View Full Version : Not Artificial
As many of you know, I object to the reference of all intelligence, other than that of organic beings, as being "artificial". That is the point of this thread. Here are the definitions of the key-words, "intelligence" and "artifical":
Merriam-Webster definition of "intelligence"
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)...
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
Webster's definition of "artificial"
2. Feigned, fictitious; not genuine or natural; as artificial tears.
I have not included all definitions of "artificial" because I only object to the application of this (the quoted) one.
It seems as though many (maybe most) people believe that the intelligence of a man-made computer is "artificial", or not genuine. I disagree. I think that a man-made computer can ("can" is a key-word, as my argument has nothing to do with the current limits of technology) posses all of the qualities listed in the above definition of "intelligence", and that there is nothing ingenuine about it.
What is your opinion (please give the reason for choosing as you do)?
heusdens
Apr17-03, 03:17 PM
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.
It depends on the meaning of artificial you use. If you imply that non-organic intelligent must inherently be different from organic ones, even inferior, I disagree. But it's pretty clear that computerised AIs as we now construct them are "man made" and hence in that way artificial. It may be different for the products of evolutionary programming though...
Is there a word for "self made"?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr17-03, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by heusdens
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial. \
I agree with heusdens.
Mentat, I believe you are arguing on behalf of intellegence "itself"?
So, if I may interpose, "can" (as you said is the key word on your arguement) is verb that requires a will, that is, a certain extent of freewill in, if not all (which I doubt), some cases. So how can a computer have free will? Free will is not only a neurological senstion, but is more of a psychological sensation which, either way, involves chemical reactions. I honestly don't how a computer "can". I know "can" can be used as "Can the computer occupy an '03 program?", but my argument of "can" is based on the context of "Can the compter expand its hard drive?" or something of that sort; IOW, "can" in the context of a will. Before I can establish a definte conviction on this point, I should like Mentat to explain the way he is using "can" in his argument.
newton1
Apr18-03, 01:09 AM
i support that the computer is artificial
becuase the computer is create by a human
if our world no human being ...
than no computer at all
TENYEARS
Apr18-03, 09:58 AM
Ok, this ones for alexander. An organic entity is a chemical reaction which functions according to it's functions which have been built over time via natural selection. These functions allow awareness via sensory input. There is nothing abstract about it. These inputs are stored and processed according to the needs of other functions. Thinking is done in accordance with the accomplishing of these functions according to highest order Mos Lowwww in a phisological frame of reference. No Carp here.
A computer accomplishs a second functions according to the limitations of it's hardware and preset functions. It's abilty to learn is programmed like us. Even if a program written to learn is written it can learn only to the limit of those predefined functions outward. It will not be able to reason new formulas which have not been preprogrammed with a higher order than has been programmed. A human being can only because the matrix for a human being is far more complex than any computer that can ever be built.
A computer may be able to perform limited sets(Chess) and actually outperform human beings as long as it plots deep enough to a degree, this is a limited set of logic performed outward.
Today you are all Zombies. And judging from your posts on both forums I witnessed that some of you like to play both ends against the middle when it is convienient.
This means human beings are "not concious" and should remove all references to this other than to establish a reframe of reference for a reboot of your human PC with electrical activity. When that activity stops you are dead - same as a computer. Sorry you are no better than ants here.
or
Your other option is the universe is concious behind and throughout the entire infinite creation. These are your only two options. You have no other choices. Sorry you are not better than ants here.
Oh yea the fish thing is a is a subconsious representation of my unexpressed conciousness in the chemical machine or it is that and a little more. Who among you is brave? Who can stand up against reality itself? Do you think you can bear the weight of the question?
No settlers allowed - don't waste my time fish.
Originally posted by heusdens
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.
Yes, in the sense of "artificial"'s meaning "man-made". However, the definition that I argue against, is that of not being genuine, or being "fake".
Originally posted by FZ+
It depends on the meaning of artificial you use. If you imply that non-organic intelligent must inherently be different from organic ones, even inferior, I disagree. But it's pretty clear that computerised AIs as we now construct them are "man made" and hence in that way artificial. It may be different for the products of evolutionary programming though...
Is there a word for "self made"?
Well, I tried to make sure (in my first post) that people knew that I was refering only to the defining of a "man-made" computer's intelligence as non-genuine. That's the kind of "artificial" I meant.
I know that they are man-made, and thus "artificial", but I don't think that their intelligence is - in anyway - less genuine than ours.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
\
I agree with heusdens.
Mentat, I believe you are arguing on behalf of intellegence "itself"?
So, if I may interpose, "can" (as you said is the key word on your arguement) is verb that requires a will, that is, a certain extent of freewill in, if not all (which I doubt), some cases. So how can a computer have free will? Free will is not only a neurological senstion, but is more of a psychological sensation which, either way, involves chemical reactions. I honestly don't how a computer "can". I know "can" can be used as "Can the computer occupy an '03 program?", but my argument of "can" is based on the context of "Can the compter expand its hard drive?" or something of that sort; IOW, "can" in the context of a will. Before I can establish a definte conviction on this point, I should like Mentat to explain the way he is using "can" in his argument.
Ok, that's a reasonable request. When I say "can" I don't imply free will, or even will, of any kind. When I say "can", I say it in the sense of having the potential to do something. A sub-atomic*can* decay - this doesn't mean that it has a "will" of any kind, it just has the potential to do so.
Originally posted by newton1
i support that the computer is artificial
becuase the computer is create by a human
if our world no human being ...
than no computer at all
Yes, the computer is man-made. However, I am not talking about that definition of "artificial". I am talking about whether or not a computer's intelligence is genuine. One definition of "artificial" is "not genuine" - and many people apply this definition to man-made computers. Is this your view?
chosenone
Apr18-03, 12:48 PM
I agree a computers intellegence is no less legitament than our own.if we are created by God and God Is doing everything,then one would have to accept that if a AI was brought online,God would be in charge of the AI's consciousness,the the AI or to us consciouns would be the same,because God gives us our consciouness,so what's the difference.
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Ok, this ones for alexander. An organic entity is a chemical reaction which functions according to it's functions which have been built over time via natural selection. These functions allow awareness via sensory input. There is nothing abstract about it. These inputs are stored and processed according to the needs of other functions. Thinking is done in accordance with the accomplishing of these functions according to highest order Mos Lowwww in a phisological frame of reference. No Carp here.
A computer accomplishs a second functions according to the limitations of it's hardware and preset functions. It's abilty to learn is programmed like us. Even if a program written to learn is written it can learn only to the limit of those predefined functions outward. It will not be able to reason new formulas which have not been preprogrammed with a higher order than has been programmed. A human being can only because the matrix for a human being is far more complex than any computer that can ever be built.
A computer may be able to perform limited sets(Chess) and actually outperform human beings as long as it plots deep enough to a degree, this is a limited set of logic performed outward.
Today you are all Zombies. And judging from your posts on both forums I witnessed that some of you like to play both ends against the middle when it is convienient.
This means human beings are "not concious" and should remove all references to this other than to establish a reframe of reference for a reboot of your human PC with electrical activity. When that activity stops you are dead - same as a computer. Sorry you are no better than ants here.
or
Your other option is the universe is concious behind and throughout the entire infinite creation. These are your only two options. You have no other choices. Sorry you are not better than ants here.
Oh yea the fish thing is a is a subconsious representation of my unexpressed conciousness in the chemical machine or it is that and a little more. Who among you is brave? Who can stand up against reality itself? Do you think you can bear the weight of the question?
No settlers allowed - don't waste my time fish.
No one needs to stand up against reality. People are real, aren't they? If people are real, then they must stand up against themselves, in order to stand up against reality.
newton1
Apr18-03, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, the computer is man-made. However, I am not talking about that definition of "artificial". I am talking about whether or not a computer's intelligence is genuine. One definition of "artificial" is "not genuine" - and many people apply this definition to man-made computers. Is this your view?
i don't think the computer is genuine
if in the future
the human can make a "life" for a computer
that time i think human is become the god already
Originally posted by newton1
i don't think the computer is genuine
if in the future
the human can make a "life" for a computer
that time i think human is become the god already
What makes you think that a man-made computer isn't alive? A human is alive, and we're computers.
newton1
Apr18-03, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
What makes you think that a man-made computer isn't alive? A human is alive, and we're computers.
and i ask back from you
what proof show human is a computer??
how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?
newton1
Apr18-03, 02:32 PM
i'm also don't believe that the human enable create a computer
which have a same intelligence with human....
just like a god....
can god create the other new god? or just enable to create the human
what proof show human is a computer??
how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?
Ask your local neurologist.
And ask yourself this: What happens when we are born, when we grow a brain? Isn't consciousness created then by man?
i'm also don't believe that the human enable create a computer
which have a same intelligence with human....
Why not? Is it a technical reason or a philosophical one?
can god create the other new god? or just enable to create the human
That's theology but why not? God is supposedly omnipotent.
newton1
Apr18-03, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
Ask your local neurologist.
And ask yourself this: What happens when we are born, when we grow a brain? Isn't consciousness created then by man?
this is call natura, a human being
Why not? Is it a technical reason or a philosophical one?
FZ+
u just always say why not
u haven give any scientific proof
That's theology but why not? God is supposedly omnipotent.
you omnipotent can create the other omnipotent...
it just like the god give u 3 wish
then u say the 1st wish is want another the other 3 wish
the second wish is want another 10 wish.....
then this is no end....
u think it's possible
i don't think so
newton1
Apr18-03, 10:52 PM
FZ+
u just always say why not
u never give any scientific proof
there is no any phonomenon show me that can happen
so i don't believe
RuroumiKenshin
Apr18-03, 11:49 PM
newton: and i ask back from you
what proof show human is a computer??
how to explain our mind? our feel? our creativeness?? and our lust?
We are essentially [basically] computers. Computers posess a basic anatomy of our own human brain. The mind and brain are two different references. The mind is supposedly unexplained (that is, it does not hhave an "absolute" definition) but Mentat will do an excellent job explaining this. I will just say that the brain is an organ of the mind.
This is the definition of a computer:
A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
Humans posess these characteristics; excluding the high speed calculations when compared to an industrial computer.
Humans are much more complicated than industrial computers are. This explains for creativity and feelings. Our physcological reactions and stuff is all a result of chemical reactions that are effected by the perceptions of our senses. We cannot, yet, replicate this in an industrial computer. Note that I said "industrial" when I refer to computers. This is supposed to help you identify which sort of computer I am refering to; the industrial kind.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr18-03, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by newton1
FZ+
u just always say why not
u never give any scientific proof
there is no any phonomenon show me that can happen
so i don't believe
If I may speak on behalf of FZ:
FZ says "why not" simply in persuit of the reason why something cannot be done differently, so to speak. It is a perfectly logical, and admirable trait, I think. You learn more that way.
Also, creating a computer the is just like a human is feasible, onece we understand how to do it. If you had any neurological knowledge, you'd have realized it is not as complex as one thinks, morally (i think this is because of human pride...). The feelings we expereince are all a series of chemical reactions. Creativity is the ability to create a possible replica of something that you have percieved before, and quite simply, put it together. (like abstract art). I recommend reading about neurological disorders, this'll help your understanding.
Proof? What kind of proof? physical?? If you wanted any proof you should ask.
So do have to see to believe? I believe electrons exist although I don't see them.
So, who still believes that synthetic (man-made) intelligence is artificial (not genuine)? Why do you still believe so?
Psychodelirium
Apr21-03, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
What is your opinion (please give the reason for choosing as you do)?
Rest assured that fake intelligence is not what McCarthy had in mind when he coined "artificial intelligence", nor is it what any researchers in the field have in mind now (at least not in any skeptical or derogatory sense). Now there is a very uncontentious sense of "artificial" under which it just means "created by an artificer", and AI is clearly that. But part of the implication of the term is that AI models don't need to have psychological realism to be AI models. We use them to study animal cognition, and animal cognition only seems intelligent when all of its relatively stupid and unintelligent parts start working in unison. So it's not surprising that there are AI programs that have no psychological realism at all, or seem utterly stupid, but still count as AI. They count as AI because they help us learn something of how our own minds work.
Perhaps once we have full-blown general intelligence of a human level, calling it AI may suddenly seem inappropriate because of this implication. But since we are nowhere near such models as of yet, it's artificial intelligence, and not artificial intelligence.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr21-03, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
So, who still believes that synthetic (man-made) intelligence is artificial (not genuine)? Why do you still believe so?
It would first be wise to define what geniune intelligence is. So then we could answer this question according to the definition we come up with.
screwball
Apr22-03, 12:50 AM
yes artificial
as in not natural
as in not occuring in nature
But if we were to create a fully self aware AI i dont think it should be treated differnetly than any other individual.
Originally posted by Psychodelirium
Rest assured that fake intelligence is not what McCarthy had in mind when he coined "artificial intelligence", nor is it what any researchers in the field have in mind now (at least not in any skeptical or derogatory sense). Now there is a very uncontentious sense of "artificial" under which it just means "created by an artificer", and AI is clearly that. But part of the implication of the term is that AI models don't need to have psychological realism to be AI models. We use them to study animal cognition, and animal cognition only seems intelligent when all of its relatively stupid and unintelligent parts start working in unison. So it's not surprising that there are AI programs that have no psychological realism at all, or seem utterly stupid, but still count as AI. They count as AI because they help us learn something of how our own minds work.
Perhaps once we have full-blown general intelligence of a human level, calling it AI may suddenly seem inappropriate because of this implication. But since we are nowhere near such models as of yet, it's artificial intelligence, and not artificial intelligence.
And yet we don't consider a child's intelligence to be "artificial" in this sense, do we? I think this is a flaw in human reasoning: We made it, so it must be less real. And yet, we make humans all of the time, and those humans are not nearly as intelligent as we are (yet), but of course they aren't "artificial" because they're organic.
Originally posted by screwball
yes artificial
as in not natural
as in not occuring in nature
But if we were to create a fully self aware AI i dont think it should be treated differnetly than any other individual.
Are humans "unnatural"? The fact that we make it, instead of random occurance (or God, however you want to think of it), makes it less natural?
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
It would first be wise to define what geniune intelligence is. So then we could answer this question according to the definition we come up with.
I did:
First Post of This Thread:
Merriam-Webster definition of "intelligence"
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)...
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
Originally posted by heusdens
Anything that is man-made, wether this is a car or a computer, is artificial.
Perhaps, but anything that is man-made is ALSO natural. The opposite of natural is not artificial, but supernatural.
It seems to be nothing more than human arrogance to regard a house as 'artificial' and a beehive as 'natural'.
Everything is natural (unless you believe in a supernatural God, in which case whatever God did 'against the laws of nature' would be supernatural) - humans are natural creatures, and human intelligence is natural intelligence - so why are the products of these natural ingredients 'unnatural'?
Seems to be a bias to exclude humans from 'nature', to elevate humans above the rest of the universe. Surprisingly this line of thinking is common in environmentalists who claim that humans are 'arrogant' in tinkering with 'nature' - perhaps it is the environmentalists who are arrogant in seeing themselves as distinct from the 'natural world'?
Originally posted by Mentat
And yet we don't consider a child's intelligence to be "artificial" in this sense, do we? I think this is a flaw in human reasoning: We made it, so it must be less real. And yet, we make humans all of the time, and those humans are not nearly as intelligent as we are (yet), but of course they aren't "artificial" because they're organic.
We dont make humans ... as in, we dont code their DNA.
But we do make computers - hardware and software. There's a difference.
As PsychoD explained, in the term AI, the emphasis is not on the quality of intelligence, but who codes/designs it. If it has been done through natural selection and random mutations ... then its "natural" and if it has been coded/designed by the brain of an entity who has been coded/designed by natural selection, then it is artificial.
The term has no other significance beyond that.
- S.
Originally posted by Siv
We dont make humans ... as in, we dont code their DNA.
But we do make computers - hardware and software. There's a difference.
As PsychoD explained, in the term AI, the emphasis is not on the quality of intelligence, but who codes/designs it. If it has been done through natural selection and random mutations ... then its "natural" and if it has been coded/designed by the brain of an entity who has been coded/designed by natural selection, then it is artificial.
The term has no other significance beyond that.
- S.
Then why do so many people use "Artificial" in the derogatory form? They think that the fact that it is "artificial" (man-made) is evidence of it's not being genuine.
Besides, we don't make the pieces of metal, or the electric currents, that we make use of in computers. The material is there, and what programs it shouldn't be a determining factor of whether it is genuine or not. Besides, Neandertal Man (for example) doesn't exist anymore because of Natural Selection, right? If this is so, then why do some assume that it had something to do with more intelligent humans? It's because Natural Selection can make use of intelligence, and has in the past. So, one shouldn't call something that is not a random occurance "unnatural", when it was caused by a force of Natural Selection (humans).
Also, not all forces of Natural Selection (even excluding humans) are random (e.g. Sexual Selection).
selfAdjoint
Apr29-03, 04:43 PM
I voted yes, artificial, but I distinguish two situations.
1) Some human artifact, say the web, becomes conscious without humans intending it. Then I could see the case for calling that intelligence natural. The hardware was constructed but not (specifically0 the intelligence.
2) Humans build some artifact that is intended to be conscious, and it works. Then the intelligence is just as much an artifact as a vacuum cleaner.
I believe the first - very primitive - forerunner of case (1) occured at Christmas time in 1963 or '64. The telephone network became saturated with calls, and it was later found that the switching network had devised and used a completely unexpected path from the east cost to the west using remote small-cap phone nets in Montana and such to bypass the congestion of the main circuits. The techs were flabbergasted. A mighty titan had stirred in its sleep.
This raised a point. Is mankind artificial, as we made our children through our actions? (eg. copulation, pregnancy etc etc)
RuroumiKenshin
Apr29-03, 10:37 PM
Artificial is usually used to describe non-biological things that don't occur in nature, naturally.
Yes, and people are continuing to refer to that definition of "artificial". Let me make it clear (again) that I absolutely agree that anything man-made is artificial, in that sense. Let me also clear up (again) that the definition of "artificial" that I don't think applies to man-made computer intelligence, is "not-genuine".
quantumcarl
Apr30-03, 01:57 PM
Humans are not the end-all be all of creation.
Therefore just as humans were created by nature... what humans create are a part of nature as well.
My definition here is that there is no such thing as "artifical". The universe has created all that is... including humans. Humans merely continue the process.
If "man-made" described artifical... then Mentat... and everyone else... is artifical.
Computers are tools of humans, so far... "artifacts"... per sey. At some point they may become independant of humans... but for now they are artifacts of the human species.
Philosophically,logically and in the large picture of things "artifical" does not exist.
I have abit different view on artificial. Maybe non-conventional understanding though.
Artificial is any system that is forced into existence by means that increase thermodynamic entropy.
Natural is any system that "condensates" into existence by means that decrease thermodynamic entropy.
In a closed system, balance of the two is maintained, thus entropy of a closed system doesn't change much.
Don't want to go in too deep, but basic idea is that to reshape a given stable system, external force must first act destructively to the internal balance of a system. This act is also destructive to external system, the result is increase of entropy.
When system is left alone, inside it localised condensates of stable subsystems emerge purely due to limited freedom imposed by laws compared to infinite freedom implied by randomness. Thus, entropy gets reduced spontaneously, creating stable systems. Think ice formation for eg. When entropy of a system is too high, formation is not possible, as it would be destructed immediately. Think about phase shifts, they are related to change in entropy.
So, to me it appears that definition of artificial depends on frame you consider as a system. Every time lighting strikes into mud, it artificially reshapes it. But earths ecosystem as a whole, its natural process.
Manmade computer is extremely destructive process at all levels around that box itself thats finally the product. So there is nothing genuine about it. Even software creation is as destructive.
Despite that, when software runs iteratively, and produces shapes or systems that are result of software rules rather than direct forcement, those shapes are genuine, natural. If they can become complex enough to "think", then so be it, natural intellect.
Unfortunately, current computers work by principle that makes this naturalness impossible. Computers are extremely destructive machines - every single bit of information is forced to a new state by destroying stable state of millions of electrons. There is absolutely no naturalness inside computers, except maybe that abstract program flow. This destructiveness is btw the main reason why computers consume increasingly more power and produce increasingly more heat.
And overwhelmingly most of the time computer is exactly as dumb as its programmer is.
From this reasoning its very difficult to say whether human baby is artificial body or not, but its intellect most probably is natural.
Originally posted by wimms
[B]I have abit different view on artificial. Maybe non-conventional understanding though.
Artificial is any system that is forced into existence by means that increase thermodynamic entropy.
Natural is any system that "condensates" into existence by means that decrease thermodynamic entropy.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics postulates that the entropy of a closed system must increase or remain constant. This would thus be the "natural" way, would it not?
Natural is here in meaning of non-artificial, genuine, nonforced.
Not to open can of worms, but I'm kind of guy who disrespects 2nd law of entropy anywhere else but in closed-system cyclic heat engine, applicable to specifically heat only...
If you mean on wide scale, then imo "natural" is that entropy remains same. In reality, it somewhere decreases, with corresponding increase elsewhere, and it is assumed that in general, it increases. I'm slightly surprised why ambient temperature is going down then. But its such a perverted term that its hard to make sense of it.
But with several semiclosed systems interacting, from perspective of a system, increase of entropy is not natural, its destructive. Of course, afterall, death is very natural phenomena..
Originally posted by wimms
Natural is here in meaning of non-artificial, genuine, nonforced.
Not to open can of worms, but I'm kind of guy who disrespects 2nd law of entropy anywhere else but in closed-system cyclic heat engine, applicable to specifically heat only...
If you mean on wide scale, then imo "natural" is that entropy remains same. In reality, it somewhere decreases, with corresponding increase elsewhere, and it is assumed that in general, it increases. I'm slightly surprised why ambient temperature is going down then. But its such a perverted term that its hard to make sense of it.
But with several semiclosed systems interacting, from perspective of a system, increase of entropy is not natural, its destructive. Of course, afterall, death is very natural phenomena..
Exactly. It's destructive nature is precisely what makes is natural.
heusdens
May3-03, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, in the sense of "artificial"'s meaning "man-made". However, the definition that I argue against, is that of not being genuine, or being "fake".
The argument then is not about the word "artificial" but about the word "inteligent". Can something articial be inteliigent?
I would assume it can.
RuroumiKenshin
May3-03, 09:52 PM
I agree. Something artificial can be intelligent. Computers in particular (there are other artificial things besides computers) can be intelligent, in the sense that they posses knowledge. They could attain knowledge, but not on their own. Is this genuine intelligence? What makes intelligence geniune?
Mentat, I'm starting to get the point. I apologize for not paying enough attention to the main point.[:((]
In view of the definition of "artificial" provided in the beginning of this thread, computers would most certainly be artificial, but that is not to say that they will not be capable of intelligence. In my opinion, saying that a computer will always be inferior to human beings in its ability to think is an insult to our own aspirations and abilities.
I recently had to write a paper for my high school critical thinking class about AI. If anyone is interested:
http://www25.brinkster.com/aleksey/paper.htm
Originally posted by Mentat
Exactly. It's destructive nature is precisely what makes is natural. What you mean, that there is no such thing as 'artificial', that everything is natural? That would destroy distinction between concepts of genuine and artificial. I'd still find them useful.
To go slightly further, consider degeneration of an intellect. Its natural by means of destructive environment. Consider knowledge obtained by experience - its genuine, selfmade, natural, opposed to destructive natural environament. Consider learned knowledge - its artificial, enforced from outside. Consider new induction made based upon that artificial knowledge, its genuine again. Consider you tell that knew knowledge to me, its artificial to me. And so on, these concepts are in constant relation and exchange.
RuroumiKenshin
May4-03, 10:29 PM
What you mean, that there is no such thing as 'artificial', that everything is natural? That would destroy distinction between concepts of genuine and artificial. I'd still find them useful.
Well, think about it. Everything that we make is created with essentially natural things. I could make a catapult and call it artificial, but technically, since I built it with wood, it is natural.
A computer is made up of microchips, which are made of silicon, which is made of (if I remember correctly) highly compressed sand. Sand is natural, therefore, it is tenable to say that silicon is natural since its basic existence was based on 'nautral' products. Natural in this sense could be subjective, do you think?
Originally posted by heusdens
The argument then is not about the word "artificial" but about the word "inteligent". Can something articial be inteliigent?
I would assume it can.
No, the argument is about thinking of artificial intelligence as somehow less genuine than animal intelligence.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I agree. Something artificial can be intelligent. Computers in particular (there are other artificial things besides computers) can be intelligent, in the sense that they posses knowledge. They could attain knowledge, but not on their own. Is this genuine intelligence? What makes intelligence geniune?
Mentat, I'm starting to get the point. I apologize for not paying enough attention to the main point.[:((]
Don't be, most people didn't get the point, at least not on their first post. I probably just wasn't clear enough with the question.
Anyway, your last two questions really strike the crux of the matter, and so I hope that they will get answers.
Originally posted by wimms
What you mean, that there is no such thing as 'artificial', that everything is natural? That would destroy distinction between concepts of genuine and artificial. I'd still find them useful.
Yes, everything is natural, because everthing exists within "Nature".
To go slightly further, consider degeneration of an intellect. Its natural by means of destructive environment. Consider knowledge obtained by experience - its genuine, selfmade, natural, opposed to destructive natural environament. Consider learned knowledge - its artificial, enforced from outside. Consider new induction made based upon that artificial knowledge, its genuine again. Consider you tell that knew knowledge to me, its artificial to me. And so on, these concepts are in constant relation and exchange.
You are misusing the word "artificial" here. Perhaps you should look it up in a dictionary. No offense implied, I just think you should reconcile your reasoning with the actual meaning(s) of the word "artificial".
heusdens
May7-03, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, everything is natural, because everthing exists within "Nature".
It is of course true that "artificial" is an artificial concept itself, nature does not have the concept of "artificial", but humans do. Yet, to humans, it is a meaningfull concept, and distringuishes between things that exist within nature (including man itself) that did not in any way depend on the existence of humans, for modifications to the natural reality.
Houses do not come into existence because of Nature alone, but because humans build them, despite the fact that all materials and even the energy used when building a house, arrive from nature.
RuroumiKenshin
May7-03, 10:49 PM
Yes, but how about artificial intelligence?
What heusdens said is key to answering the above question. Artificial intelligence is the result of human innovation. Like computers have a certain extent of artificial intelligence. They have artificial intelligence because they were built by humans.
What is artificial intelligence?
artificial intelligence classifies something that was created by humans, and posesses intelligence.
can intelligence really be artificial?
uhh....your turn!
[:D]
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, everything is natural, because everthing exists within "Nature". I have trouble understanding you. Do you want mankind to never use word artificial again? Why are words created? To distinguish something, not in infinite sense, but in relative sense. Its very obvious that term artificial is very relative. Whats good in reasoning that because everything is within nature, when you create something with your hands, its completely naturally appearing thing? Would you like to keep saying that computers naturally appeared on this planet, like another specie? Yes, you could, but WHY?
Why do we have concept of charge? Everything is neutral, because everything exists within nature? I think there is even term for such wordplay. What do you imply by 'everything'? All individual entities *together* taken, or any individual entity separately?
You are misusing the word "artificial" here. Perhaps you should look it up in a dictionary. No offense implied, I just think you should reconcile your reasoning with the actual meaning(s) of the word "artificial". hmm. I don't see it. How exactly did I misuse it? Of course I checked dict before posting. As any word in english, this has several meanings. Besides, ppl assign additional meanings.
You restrict artificial to only manmade. I dislike such human-centric view, and expand it to monkey-made, ant-made, etc. Then, its natural to expand this to also non-biological relations, and you notice pattern - closed system as a whole has no concept of artificial. Only relations between systems have meaning to 'artificial'. So, 'artifical' has sense only 'in relation to' specified entity. Computers are artifical to nature if compared to nature without man. For nature with man, they form closed system.
Can intelligence really be artificial? This is abit deeper question than it seems. You need to ask what is Intelligence in the first place. Not just stick with dictionary, but consider deeper meaning of it. Is mirror intelligent? Is river flowing in its riverbed intelligent? Is reflex reactions sign of intelligence? Is computer executing in its preprogrammed 'riverbed' intelligent?
At some point, there is a split between intelligence arisen from repeating of already known program, and intelligence that has capacity to create new knowledge from inadequate input data. Its called forced induction afaik. Decisions made based on adequate input data, like in case of past experience, is called free induction iirc. Its the main difference between animals and man. When animals confront situation not covered by their past experience, they have only one reaction in their program - fear.
So, induction based on solid facts is one side of the coin, and induction based on very shaky and uncertain ground is other side. Its very likely Nth degree of speculation and is highly likely false. Its the quality of such induction that makes humans special. Humans are equipped with brain that has capacity to change its decisions depending on change in quality of partial facts. Thus, although initially empty and very likely to fail, over the course of life all of the partial facts help to make successful induction. Its a system that evolves internally, and although all people are equipped equally, they develop very different levels of intelligence. Like same holographic plate can hold images with differing levels of details, dependant on parts of it.
Now, it may be easier to see that to copy knowledge of facts and their relations is only small part of intelligence. This can be easily done with computers. But to make computer intelligent on similar scale as humans, one needs first to equip them with ability to evolve, and then let them evolve over time. Even though we still don't know how brain is able to do that, if we suppose that we can copy that, its not enough to make intelligence. Even if we copy all partial facts of a given human, we replicate specific entity. But it has then capacity to evolve further than with what we equipped it with, and that part of it can't be really artificial. Such intelligence becomes genuine shortly even after being released from factory. Selfinteraction of a closed system with only partial inputs from outside leads to a whole that is much larger than the sum of its parts.
You can transfer (partial) facts, but you can't transfer understanding, its something inherent to an entity, and must happen inside.
Whether manmade computer with ability to do forced induction and that has developed IQ xxx over course of hundred years is artificial intelligence, in my view depends on difference between amount of intelligence transferred to it and amount it was able to develop on its own. If the difference is nil, its artificial, like manmade, if diff is large, its genuine. And I don't consider amount of factual data as intelligence, so knowledge != intelligence. Its not the knowledge that counts, but what you DO with it.
I voted yes it is artificial intellegence because of your included definition of artificial - not natural. I dispute that there is any real artificial intelligence about that of a flat worm or at best and ant. Whether or not there is it is still manufactured and not grown and therefore (there's that word again) is by your supplied definition artificial.
Originally posted by heusdens
It is of course true that "artificial" is an artificial concept itself, nature does not have the concept of "artificial", but humans do. Yet, to humans, it is a meaningfull concept, and distringuishes between things that exist within nature (including man itself) that did not in any way depend on the existence of humans, for modifications to the natural reality.
Houses do not come into existence because of Nature alone, but because humans build them, despite the fact that all materials and even the energy used when building a house, arrive from nature.
How is it that "humans build it" is different from "it came about naturally"? I understand that humans are very different from most other forms of nature, but that doesn't make them seperate from nature altogether.
Originally posted by wimms
I have trouble understanding you. Do you want mankind to never use word artificial again? Why are words created? To distinguish something, not in infinite sense, but in relative sense. Its very obvious that term artificial is very relative. Whats good in reasoning that because everything is within nature, when you create something with your hands, its completely naturally appearing thing? Would you like to keep saying that computers naturally appeared on this planet, like another specie? Yes, you could, but WHY?
"Naturally appeared"? This is the problem. No species just appeared out of nowhere, they were produced by natural causes. And, since humans are part of Nature, humans are a "natural cause". Thus, man-made computers are natural.
Why do we have concept of charge? Everything is neutral, because everything exists within nature? I think there is even term for such wordplay. What do you imply by 'everything'? All individual entities *together* taken, or any individual entity separately?
Both. All entities exist within the universe, don't they? If so, then all entities were produced naturally.
hmm. I don't see it. How exactly did I misuse it? Of course I checked dict before posting. As any word in english, this has several meanings. Besides, ppl assign additional meanings.
Well, you were using "artificial" to mean anything new. This is not so. "Artificial" means "crafted" (it can also mean "not genuine", which is, of course, the definition that I was refering to at the beginning of this thread).
You restrict artificial to only manmade. I dislike such human-centric view, and expand it to monkey-made, ant-made, etc.
No, I agree with that. This is just further proof that "artificial" things are really natural (as they occur in nature all of the time).
Then, its natural to expand this to also non-biological relations, and you notice pattern - closed system as a whole has no concept of artificial. Only relations between systems have meaning to 'artificial'. So, 'artifical' has sense only 'in relation to' specified entity. Computers are artifical to nature if compared to nature without man. For nature with man, they form closed system.
"Compared to nature without man"? If there were no humans, "artificial" intelligence wouldn't exist at all.
This is abit deeper question than it seems. You need to ask what is Intelligence in the first place. Not just stick with dictionary, but consider deeper meaning of it. Is mirror intelligent? Is river flowing in its riverbed intelligent? Is reflex reactions sign of intelligence? Is computer executing in its preprogrammed 'riverbed' intelligent?
I don't understand what "preprogrammed 'riverbed'" means. A computer doing what it was programmed to do is (of course) intelligent because what it was programmed to do is "be intelligent". I defined intelligence at the beginning of this thread, btw.
At some point, there is a split between intelligence arisen from repeating of already known program, and intelligence that has capacity to create new knowledge from inadequate input data.
But that capacity is "creativity", and (IMO) just requires more complex programming (like human programming).
Its the main difference between animals and man. When animals confront situation not covered by their past experience, they have only one reaction in their program - fear.
Humans are animals. Other animals' brains are not complex enough to respond creatively, but that doesn't make their intelligence "artificial" (meaning "not genuine"), does it?
Now, it may be easier to see that to copy knowledge of facts and their relations is only small part of intelligence. This can be easily done with computers. But to make computer intelligent on similar scale as humans, one needs first to equip them with ability to evolve, and then let them evolve over time.
Or force them to evolve beyond themsleves, as we have already done (from behemoth, primitive, chess-playing, computers to the common PC).
Originally posted by Mentat
"Naturally appeared"? .. humans are a "natural cause". Thus, man-made computers are natural. All entities exist within the universe, don't they? If so, then all entities were produced naturally. If you didn't notice yet, then I'm not arguing this. Thats too basic to even think about objecting.
Can you for a moment take a pause from repeating that word artificial has no absolute meaning, and try to think of its relative meaning?
Well, you were using "artificial" to mean anything new. This is not so. "Artificial" means "crafted" (it can also mean "not genuine", which is, of course, the definition that I was refering to at the beginning of this thread). Misunderstanding is on your part. I did NOT mean 'anything new'. Have you heard saying "not invented here"? If you accept something that I say for a fact and base your reasoning on it, then it falls to "not invented here" category, you copy knowledge, mimic, feign without any mental effort on your part. Then its artificial in regards to you, not because its new, but because its created by someone else and then imparted to you. It may be lie, it may be dangerous to your life, it may distress your mental stability. I'm crafting knowledge in you that you can either accept or resist. Its artificial knowledge in regards to you, alone.
But when you yell eureka, not because you've just discovered you're a boy, but because you've reached to valid and true conclusion based on awfully uncertain facts, then, even if its reinvented wheel, its genuine to you, its invented by you.
When you grow your own bone, its genuine, but if you'd be forced to get implanted substitute to bone, you'd call it artificial bone, not because its artificial to the universe, but only your body.
I don't understand what "preprogrammed 'riverbed'" means. A computer doing what it was programmed to do is (of course) intelligent because what it was programmed to do is "be intelligent". Programmed riverbed is about computer's freedom - its program flow is as defined as riverflow. If you confront computer with undefined facts, partial truths, unaccounted situations, it will fail, deadlock, crash. It has no capacity to reason, understand, manipulate and form abstract concepts. You can't program computer to 'be intelligent', you can only program it to 'look intelligent', and thats precisely why its called AI. In distant future, we might be able to program it to 'have capacity' to develop intelligence, but hardly any more.
But that capacity is "creativity", and (IMO) just requires more complex programming (like human programming). Bull's 'creativity' is bs. [;)] Humans call it art. Attaching label to it doesn't make it any simpler. You think its program thats more complex, but problem is that humans are uncapable to grasp even startingpoint for such program, not just writing it. Problem is in thinking, not doing it.
Have you ever programmed anything on computer? 'human programming', if thats what I think, is far far from computer programming, its training of existing program. To create as sophisticated program to be trained as that in human brain *may* stay unreachable to human intellect forever... Much like monkeys can stare at TV-set for ages without any chance to make one. Hopefully not, but its not 'just alittle more complex programming'.
You've been on about any thread that has word 'paradox' mentioned in it, now imagine writing a program that has to face em on about every corner.
Humans are animals. Other animals' brains are not complex enough to respond creatively, but that doesn't make their intelligence "artificial" (meaning "not genuine"), does it? Why did you say that animals' intelligence is artificial, and then argue that?? Certainly I didn't give any reason. Did you get distinction between free induction and forced induction? They both are parts of intelligence, and latter one extends on former one. My point was that we could mimic animal intelligence, and it might be indistinguishable from real one, but we cannot mimic the other one, its not defined, we only could build computer that can develop it on its own. Key to understand here is that it would need to operate with partial truths, swamp of paradoxes, partially defined variables and include more than is physically fitting it. Then you can apply 'human programming' to it and make it either smart or idiot. But unpredictable computer in mental distress is hardly what we'd call a PC.
Or force them to evolve beyond themsleves, as we have already done (from behemoth, primitive, chess-playing, computers to the common PC). PCs are same as they were in day 1 - as dumb as a mousetrap. They just increased in complexity, and shuffle more bits around in same amount of time. Quantity != IQ.
ps. I'm really not interested in arguing here. You asked for opinion, I gave mine. I'm not here for converting anyone.
Originally posted by wimms
If you didn't notice yet, then I'm not arguing this. Thats too basic to even think about objecting.
Can you for a moment take a pause from repeating that word artificial has no absolute meaning, and try to think of its relative meaning?
I was thinking of it's relative meaning, when I started out. I was thinking of it's meaning "not geniune" and how that didn't apply to man-made computer intelligence. It's not my fault that some of the members didn't get which definition of "artificial" I was talking about, but, since it turned into a discussion of a different kind of "artificial", I was explaining why that one doesn't apply either.
Misunderstanding is on your part. I did NOT mean 'anything new'. Have you heard saying "not invented here"? If you accept something that I say for a fact and base your reasoning on it, then it falls to "not invented here" category, you copy knowledge, mimic, feign without any mental effort on your part. Then its artificial in regards to you, not because its new, but because its created by someone else and then imparted to you.
So, because it was not my own invention, it is artificial?
It may be lie, it may be dangerous to your life, it may distress your mental stability. I'm crafting knowledge in you that you can either accept or resist. Its artificial knowledge in regards to you, alone.
Again, this is not what "artificial" means. It's "alien"/"foreign"/"external"/etc, but it's not artificial.
But when you yell eureka, not because you've just discovered you're a boy, but because you've reached to valid and true conclusion based on awfully uncertain facts, then, even if its reinvented wheel, its genuine to you, its invented by you.
"It's genuine to me"? Do you mean that I accept it's being genuine?
When you grow your own bone, its genuine, but if you'd be forced to get implanted substitute to bone, you'd call it artificial bone, not because its artificial to the universe, but only your body.
It's alien/foreign/new to my body, but it is a genuine replacement, and it was produced naturally.
Programmed riverbed is about computer's freedom - its program flow is as defined as riverflow. If you confront computer with undefined facts, partial truths, unaccounted situations, it will fail, deadlock, crash. It has no capacity to reason, understand, manipulate and form abstract concepts. You can't program computer to 'be intelligent', you can only program it to 'look intelligent', and thats precisely why its called AI.
This is not true at all. Simple example: Chess engines. A computer with a chess engine, can be confronted with a variation that was never programmed into it (as not all variations can be programmed into it, that's impossible), and it will respond.
Have you ever programmed anything on computer? 'human programming', if thats what I think, is far far from computer programming, its training of existing program.
Yes, "training of existing program". How's that different from what we do to man-made computers?
To create as sophisticated program to be trained as that in human brain *may* stay unreachable to human intellect forever... Much like monkeys can stare at TV-set for ages without any chance to make one.
Interesting point, however a monkey will never have the ambition/creativity/intelligence to even want to make one.
Hopefully not, but its not 'just alittle more complex programming'.
You've been on about any thread that has word 'paradox' mentioned in it, now imagine writing a program that has to face em on about every corner.
The computer within my skull has been faced with quite a few paradoxes, and I'm still alive. If I see that they can't be resolved, then I call their irresolvability a resolution. (Paradox applied to paradox, in case you didn't notice.)
Why did you say that animals' intelligence is artificial, and then argue that?? Certainly I didn't give any reason. Did you get distinction between free induction and forced induction? They both are parts of intelligence, and latter one extends on former one. My point was that we could mimic animal intelligence, and it might be indistinguishable from real one, but we cannot mimic the other one, its not defined, we only could build computer that can develop it on its own.
When humans have children, the children are endowed with a complex (genetic) program, which the children then expand on for the rest of their lives. How is this different from a man-made computer (setting aside the fact that a child's genetic programming is much more complex than a man-made computer's).
PCs are same as they were in day 1 - as dumb as a mousetrap. They just increased in complexity, and shuffle more bits around in same amount of time. Quantity != IQ.
What kind of sense does that make? If they are more complex, then they are not as "dumb" as they used to be.
ps. I'm really not interested in arguing here. You asked for opinion, I gave mine. I'm not here for converting anyone.
And your opinion happens to have enough merit for me to consider it worth debating. I hope this doesn't turn into an argument, but it is a debate, and there's nothing wrong with debates.
Originally posted by Mentat
So, because it was not my own invention, it is artificial?
Again, this is not what "artificial" means. It's "alien"/"foreign"/"external"/etc, but it's not artificial.
"It's genuine to me"? Do you mean that I accept it's being genuine?
It's alien/foreign/new to my body, but it is a genuine replacement, and it was produced naturally. You still haven't decided, do you mean artificial in absolute sense or only relative. You mix them all the time. You just switched relative meaning to absolute, and you get that bone was produced naturally. Who cares? Alien/foreign does not describe that it mimics and replaces your genuine bone. That what the word artificial is used for.
If you take artificial in relative sense, then you have immediately problem, where to draw the line. Think about it. I'm not saying that I must be right, I'm merely saying that you 'could' look at it that way. Thats more than dictionary allows.
If your body grows a bone, 'do you mean that you accept it's being genuine'? If you invent something new, it IS genuine. Its just not new to everyone. If I install forcibly belief in you, its not just alien/foreign, if you accept it and start using in reasoning, you've been programmed, some thoughts cloned.
Its just that you can view relations between closed systems in terms of genuine vs artificial. Its not conventional, and maybe mad, but thats one way.
Take Nature as closed system, take human as standing out of it, and after awhile putting a robot into Nature. Its artificial, to whom? So, what is teachings of parents to a baby? Artificial experience. You don't like that usage of word? Don't use it. How do I draw the line? I told that earlier. When two closed systems interact, they change each other. To reshape other system, you need to first overcome its strength, destroy old order and impress the new one. That makes heat, entropy. But when one system forms internally new order from excess heat, its selfinteraction, it consumes heat. This is the distinction. And of course, afterall, everything in nature is .. natural.
This is not true at all. Simple example: Chess engines. A computer with a chess engine, can be confronted with a variation that was never programmed into it (as not all variations can be programmed into it, that's impossible), and it will respond.You object invain. Its not variations, noone cares about them. Its conditions, methodologies, algoritms. Formulas, not values. Chess engines have been 100% defined. Its too simple game. For computer, all is defined when you describe rules of game and it has unambigous non-contradictionary perception of it. If other player makes false move, and it wasn't defined as false, computer would get lost. If rules of game were contradicitonary, it would be unable to resolve many situations. Imagine opponent making partial moves, 1/3 of one and 2/3 of other piece. If thats not defined as legal move, computer will stop/ignore. Its simple to define all chess rules, and comp will never fail. But it'll be amazingly dumb chessplayer. To go beyond that, you need to teach it truely 'think', and thats the tough one.
Intelligence is more than being able to react to black&white scenarios. In chess, there may be thousands of paths that seem all equal. Human will never think them all through, he will have intuition, 'tunnel vision'. Computer has only 1 option - try all through and while at that assign cost/benefit values for later decision. How it weighs values is defined 100% by algoritm, preprogrammed and 100% defined to avoid failure upon hitting unaccounted situation. Human decides without having even idea of cost/benefit, he may switch algoritms on the fly, create a new one, etc. Computer chess can never byitself create a new algoritm. It all must be preprogrammed.
Chess-engine has only one thing: capacity to play chess. It has no capacity to think.
To create an algoritm, intelligence of the creator must be higher than intelligence of an algoritm. Notice the contradiction. How on earth does intelligence in human brain develop is mystery. It does impossible - monkey mind writes physics textbooks, monkey creates einsteins.
Yes, "training of existing program". How's that different from what we do to man-made computers?
The computer within my skull has been faced with quite a few paradoxes, and I'm still alive. If I see that they can't be resolved, then I call their irresolvability a resolution. (Paradox applied to paradox, in case you didn't notice.)We don't train computers, we define them. They have no room for error, and that means no room for selfintelligence. Your skull is not finished yet, it develops, creates its own program. That will stop somewhere in your life, and after that you'd be 'old school' guy.
When humans have children, the children are endowed with a complex (genetic) program, which the children then expand on for the rest of their lives. How is this different from a man-made computer (setting aside the fact that a child's genetic programming is much more complex than a man-made computer's).Children are endowed with BIOS only. The rest gets created by them. They have capacity to reprogram themselves, and not only logically, but also physically redesign the 'computer'. DNA has only very small amount of 'functions' needed to sustain the body. Intelligence gets birth inside brain, with only partial help from outside. The quality of stuff that comes from outside, pretty much shapes the limits of a brain. There is a reason for saying 'food for mind'.
What kind of sense does that make? If they are more complex, then they are not as "dumb" as they used to be.ok, imagine small heap of sand. simple. Imagine huge mountain. Magnitudes more sand, much more complex. Is the mountain 'smarter'? Ok, lets build laserguided, electronically controlled, programmable, infrared-sensitive ... mousetrap. Its more complex, is it smarter? Can it 'think'?
If you take artificial in relative sense, then you have immediately problem, where to draw the line. Think about it. I'm not saying that I must be right, I'm merely saying that you 'could' look at it that way. Thats more than dictionary allows.
You don't draw the line. You accept that one thing is "more" artificial than the other. The drawing of the line is an absolutist concept.
Intelligence is more than being able to react to black&white scenarios. In chess, there may be thousands of paths that seem all equal. Human will never think them all through, he will have intuition, 'tunnel vision'. Computer has only 1 option - try all through and while at that assign cost/benefit values for later decision. How it weighs values is defined 100% by algoritm, preprogrammed and 100% defined to avoid failure upon hitting unaccounted situation. Human decides without having even idea of cost/benefit, he may switch algoritms on the fly, create a new one, etc. Computer chess can never byitself create a new algoritm. It all must be preprogrammed.
Now that is unjustified. How do you know that humans don't consider options? What evidence suggests is that humans go down a list of most likely things to do that they considered previous, and sorted against how successful they are before etc. Why do you believe that humans don't use algorithms he learned from experience too?
And computers can self-program. Read up on genetic and evolutionary algorithms, and the newest chess computer "Deep Junior". Most chess computers now feature the production of their own algorithm to counter the thinking algorithms, or "habits" of individual players.
Chess-engine has only one thing: capacity to play chess. It has no capacity to think.
That's because you have restricted it to playing chess. Learning computer programs can learn to do anything - including thinking.
To create an algoritm, intelligence of the creator must be higher than intelligence of an algoritm.
How do you judge the intelligence of an algorithm? Do you sit it through an IQ test? [:D] And the fact remains that evolution allows algorithms to be developed without an intelligence at all.
And from this, why can't a computer think?
How on earth does intelligence in human brain develop is mystery. It does impossible - monkey mind writes physics textbooks, monkey creates einsteins.
It isn't a mystery. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Basic tenet of neural networking.
We don't train computers, we define them. They have no room for error, and that means no room for selfintelligence. Your skull is not finished yet, it develops, creates its own program. That will stop somewhere in your life, and after that you'd be 'old school' guy.
But some computers can be trained. Some computers are made with a capacity for learning. Instinct doesn't train mankind - it defines us. But we can rise beyond that instinct can't we? Then computers can rise beyond their programming.
Children are endowed with BIOS only. The rest gets created by them. They have capacity to reprogram themselves, and not only logically, but also physically redesign the 'computer'. DNA has only very small amount of 'functions' needed to sustain the body. Intelligence gets birth inside brain, with only partial help from outside. The quality of stuff that comes from outside, pretty much shapes the limits of a brain. There is a reason for saying 'food for mind'.
But do they redesign themselves? I contend, for fun, that the external environment redesigns them. Like we may be the external environment in redesigning a computer.
DNA only has a small amount of functions? You must be joking. And in alot of the cases, we simply cannot exceed our programming - our hormones, instincts force us along. Children are endowed with a BIOS and operating system, and programmed along the way with software through the senses.
ok, imagine small heap of sand. simple. Imagine huge mountain. Magnitudes more sand, much more complex. Is the mountain 'smarter'? Ok, lets build laserguided, electronically controlled, programmable, infrared-sensitive ... mousetrap. Its more complex, is it smarter? Can it 'think'?
Imagine one cell. Can it think? Let make it more complicated, build a body. I think it can think now, can't it? Whether it becomes smarter depends on the form you make with it, as well as the complexity. If the complexity is arranged in a way to allow a mind, then it would be smarter. If a computer is made more complex with an aim to duplicate the mind, it can and will duplicate a mind.
Originally posted by FZ+
Now that is unjustified. How do you know that humans don't consider options? What evidence suggests is that humans go down a list of most likely things to do that they considered previous, and sorted against how successful they are before etc. Why do you believe that humans don't use algorithms he learned from experience too?I didn't say any of that. not even remotely close. If you play chess by evaluating each possible move, you'll loose to 8yr old. If you can describe your algoritms, they'd like to hear you. Sure you do use some, but you also create them from experience.
And computers can self-program. Read up on genetic and evolutionary algorithms, and the newest chess computer "Deep Junior". Most chess computers now feature the production of their own algorithm to counter the thinking algorithms, or "habits" of individual players.Self-program and algoritm creation are different. Viruses self-program. No big deal. What evolutionary algorithms? That what researches try out and then spend life to understand what happened, without any prior understanding?
And my point was precisely - we can give computers basis to evolve, the rest they have to do themselves. Our problem is to give even basis that survives.
How do you judge the intelligence of an algorithm? Do you sit it through an IQ test? [:D] And the fact remains that evolution allows algorithms to be developed without an intelligence at all.
And from this, why can't a computer think?So far it isn't allowed to. Intelligence of algoritm? Dunno, maybe you measure whole ratio to the sum of parts using it...
I didn't say computer can't think. I said it doesn't think, and won't in quite some time.
It isn't a mystery. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Basic tenet of neural networking.Sorry, I didn't know that here are ppl who build 'thinking machines' like pancakes... If you say so, then its soo easy...
But some computers can be trained. Some computers are made with a capacity for learning. Instinct doesn't train mankind - it defines us. But we can rise beyond that instinct can't we? Then computers can rise beyond their programming. Instincts define us. Computers cannot be trained. Some, research computers can be 'trained' experimentally, which is basically to adapt to specific case. Hell, my automatic tranny adapts to me - trained. Yes we rise beyond our instincts. No, computers cannot rise beyond their programming, its limited by our programming. When we learn to program them evolutionary mumbojumbo that is capable of learning, evolving, and creating its own algoritms, all that without fatal crash bugs, and that doesn't get limited at 3yr old retard level of IQ, then yes, computers will take off.
But notice major point: we don't program them to be intelligent, we give them capacity to become intelligent. And thats where artificial part ends. Our job is to provide best package possible, the rest is beyond us.
Imagine one cell. Can it think? Let make it more complicated, build a body. I think it can think now, can't it? Whether it becomes smarter depends on the form you make with it, as well as the complexity. If the complexity is arranged in a way to allow a mind, then it would be smarter. If a computer is made more complex with an aim to duplicate the mind, it can and will duplicate a mind. nice logic. Dinasaurs were abit larger than humans, that means helluva lot more cells, don't you think? I imagine brontos playing chess now. You seem to think that 'If the complexity is arranged in a way allow a mind' is the tiny-tiny step just left to be made. Its the major problem. Much bigger than making 100THz Pentium78 and putting some few thousands together, or making a manned mission to jupiter.
There was a massively paraller computer made, Thinking Machines, it had 65K small cpus, like neural net. Awesome box. It died. Guess why? Human mind is unable to program so massively parallel computer. See, its not a technology issue.
I didn't say any of that. not even remotely close. If you play chess by evaluating each possible move, you'll loose to 8yr old. If you can describe your algoritms, they'd like to hear you. Sure you do use some, but you also create them from experience.
And why can't computers do the same?
What evolutionary algorithms? That what researches try out and then spend life to understand what happened, without any prior understanding?
Basically, it's to couple a degree of randomness to a selector that lets the best surivive. These then develop themselves to produce their own programming - often even better than a human could think up. That's programming, creating their own algorithms, without a programmer.
I didn't say computer can't think. I said it doesn't think, and won't in quite some time.
Ah... sorry... confusion on my part.
Should...read...whole...post....[g)]
Sorry, I didn't know that here are ppl who build 'thinking machines' like pancakes... If you say so, then its soo easy...
Not like pancakes no... Heh. But I think we have a theoretical beginning on how such a machine can work, modeled on our understanding of the brain at the moment. Currently it is thought that thought is the product of a sort of mini-evolution in the brain, in terms of competing impulses and stuff. It's a mega-network of small, semi-intelligent bits that work together in harmony.
But notice major point: we don't program them to be intelligent, we give them capacity to become intelligent. And thats where artificial part ends. Our job is to provide best package possible, the rest is beyond us.
Hmm... interesting point.... I sort of agree - the thoughts themselves cannot be determined by programming, as then it wouldn't be intelligence.
nice logic. Dinasaurs were abit larger than humans, that means helluva lot more cells, don't you think? I imagine brontos playing chess now. You seem to think that 'If the complexity is arranged in a way allow a mind' is the tiny-tiny step just left to be made. Its the major problem. Much bigger than making 100THz Pentium78 and putting some few thousands together, or making a manned mission to jupiter.
There was a massively paraller computer made, Thinking Machines, it had 65K small cpus, like neural net. Awesome box. It died. Guess why? Human mind is unable to program so massively parallel computer. See, its not a technology issue.
Yes and no. It has been suggested that intelligence is based on the ratio of body mass to brain size. While the bronto have a big brain, most of the cells were busy just keeping it alive, and hence a very small part of it was freed up in the frontal lobe to do things not essential to survival... like certain board games. While the bronto brain had complexity, that complexity was specialised for other things.
No, that is not a tiny step. Sorry if I gave that impression. The problem is the core principles of our current computing. Our current computing is based strictly on formal logic - a determined processor, held at each point by programming. Extend that, and you just get the same thing, the problem being that the programs themselves can't keep up. WE can't keep up.
When is parallel computing successful then? When we exploit the fact that there are such sub-divisions. Notice the tremendous success of the SETI@Home project. For the success of AI, we need
(a) processors with a degree of randomness - perhaps quantum computing, or fuzzy logic can be the key,
(b) processors that function individually, but can communicate, and
(c) a whole new dynamic to programming - no longer instructions, but situations to react to.
That's what I meant by "aim to duplicate the mind".
Originally posted by wimms
You still haven't decided, do you mean artificial in absolute sense or only relative. You mix them all the time.
Yes, well it is one word.
You just switched relative meaning to absolute, and you get that bone was produced naturally. Who cares? Alien/foreign does not describe that it mimics and replaces your genuine bone. That what the word artificial is used for.
Then any child's intelligence must be artificial, right?
Take Nature as closed system, take human as standing out of it
That's what everyone does, and it's what I'm arguing against.
So, what is teachings of parents to a baby? Artificial experience. You don't like that usage of word? Don't use it.
No, if I don't like that usage of the word, then it may (just may) be incorrect usage.
You object invain. Its not variations, noone cares about them. Its conditions, methodologies, algoritms. Formulas, not values. Chess engines have been 100% defined. Its too simple game.
I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood chess enormously! Chess is a system that is part mathematics, part variations, part dynamics, and part "chess logic".
For computer, all is defined when you describe rules of game and it has unambigous non-contradictionary perception of it. If other player makes false move, and it wasn't defined as false, computer would get lost. If rules of game were contradicitonary, it would be unable to resolve many situations.
I wouldn't even be able to play a game with contradictory rules!
Chess-engine has only one thing: capacity to play chess. It has no capacity to think.
If you think that you can play Chess without thinking, then you're obviously not a chess player (to say the least).
To create an algoritm, intelligence of the creator must be higher than intelligence of an algoritm. Notice the contradiction. How on earth does intelligence in human brain develop is mystery. It does impossible - monkey mind writes physics textbooks, monkey creates einsteins.
"Intelligence must be higher than intelligence of an algorithm"? What intelligence does an algorithm have?
ok, imagine small heap of sand. simple. Imagine huge mountain. Magnitudes more sand, much more complex. Is the mountain 'smarter'?
No, just like a whale isn't smarter than me (that's debateable, but... [;)]).
Ok, lets build laserguided, electronically controlled, programmable, infrared-sensitive ... mousetrap. Its more complex, is it smarter? Can it 'think'?
A molecule is more complex than an atom but it can't think. The more complex the brain (Central Processing Unit), the more intelligent the computer.
Originally posted by Mentat
Then any child's intelligence must be artificial, right? Not child's intelligence, child's knowledge. You cannot impart intelligence to a child. It is something that can only be inherent to a brain.
I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood chess enormously! Chess is a system that is part mathematics, part variations, part dynamics, and part "chess logic".
If you think that you can play Chess without thinking, then you're obviously not a chess player (to say the least).Yeah, I was afraid you'll get hot on word 'simple'. You missed my point though. Simple are chess rules. They are defined. How you play within those rules, is completely undefined and different story. There are only so many rough recommendations, the rest is pure exercise of intellect. Not so for computers, they play the game with brute force computations. They use set of preprogrammed algorithms. An those algorithms are again fully defined, not what they do. Without that comp runs risk to hit undefined path of computation and crash. What they do is to find out best strategy from zillions of possible and weigh them. Comps can do magnitudes more of such comparisons than human, and so its matter of time only when computer will play chess better than humans, technically.
Chess has very many facets, including strategy to exhaust the other intellect, emotional warfare, recognition of opponents experience in famous games, his preference in them, defraud, style. All those things go far outside scope of just computation. To use them, one has to engage much more and much wider intellect than its needed just on the board. Computers can't and don't do that. Often thats when they loose pathetically.
I understand chess enough. Decade ago I was engaged in coding few chess algoritms. Pathetic by our standards, but I learned that its very easy to deceive human into thinking he has intelligent opponent.
Heck, you can buy chess 'calculator' for few bucks and it'll play damn good chess for any average mortal.
Finally, don't forget that chess-engines can do only one thing - play chess. They are specialised, can't drive a car, etc. How much effort has been put into creating deep junior? Enormous. Yet, its just chess.
I wouldn't even be able to play a game with contradictory rules!Yes, but you could argue with the opponent up to some exchange of fire or cache, and sort it out so that you can restart the game or one of you is 'dead'. In any case, you won't 'crash'.
"Intelligence must be higher than intelligence of an algorithm"? What intelligence does an algorithm have?What intelligence does genetic evolutionary algorithms in deep junior have? Go figure. But when you put many algorithms to compete with each other, some will come out winners. 'intelligence' in quotes of course, don't go into semantics again.
A molecule is more complex than an atom but it can't think. The more complex the brain (Central Processing Unit), the more intelligent the computer. I'm confused all the way. How do you specifically understand 'complex'? Have it never occured to you, that complexity of CPU has nothing to do with its ability to think? It is prerequisite, yes, but not the answer. In computer, its software that defines its behaviour. Hardware is just tools to do that within reasonable timeframe. Haven't you ever met a person who is dumber than his dog? Have you heard that even best of humans engage just a fraction of capacity of our brain? Think about it, so big brain, and possibly so dumb person.
Originally posted by FZ+
And why can't computers do the same? Because that needs capacity for abstraction and rationalization from incomplete, uncertain and ambigous experience, often nth degree of speculation. Not even in close future.
To improve algoritm, one needs to get out of the loop and above the problem, to see abstractly the problem and applicability of existing solution. From 'inside', there is only one option - action-reaction type selfadaption. It is limiting possibilities enormously.
Basically, it's to couple a degree of randomness to a selector that lets the best surivive. These then develop themselves to produce their own programming - often even better than a human could think up. That's programming, creating their own algorithms, without a programmer. Right. But do you think thats a cheap bingo? What if none survives? What if such runaway selfprogramming hits a deadend, deadlock? What if criteria for best selection is stupid? What if 'often' means actually 1 in a million?
Here lies the complexity of another kind. We need to invent algoritms that evolve, and don't reach their limits at levels of 3yr old retard, but go further. Thats difficult. Its like trying to give 1 million balls specific initial accelerations, so that in few weeks after we let them go, they form any wanted geometric shapes after zillions of times colliding with each other. Difficulty is not in making evolution possible, difficulty is in making sure it doesn't stop after few 'generations' and dissolve into random noise.
Anyway, its fascinating area of research. You really start looking at computers as at living things.
But I think we have a theoretical beginning on how such a machine can work, modeled on our understanding of the brain at the moment. Currently it is thought that thought is the product of a sort of mini-evolution in the brain, in terms of competing impulses and stuff. It's a mega-network of small, semi-intelligent bits that work together in harmony. I'm not uptodate in brain research, dunno. I only think that its quite abit more difficult than that. Holographic-like memory. Operating not on bit levels, but with abstract images of concepts, thus to a degree insensitive to individual 'bits'. Technical/technological details are imo secondary, although issues are not - we don't want intelligent computer to be size of moon. With details I mean its to a degree irrelevant how we deliver signals, its how they interact algorithmically that counts.
When brain needs to solve problem it hasn't faced before, it somehow engages parts of brain unrelated to the problem, creates sort of many-to-one focus. By that, it extends problem at hand over whole baggage of experience it has, and by that detaches from inside the problem to 'above' it. And even though experience it uses isn't applicable, it helps to make the forced induction, turn the scale. After such induction, solution becomes part of experience, used in future to make induction in other areas. This way, bigger whole is used to make progress in smaller areas. Its something like physicists engaging experience from mathmatics, or even from behaviour of cats as species. Sometimes, unexpected analogies can help. So yes, there is evolution.
What computers lack, is that critical threshold of abstract experience, they can't detach from the problem at hand, they remain 'inside'. They can't solve problems without external help.
If you think about brain, then alot of experience it has comes from external world, from books, talks, education. All that knowledge becomes part of 'baggage' used for thinking. None of the knowledge is rocksolid, alot of the 'baggage' can be actually crap. Can you sense the reason for 'beliefs' and religion here? Its normal, and any brain consists of beliefs, its actually the only possible way, without that, it can't be interally consistent. If that brakes, mind goes nuts. Human programming is basically imparting the 'baggage' so that his belief system changes in wanted direction. Very dangerous to consistency if converting mind to opposites. But thats basically what our education is. It speeds up our 'baggage' creation and makes sure its in same direction as rest of mankind.
I wonder if we'll ever see computer that 'believes' it is Napoleon..
Our current computing is based strictly on formal logic - a determined processor, held at each point by programming. Extend that, and you just get the same thing, the problem being that the programs themselves can't keep up. WE can't keep up.
When is parallel computing successful then? When we exploit the fact that there are such sub-divisions. Notice the tremendous success of the SETI@Home project. For the success of AI, we need
(a) processors with a degree of randomness - perhaps quantum computing, or fuzzy logic can be the key,
(b) processors that function individually, but can communicate, and
(c) a whole new dynamic to programming - no longer instructions, but situations to react to.SETI is not good example. It is brute force approach. It scales well, but has very little capacity for intelligence. On rest I agree with you, but with few reservations:
I don't think any randomness is needed. Uncertainty of external world is enough. Fuzzy logic is imo indeed a key, and quantum computing, but not because of uncertainty, but because we need enormous amount of computing power in crazily small volumes. Superpositions of quantums gives specific benefits that can't be mimiced well with digital computers. Individual processors is also not required, its more like processes that count.
And yes, that programming. Its the major beast to concur, its complete change in our programming thinking. Although underlying may be oldstyle instructions. Its just too much programming and too complex for ordinary mortal to grasp.
Anyway, our PC's are nowhere near all of the above, they are dumb. Chess-engines are extremely limited in scope, always 'inside', and thus only adaptive, not creative. I believe that quantum computing would be the kicker for computer intelligence, mainly because its impossible to apply classical programming there, so new kind of programming will be forced to have sharp advances.
Originally posted by wimms
Not child's intelligence, child's knowledge. You cannot impart intelligence to a child. It is something that can only be inherent to a brain.
That's completely incorrect, as 1) intelligence and knowledge are not so easily seperable; and 2) it is a "Nature" over "Nurture" view-point, when (IMO) the reality lies within the mix of both.
Yeah, I was afraid you'll get hot on word 'simple'. You missed my point though. Simple are chess rules. They are defined. How you play within those rules, is completely undefined and different story. There are only so many rough recommendations, the rest is pure exercise of intellect. Not so for computers, they play the game with brute force computations. They use set of preprogrammed algorithms. An those algorithms are again fully defined, not what they do.
I happen to know that there are chess engines that learn from each game, and form patterns (like a human does). I also happen to know that a certain amount understanding of the dynamics of chess (which is what usually seperates human chess-players from chess engines) can be imparted to a man-made computer.
Chess has very many facets, including strategy to exhaust the other intellect, emotional warfare, recognition of opponents experience in famous games, his preference in them, defraud, style. All those things go far outside scope of just computation. To use them, one has to engage much more and much wider intellect than its needed just on the board. Computers can't and don't do that. Often thats when they loose pathetically.
Actually, they can be made to do just that. In fact, ChessMaster 7000 has made it so you can play against Josh Waitzkin's style of you so choose, and this is from the computer's having memorized Josh's games (like a human would do, only better), and developing his style.
Anyway, the Chess engine discussion is really pointless, as I was just trying to make the point that a man-made computer's intelligence is/can-be a mirror of our own.
Yes, but you could argue with the opponent up to some exchange of fire or cache, and sort it out so that you can restart the game or one of you is 'dead'. In any case, you won't 'crash'.
People who are obssesed with chess might. And that's really the point, as any computer (artificial or otherwise) can simply ignore chess if it so chooses, unless it is pre-disposed to care about nothing else.
Also, please remember that I am not trying to put man-made computers at an equal level of complexity to a human. I'm merely saying that there intelligence is not "less genuine", even if it has less of it (after all, an infant has greater intelligence than an adult, but that doesn't mean that the adult's intelligence is less genuine).
I'm confused all the way. How do you specifically understand 'complex'? Have it never occured to you, that complexity of CPU has nothing to do with its ability to think? It is prerequisite, yes, but not the answer.
How can it's complexity have nothing to do with it, and yet be a pre-requisite?
In computer, its software that defines its behaviour. Hardware is just tools to do that within reasonable timeframe.
Much like a human.
Haven't you ever met a person who is dumber than his dog? Have you heard that even best of humans engage just a fraction of capacity of our brain? Think about it, so big brain, and possibly so dumb person.
It's not about how big the brain is (a whale's brain is bigger than mine). It's about how complex the brain is, and how fast it computes.
Originally posted by wimms
What computers lack, is that critical threshold of abstract experience, they can't detach from the problem at hand, they remain 'inside'. They can't solve problems without external help.
I'm puzzled by your use of the word 'inside,' or the idea of 'detatching from the problem at hand.' This, as Mentat described it pretty well, would be only a matter of complexity. Computers don't look at the broader picture because they were never programmed to do that. 'Detatching' would be just another aspect of the computer's AI software.
By the way, you are aware that there are programs that have effectively found matematical proofs better than their human counterparts? With that in mind, is 'detatching from the problem at hand' really all that necessary?
Dj Sneaky Whiskers
May12-03, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by C0mmie
By the way, you are aware that there are programs that have effectively found matematical proofs better than their human counterparts? With that in mind, is 'detatching from the problem at hand' really all that necessary?
The debate on the significance of using computers in finding rigorous proofs within mathematics is still raging, as such, it's hard to see how they could be categorised as 'better' since a few mathematicians are unsure as to whether or not they can validly be taken to constitute as 'proofs'. Unless of course you're talking about 'applied' proofs, where you're just jugling around already established functions (i.e. using cos^2 x + sin^2 x = 1 to prove cos 2x = 1 - 2sin^2 x) rather than rigorous proofs in analysis. In the latter case, the subject of what can be called a proof is one which requires a mainly philosophical approach, and, as such, possible conclusions are going to be argued over for a long time to come yet.
Originally posted by C0mmie
I'm puzzled by your use of the word 'inside,' or the idea of 'detatching from the problem at hand.' This, as Mentat described it pretty well, would be only a matter of complexity. Computers don't look at the broader picture because they were never programmed to do that. 'Detatching' would be just another aspect of the computer's AI software. We mix all the time what computer can do today, and what computer could do in future. Also, I have no idea what you ppl mean by word 'complex'. Forest is complex, water is complex, Sun is damn complex, heck, single atom is complex, brain of a child is complex. That does not guarantee intelligence. Child without guidance and sensations will never become intelligent. Just being complex is not enough.
'Detaching' yet another aspect of programming? Don't you find that to 'detach', AI must have those other 'aspects' to consult with? okay, suppose. But have you heard of combinatorial explosion? Do you have any idea of how many 'yet another aspects' would one need to program computer intelligence, and how much effort each one of them would require? Sure, one might think that its possible. But consider this: it has been statistically observed to be almost law, that for every 1000 lines of code, humans will make at least 1 bug. For every N bugfixes, they'll make another bug. When calculated, this leads to observation that limit for coding single software is around 2-5M lines (don't remember exact figures). After that, code will have thousands of bugs and each bugfix will make more bugs than there are fixed. This is no technological problem, but pure human factor, humans are unable to keep concentration with that vast task. Windows 2000 alone has more than 1M lines of code. Sure, thats not hard limit, but it hints on very real limit. While coding AI would require magnitudes more lines of code. So there's a good reason to assume that humans will never be able to program CI, its beyond our mental ability today.
Originally posted by Mentat
How can it's complexity have nothing to do with it, and yet be a pre-requisite? How can 'Existence' have nothing to do with thinking, and yet be a pre-requisite? How can you program if there is nothing to program, or you can't fit your program?
You seem to believe that if we stuff together few tons of neurons, then that mass would become intelligent?
Complexity is bunch of related simplicities. Any complex thing, if you look close enough will look quite simple. Its not the bunch, and not simplicities that matter, but relations. Stupid relations won't yield intelligence, but noise. Random relations would yield random noise. Its the relations that are difficult to invent. Creating smart relations is not much different from programming software, subject to similar human limitations.
I don't understand how can you take complexity like for granted, 'only a matter of complexity'. The complexity of relations you might mean is the product, bunch of simplicities is prerequisite. To say that its 'only a matter of complexity' is to say nothing. Its like saying that intelligence is just matter of intelligence.
To create a thinking computer, we have to go from bunch of simplicities all the way to intelligence. We are likely to fail. We could create a playground for chaos that would create its relations byitself via repeating selfinteractions, and might start evolution on its own. This also has odds of 1 against 10Ebillions to succeed. It takes enormous effort to create human level intelligence, not 'just complexity'.
Somehow, we'll succeed, hopefully. But we are nowhere near that. Today we have only fake imitations that deceive us, without having even remotely ability to think.
LogicalAtheist
May13-03, 04:09 AM
For mentat to saw "humans are computers" is absurd.
You also failed to define any other type of intelligence other than artifical. If there is a need, which there is, to identifiy artificalness, then what's the other option.
I think this is a classic case of someone being emotional over words.
Humans defined artificial to mean a certain thing. Now you're going and saying it doesn't mean that. Well, yes it does because that's the meaning WE GAVE IT. In other words, you're saying the brown cow isn't brown, or better yet a cow isn't a cow.
Regardless of the fact that you're speaking of intelligence, computers, or humans, your argument can quickly be ruined as I did above, using simple logic.
Even if it wasn't so easily ruined, you failed to define types of intelligence. Even so, you would have given them definitions that were emotionally satisfying to you, and not definitions that fit with what humans consider to be their meanings.
DOn't take offense to this. It's just that I read your post and so quickly formulated all this, it's my fingers that took the time here not my brain.
If you DO take offense, turn that energy into removing the emotions you have in this case and use instead logic to criticize your own argument
GOod luck [:D]
You also failed to define any other type of intelligence other than artifical. If there is a need, which there is, to identifiy artificalness, then what's the other option.
Non human intelligence. Intelligence that has nothing to do with mankind.
Humans defined artificial to mean a certain thing. Now you're going and saying it doesn't mean that. Well, yes it does because that's the meaning WE GAVE IT. In other words, you're saying the brown cow isn't brown, or better yet a cow isn't a cow.
No sire. Rather that the terms we gave it are open to interpretation. One person's idea of brown may well be different from anothers. The common visualised idea of artifical is indeed contradictory with the strict dictionary definition.
Originally posted by wimms
Also, I have no idea what you ppl mean by word 'complex'. Forest is complex, water is complex, Sun is damn complex, heck, single atom is complex, brain of a child is complex. That does not guarantee intelligence. Child without guidance and sensations will never become intelligent. Just being complex is not enough.
I'm talking about a complex system, whose purpose is to think. The more complex this thinking machine is, the better it will be at it.
But have you heard of combinatorial explosion? Do you have any idea of how many 'yet another aspects' would one need to program computer intelligence, and how much effort each one of them would require?
Combinatorial explosion can occur in the brain of human as well.
How can 'Existence' have nothing to do with thinking, and yet be a pre-requisite? How can you program if there is nothing to program, or you can't fit your program?
I didn't say that "existence" had nothing to do with thinking. I asked you why you said that complexity had nothing to do with thinking, and then said that it was a pre-requisite.
You seem to believe that if we stuff together few tons of neurons, then that mass would become intelligent?
I'm going to try to be even more clear than I have been (if that's possible): Complex does not mean massive.
Complexity is bunch of related simplicities. Any complex thing, if you look close enough will look quite simple. Its not the bunch, and not simplicities that matter, but relations.
Exactly, so if the relations are complex enough, the computer can be as intelligent as a human, right?
I don't understand how can you take complexity like for granted, 'only a matter of complexity'. The complexity of relations you might mean is the product, bunch of simplicities is prerequisite. To say that its 'only a matter of complexity' is to say nothing. Its like saying that intelligence is just matter of intelligence.
Hey, you were the one that said that complexity alone couldn't produce intelligence equal to a humans.
To create a thinking computer, we have to go from bunch of simplicities all the way to intelligence. We are likely to fail. We could create a playground for chaos that would create its relations byitself via repeating selfinteractions, and might start evolution on its own. This also has odds of 1 against 10Ebillions to succeed. It takes enormous effort to create human level intelligence, not 'just complexity'.
The enormous human effort would be toward achieving complexity.
Somehow, we'll succeed, hopefully. But we are nowhere near that. Today we have only fake imitations that deceive us, without having even remotely ability to think.
"Think" doesn't mean "be creative", like you are making it seem. "Think" just means to "compute".
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
For mentat to say "humans are computers" is absurd.
Ok. Perhaps you should explain why, as I don't see it's absurdity. Are our brains not computers?
You also failed to define any other type of intelligence other than artifical. If there is a need, which there is, to identifiy artificalness, then what's the other option.
Well, in the sense of "artificial" that I was talking about at the beginning of this thread, the other option is "genuine".
I think this is a classic case of someone being emotional over words.
Yes, I am the PF king of semantics, and don't you forget it [:))].
Humans defined artificial to mean a certain thing. Now you're going and saying it doesn't mean that. Well, yes it does because that's the meaning WE GAVE IT. In other words, you're saying the brown cow isn't brown, or better yet a cow isn't a cow.
What did humans define "artificial" to mean, pray tell?
Regardless of the fact that you're speaking of intelligence, computers, or humans, your argument can quickly be ruined as I did above, using simple logic.
You did nothing of the kind.
DOn't take offense to this.
Of course not.
It's just that I read your post and so quickly formulated all this, it's my fingers that took the time here not my brain.
Let's try thinking before typing, to avoid "swiss cheese logic", shall we (no offense)?
GOod luck [:D]
Thanks. [:)]
LogicalAtheist
May13-03, 02:05 PM
Although mentat has made false statements surely unknowlingly as I don't doubt honest, and although he has broken rule 3 which I am about to add to my signature because it's very common now too, I have a tidbit to help his case, least i hope so.
Brains of species are defined as complex or advanced based on the amount of neaural connections, nerves I should say thus the amount of possibilities, and other similiar critera. Of course taking notice of which parts of the brain a species has is also important.
Recently I saw some tech shows involving advanced intelligence. They compared these machines to humans brains by the ammount of "electrical" connections in them VS the brain.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
The brain "does what it does" using two things
1. chemical interactions
2. electrical interactions.
The brain is entirely nerve cells. WITHIN a nerve cell, is the electrical reaction. BETWEEN NERVE cells is where the chemical interactions take place.
Now, since a given pice of technology would NOT need to have this between space, it could surely immitate a brain using only electricity.
suprised? Yes, indeed. Our brain processes are completely ELECTROCHEMICAL. That is the summation of processes by which we "think" and do other things like access memories or gain new ones.
So, I ask you, is a machine that uses only electrochemical interactions to process information artifical?
If so, then are we artifical? Despite what many wish to believe, that is all we consist of brainwise.
Perhaps the difference lies in the "nature" of what we can do with our brains?
I machine can access information, accept new information, change information and output information.
When can it USE information to create ITS OWN NEW INFORMATION?
Ever heard of DEEP BLUE?
DEEP BLUE is the considered currently the most intelligent machine. It is a machine that is designed to do one thing. play chess better than any human being, and never lose.
Yes it does lose. It also is designed to think. rather than having an entire program of all moves possible, and simply accessing that. It does this "thinking" thing.
It uses electricity, no chemicals.
Is it artifical, and if so why? If you need information on in just use google and type "deep blue" and add perhaps chess..I'll post this in it's own place because I suppose it will add alot to mentat's questions and propsitons..........
I am out. This is becoming noise exchange. See you in other threads.
LogicalAtheist
May13-03, 02:11 PM
Noise exchange? to me this is a good subject, one that, with common definitions, is certainly open to opinion, sorry you don't feel that way!
Here is a link to the revived part citing his original post and my post which I feel will open up some new thoughts for people interested:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=26086#post26086
Enjoy!
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Although mentat has made false statements surely unknowlingly as I don't doubt honest, and although he has broken rule 3 which I am about to add to my signature because it's very common now too, I have a tidbit to help his case, least i hope so.
How about we remember that Mentat reads these as well, and speak at him, if we have something to say to him. There are few things more patronizing than speaking of someone in the third person, while they are present (and thus, being a teen and a middle child, there are few things I hate worse).
Recently I saw some tech shows involving advanced intelligence. They compared these machines to humans brains by the ammount of "electrical" connections in them VS the brain.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
The brain "does what it does" using two things
1. chemical interactions
2. electrical interactions.
The brain is entirely nerve cells. WITHIN a nerve cell, is the electrical reaction. BETWEEN NERVE cells is where the chemical interactions take place.
Now, since a given pice of technology would NOT need to have this between space, it could surely immitate a brain using only electricity.
suprised?
Not at all, any biology textbook would tell you the same.
So, I ask you, is a machine that uses only electrochemical interactions to process information artifical?
It can be, if you define "artificial" as man-made. It's not any less genuine than any other process of thinking (of course, I can't think of any other processes of thinking, but the fact remains).
If so, then are we artifical? Despite what many wish to believe, that is all we consist of brainwise.
Please post which definition of "artificial" you are discussing, so that I can respond better.
Perhaps the difference lies in the "nature" of what we can do with our brains?
What "difference"? The "difference" between what and what?
I machine can access information, accept new information, change information and output information.
When can it USE information to create ITS OWN NEW INFORMATION?
I've seen humans do this all of the time. Humans are machines (unless you deny that our bodies are collections of parts that serve purposes), and they can do that. Besides, even if you exclude humans, you are talking about creativity, not intelligence.
Ever heard of DEEP BLUE?
DEEP BLUE is the considered currently the most intelligent machine. It is a machine that is designed to do one thing. play chess better than any human being, and never lose.
Yes it does lose. It also is designed to think. rather than having an entire program of all moves possible, and simply accessing that. It does this "thinking" thing.
It uses electricity, no chemicals.
Is it artifical, and if so why? If you need information on in just use google and type "deep blue" and add perhaps chess..I'll post this in it's own place because I suppose it will add alot to mentat's questions and propsitons..........
Deep Blue is man-made, and so it is that kind of "artificial". I don't think it's intelligence is any less genuine than a human's, if that's what you mean by "artificial".
LogicalAtheist
May13-03, 02:37 PM
I responded to this on the new page. admin feel free to lock this as it's on the sequel!
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I responded to this on the new page. admin feel free to lock this as it's on the sequel!
Kerrie, I have no problem with that (locking this one, and having us continue on LogicalAtheist's thread). It will be easier to deal with than responding to two threads.
Of course, his doesn't have the poll, but that's rather unimportant now.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.