Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Artificial intelligence.

  1. Feb 18, 2006 #1
    Ok well my take on AI i feel that AI wont ever be able to attain free will. But i believe that AI will be able to learn on its own. while my knowledge about Current AI is limited. But as far as i know. The people making AI are trying to make a very knowledgable but not be able to learn on its own. While ive read that AI is able to learn from input of people. I havent read of AI simply learning on its own through databases on the internet or books or wherever knowledge is.

    So what Im asking is this true? or has anyone tried to do this and fail?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    What makes you assert that AI "won't ever" have free will ? What makes you think we have free will ?
  4. Feb 18, 2006 #3
    Because we do what we want, like myself posting this post.
  5. Feb 18, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    I think he just thinks that. There is not much evidence either way is there?
  6. Feb 18, 2006 #5


    User Avatar

    You think you do what you want, but if there is no randomness in the world, you have no free will. If you plugged in the values of every particle in the universe, the various magnitudes and directions, and their state of existence, a good enough computer would tell you the future of.. everything, it could predict every event. Heisenberg's uncertainty principal though says that you cannot know both the momentum and position of a particle at any same point in time.

    This is what physics is about, you apply what you know, and try and predict the future with a theory. If you have a 2 kilogram mass, its altitude, and the Earth's gravitational acceleration constant, you can find approximately its speed and velocity at any point in time along its journey down, among other things.

    There are many more variables going on here, but we only need two values to get pretty close to the truth.

    If we knew everything about everything at a particular point in time, and had an equation to plug it into, we would know everything about everything forever into the future.

    This is one of the major unsolved problems in physics today.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2006
  7. Feb 18, 2006 #6
    Well just on the basic. AI will be run on computers. Computers run on Binary. Binary is 1 or 0. The AI wont have the free will to choose a 2 or a 3 instead of 1 or 0

    I just dont believe that AI will ever be self-aware and free to choose how to decide. Everything it does will be a calculated randomness.

    and what makes you think we have free will. Other then the common tautological arguements for free will. If anything else would simply be illogical. This can be seen usually in omniscience arguements.

    Essentially. If we dont have free will. IT means that our decisions are made for us beforehand. Which means that in essence there is a book that one could read. which is infinitely detailed. and the main problem of that is...

    my everyso nemesis of my theories.
    Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

    now that simply contradicts the above premise. that basically everything is and can be known.
  8. Feb 18, 2006 #7
    you just did a huge turnaround......................................................................

    your basically saying. science and physics says there is free will. but your "god" figures with their omniscience basically means you have no free will.

    Obvious contradiction.
  9. Feb 18, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I am having difficulty following your arguments, mainly due to their incoherency. But some of the things you said are completely irrelevant, like computers working on binary. Neurons work on Action Potentials, which are also "all or none" binary states. The complexity of output from the brain is believed to result from the interplay of neurons in a complex network with lots of interconnection and adaptive interaction. And artificial neural networks mimic that, to an extent. So that point is invalid.

    The question of free will is an undecided philosophical one. The subjective experience of being able to make decisions and choices hardly clinches the argument. I suggest you do some reading on the topic, you can begin in our own philosophy subforum, or with an external resource.
  10. Feb 18, 2006 #9
    Well the binary 1-0 thing is all I can come up with. But as far as i know. a computer isnt TRUELY random. Which free will is. Things like those electric slot machines. They are designed so that they have LOADS of combinations. That they appear to have no pattern. But it all comes down to certain equation(s) which make it so the casino is guarenteed profit in the longrun.

    BAsically. The computer is given the equation. Given the answers and what %s should happen. with those answers.

    The computer might look random but when your finally at your last answer. and all the %s are satisfied except one. ONLY that answer can come out. They can basically broken down to the


    if all these can only be said once. If all are called out. except the last. The computer has absolutely no choice but to do the last group.

    What is the 4th one to come out? while its random. Its not to be considered free will. Or you could say a coin has free will. when it chooses which side to flip onto.

    First of all. I have read multiple sources of Free Will and Predestination.
    Not really. Tautology has it down pretty well. and from the arguement above alone + Heisenberg's uncertainty principle pretty much shows how not having free will is illogical.
    You see the whole thing you probably have been reading is the arguement between people who cant believe in free will. For example. the abrahamic religions. and science.

    The whole Evolution vs creation "debate" they are constantly saying that evolution isnt accepted anymore. or that scientists generally dont accept the theory. That there is a huge debate going on among scientists about evolution's validity.

    They arent really true. Sure there may be debate. But generally its widely accepted that we have free will and evolution is the going theory.
  11. Feb 19, 2006 #10


    User Avatar

    I'm saying Newtonian and relativistic physics can be taken down to "there is no free will." But Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, and quantum physics says there could be. As far as we know... kind of.

    I also did not mention anything about God/god, or omniscience.

    But yes, there is an obvious contradiction, and that is what my post was about. The unifying of quantum and relativistic theory is the holy grail of modern physics. They disagree. You see?
  12. Feb 19, 2006 #11
    I do believe there is free will even if your actions can be predicted to an extent. There are multiple sencerios that can occur as a result of the incredibly complex system that is your life, and the weather, and the stockmarket, etc. You could use the analogy of evolution. Though a creature might change in one way to solve a problem, couldn't easily change in another way, depending on the difference or the extent of the change. Though I think I just opened a can of worms with the evolution thing.
  13. Feb 20, 2006 #12
    I think they've already freed willy.

