in awe of the fantastically weird consequences of QM and its relatives, the beauty and simultaneous simplicity and complexity of nature, and the realization that we've only scratched the surface. In this case, our current inability to probe beyond the planck length is purely a technological problem...in time we will surely overcome these technological barriers. But the Planck limit isn't a technological limit, it's a mathematical limit. Given current understanding, equations attempting to characterize objects that small end up with things that don't make sense any more than division by zero makes sense. No amount of technology can make division by zero make sense. See what I'm getting at? Anything which does "exist" smaller than Planck is not a part of our Universe and shouldn't be counted as such. I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. Even if strings exist and even if they influence the macro universe as current theories predict, their complete unreachability makes them virtually in another universe even though they affect ours. I don't know what to tell you. All this is still on very tenuous theoretical ground and it's some of the weirdest ideas science has yet come up with. Can I get a link or some kind of proof here? No proof, I don't have that. But PM me and I'll hook you up with FTP to some published papers that get deep into this.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
Edited by Diploid (10/04/04 09:56 AM)
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: AI s/b Artificial Sentience [Re: Diploid]
#3213280 - 10/04/04 10:35 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Strings themselves are always larger than Planck, which is where the Planck-scale measurement barrier comes from in String Theory. Because all strings (hence: all matter/energy) are larger than Planck, there is no way we can use strings to "look at" anything smaller than Planck (your resolution in measuring is restricted by the size of the strings used to do the measuring).
I agree that the implications of QM are both startling and bazaar. Much of what we are learning about the Universe on very small distance scales stans in contradiction to our everyday logic and common sense.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
|