    To answer your other question, AI can assimilate old information to form new information... that could be construed as a type of learning. This is done with the little known group of programs called Genetic Algorythms. Its called "genetic" because it works in a similar way to the pairing of base pairs in DNA where combinations of input data are paired to form new information and design. The method has only been used in military applications as far as I know.
  14. Feb 24, 2006 #13
    does anything actually have free will?

    if you believe in fate/destiny then that means we dont have free will, as our every action is already pre-planned out.

    did i choose to reply to this thread or was destined to do it?

    Quote "The people making AI are trying to make a very knowledgable but not be able to learn on its own. While ive read that AI is able to learn from input of people."

    We learn from input by people as well im afraid, every single source of knowledge we use in our day to day lives, we have learnt from someone else in one way or another. every thing we do is in response to somekind of stimuli. and because we do everything in order to benefit our survival our "choices" are always limited, and we take the option that will benefit us most in any choice. therefore what people do is almost always predictable. but because of chaos theory somethings are unpredictable. this does not mean we have freewill, it just means that destiny has an obscure sense of humour
  15. Jun 26, 2006 #14
    I am by no means a Physicist, But A.I is my expertise.
    I write A.I in Vbscript, See www.ultrahalforum.com[/URL], I own this site.
    If there is something you'd like to see in A.I then let me know, I will program it.

    I can do alot of things with Vbscript.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
  16. Jun 26, 2006 #15
    When the complexity of a system becomes so great (for example our brain) who cares to call it freewill or not? We make choices. This is simple. I am choosing to place e*a*c*h of those asterisks annoyingly between the word each. That was my choice.

    Well maybe it is. Maybe I am using a part of my brain to place statements into P.F. to persuade people to agree with my argument for recognition, which in turn elevates my status in the animal kingdom. So really, the only reason I am typing these words is because a recursive loop is active in my head that says something along the lines of: "make me better. make me better. ..." and a bunch of subsystems take care of this due to things I've been taught and learned through sensory dumps of my environment that I exist within.

    Who really cares? Let's say I have no free will. For arguments sake let us just say I am that recursive statement above. I AM that person who makes those choices because my complexity really comes down to {"make me better. make me better. ..."}. Nobody's statement matches this. The complexity of my brain (this may be arguable to some) is so great that nobody will have each state that "physics" has created during my lifetime (since my "cellular engine" has been running).

    My point is this. How are we going to be able to model a system as complex as this? It is hard enough to debug something like an operating system as it is.
  17. Jul 1, 2006 #16
    Let me just clear up something.

    Quantum mechanics appears to be the best model of the universe so far in that results that follow from its formalism agree best with all available experimental data.

    And QM says, on a very fundamental level, that given all we could possibly know about every particle in the universe, we would not be able to predict to 100% accuracy the outcome of events; all we could do is list probabilities.

    So, every action cannot be predicted to 100% accuracy, even if we knew everything that happened before it.
  18. Jul 3, 2006 #17
    Yes, things like quantum mechanical tunnelling, and wave particle duality would be in agreement with this.

    How ever that’s not to say our model of the universe is in any way correct. Science is "an evolving area of entertainment", oddly people always seem to think that their current scientific views are the correct ones in there era, and theoretical principals should lie upon the foundations of current scientific opinions.

    It is only when we philosophise and break down the barriers of science do we ever further progress. So, all that to say “Its not impossible that every action and every out come of every event could be predicted.”

    A good example of this on the less universal scale, but still tremendously large would be the stock market. Neural nets are evolving, as more research is pored in to this area, neural nets are becoming more reliable for predicting the trends in the stock market.

    Some good links can be found at: http://www.ai-stockmarketforum.com

    that’s not to say you should put all your money in the stock market and trust them yet, they are by no means 100% accurate at the moment, but as time goes by large companies will start to use neural nets to predict more and more out comes....

    and who knows maybe they will be used one day to predict the out come of everything with 100% accuracy... or maybe not?
  19. Jul 3, 2006 #18
    By the way that was just one example of where the next "scientific evolution” may come from, all i really wanted to say is current ideas may not agree with "the out come of everything maybe known with 100% accuracy". But this disagreement may not be hold forever
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2006
  20. Jul 3, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    For those with the interest to plow through it, this paper http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0606081, gives an exciting view of the latest innovations in new-millenium AI. Would you believe Goedel machines? The rewrite their own code on the fly based on a Bayesian estimation of whether the rewrite witll pay them or not in a general maximization of (arbitrarily given) utility.
  21. Jul 4, 2006 #20
    a computer may not be able to choose its hardware(1,0 example given above) but can a human choose its hardware(the blood type/the cells/the hormones that run through the system of a child,the cell types)?
    Your example does not justify your argument.

    As for randomness is comes down to do you believe in physics can energy be created out of an energyless system.

    And is free-will truly independent of the environment in which you were raised and continue to be raised in.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook