Half a soul?

[spookz]

promises, promises. thats all the physicalists can offer. first the brain due to its sheer complexity, magically manifests a self awareness, next, when computers are sufficiently complex enough, they too will be self aware. this is nothing but an article of faith in both instances. quite unscientific if i may say so.

chris, why is it when posters start threads about "souls/spirits", you persist in discussing it on those terms? as far as i am concerned, they simply have too much religious connotations to be of much use for a reasoned discussion. far better to move into the 21 century and discuss this in terms of mind/consciousness.
i mean it sounds nice when you say "baseless fantasy of a soul", but it could possibly sound silly if you said "baseless fantasy of a consciousness".

lets eyeball your quote...

And while the AI theorists will also benefit from faster more powerful computers and programming tools their primary limiting factor is theoretical, the functionality of their models

they are talking specifically about algorithms

Several AI theorists believe that they already have the correct structural outline of a mind....

i like to see an example of this algorithm that creates other algorithms

This is the wildcard in the calculation. The robot builders expect them to evolve to human equivalence by 2040.

wildcard indeed. is this a parlor trick. do they plan to pull a rabbit out of a hat? a date set too!

 

[spookz]

a buddhist perspective

1) Technological AI

Technological AI is a set of techniques (reducible to algorithms) for simulating some aspect of human intelligence in a machine. The machine is usually a general purpose computer. Whether the intelligence implemented in a machine is capable of doing anything truly novel, or is merely 'canned' procedures following logical tracks and switches, is open to debate. Typical examples of technological AI are expert systems, chess-playing programs and neural networks (which can either be implemented in relay-hardware or modelled in software on a computer).

(2) Philosophical AI or Computationalism

Secondly, and of more relevance to this discussion, is computationalism or philosophical AI, (sometimes also known as Strong AI), which is the view that all human mental activities are reducible to algorithms, and could therefore be implemented on a computer. Computationalism is an essential tenet of materialism, which states that there is no need to assume any spiritual or non-algorithmic aspect to existence.

Computationalism is thus diametrically opposed to Buddhist philosophy, which regards the subtle mind (that which survives death and goes on to the next life) as a fundamental aspect of reality, not an emergent property or epiphenomenon of matter. Buddhism views a sentient being, human or animal and its mind, as a totally different kind of thing from a machine or automaton.

Syntax and Semantics

There are a number of arguments against computationalism . Algorithms do not contain within themselves any meaning. For example, the following two statements reduce to exactly the same algorithm within the memory of a computer

(i) IF RoomLength * RoomWidth > CarpetArea THEN NeedMoreCarpet = TRUE

(ii) IF Audience * TicketPrice > HireOfVenue THEN AvoidedBankruptcy = TRUE

Such considerations have led critics of computationalism to claim that algorithms can only contain syntax, not semantics [SEARLE 1997]. Hence computers can never understand their subject matter. All assignments of meaning to their inputs, internal states and outputs have to be defined from outside the system.

This may explain why the process of writing algorithms does not in itself appear to be algorithmic. The real test of Artificial Intelligence would be to produce a general purpose algorithm-writing algorithm. A convincing example would be an algorithm that could simulate the mind of a programmer sufficiently to be able to write algorithms to perform such disparate activities as predicting the movements of the planet Neptune, controlling an automatic train, regulating a distillation column, and optimising traffic flows through interlinked sets of lights.

According to the computationalist view this 'Mother of all Algorithms' must exist as an algorithm in the programmer's brain, though why and how such a thing evolved is rather difficult to imagine. It would certainly have conferred no selective advantage to our ancestors until the present generation (even so, do programmers outreproduce normal people?).

The proof of philosophical AI would be to program the Mother of all Algorithms on a computer. At present no one has the slightest clue of how to even start to go about producing such a thing.

According to Buddhist philosophy this is hardly surprising, as the Mother of all Algorithms is itself NOT an algorithm and never could be programmed. The mother of all algorithms is the formless mind imputing meaning onto its objects (i.e. imputing meaning on to the sequential and structural components of the algorithm as it is being written).

The non-algorithmic dimension of mind, of understanding of meaning, is needed to turn the user's (semantically expressed) requirements into the purely syntactic structural and causal relationships of the algorithmic flowchart or code.

Finally, deep mathematical criticisms of AI have been made by the physicist Roger Penrose [Penrose 1989] on the basis that there are certain mathematical truths such as Gödel's theorem, which are apparent to a human observer but can never be proved by any algorithm.

REFS:
[SEARLE 1997] Searle, John. R. The Mystery of Consciousness, p10 (London: Granta Publications, 1997, ISBN 1 86207 074 1)
[PENROSE 1989] Penrose, Roger, The Emperor's New Mind, (London: Vintage, 1990, ISBN 0 09 977170 5)

now i do not claim to understand stand this in detail, but the issues raised seems to be what should be explored. perhaps chris, since this is your area of expertise, you could elaborate on some of the points raised (see bold stuff)

emptyset

emergence

Arguments against Reductionism, Materialism and Epiphenomenalism.

 

[Cris]

But spookes,

promises, promises. thats all the physicalists can offer.

No, that’s what religionists do. Science and technology offer practical processes.

first the brain due to its sheer complexity, magically manifests a self awareness,

Why is magic involved? Are you not self-aware? Do you not have a brain? Are you able to put 2 and 2 together? Or would you say your self-awareness originates in your foot or your kidneys then?

next, when computers are sufficiently complex enough, they too will be self aware.

Excellent, that sounds good. Can you give me the reference of the scientists who have quoted this please?

this is nothing but an article of faith in both instances. quite unscientific if i may say so.

Oh nuts I thought you had found something I had missed.

chris, why is it when posters start threads about "souls/spirits", you persist in discussing it on those terms?

The story hasn’t changed. Souls/spirits are still fantasy concepts.

as far as i am concerned, they simply have too much religious connotations to be of much use for a reasoned discussion.

You mean the concept of a soul right? But this is the religion forum.

far better to move into the 21 century and discuss this in terms of mind/consciousness.

That's a topic for the science forums not the religious forum.

i mean it sounds nice when you say "baseless fantasy of a soul", but it could possibly sound silly if you said "baseless fantasy of a consciousness".

Why would you say that though? The webster definition of consciousness seems fine.

lets eyeball your quote...

And while the AI theorists will also benefit from faster more powerful computers and programming tools their primary limiting factor is theoretical, the functionality of their models

they are talking specifically about algorithms

OK, I guess.

Several AI theorists believe that they already have the correct structural outline of a mind....

i like to see an example of this algorithm that creates other algorithms

OK I’ll keep my eyes open for them.

This is the wildcard in the calculation. The robot builders expect them to evolve to human equivalence by 2040.

wildcard indeed. is this a parlor trick. do they plan to pull a rabbit out of a hat? a date set too!

So the point was that okinrus claimed that most scientists were claiming that human level AI was impossible. I was illustrating that not only did they not think it impossible but they were sufficiently confident that they were prepared to state dates when it would occur.

 

[okinrus]

What is the source of your statistics? Can you show your claim is anything more than wishful thinking on your part? But what do you mean by ‘current architecture’? And how does anyone know how much hardware will improve to claim it will be impossible? Your claim sounds very much like those who said that man would never fly.

By current architecture I mean the Von Neuman architecture. The feat of human AI requires too much flexability. It will probably be necessary to make parts biological and parts machine or to use a radically different architecture. A computer is really like a gigantic finite state machine and the translation from state to state in theory is entirely predictable without hardware errors.

But if you look more closely I think you will find that ‘most’ scientists working in the field of AI will say that reaching and surpassing human-level AI is inevitable. The question of whether it is possible or not is not a serious consideration. As John McCarthy of Stanford University states –

I think maybe your misunderstanding what I meant by human level. I wasn't using it as a technical term. I suppose that you could make the claim that computers play chess at a human level. However they do not enjoy playing, they do not choose themselves but use brute force algorithms, they are not as good at positional chess, etc.

 

[Cris]

Spookz,

Firstly, Penrose is a well known adversary of AI, and is doing well selling anti-AI books. It is interesting that the AI community do not take him seriously. Here is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article by Hans Moravec on some of Penrose’s claims – http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-06-moravec.html

Moravec is head of the AI and Robotics department at Carnegie Melon University.

As for Buddhism; what would one expect? Their entire survival depends on the fantasy of life beyond death. The statements you quote seem to be artificial limitations established in order to show that claims of AI are impossible according to such assumptions. But AI research is not likely to be constrained by current definitions, it will adapt and grow as necessary.

But from my perspective as an interested party in developing MU, AI is not necessarily the path we need to take. AI is seen as potentially a rival or parallel path to achieving intelligence in a non-biological substrate. Where AI is an attempt to design intelligence, MU is more about reverse engineering the brain and replicating near identical mechanisms.

Which approach if any succeeds is a matter of time. What seems very certain is that man is going to give it a very hard try.

But the issue of a soul/spirit and dualism should really be discarded as a hopelessly out of date concept based entirely on ignorance of any knowledge of how the brain functions.

Possibly the primary source for modern dualism was Descartes and I include a link here that describes many of the issues involved - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/17th.html

The biggest problem seems to have been the comprehension of how a physical thing like the brain could give rise to something that appears non-physical like the mind, or consciousness, or whatever you might want to call such phenomena. This naturally gave rise to the concept of an immaterial/spirit component coexisting alongside the brain. But these thinkers had no knowledge of neural networks and how such patterns could be used to represent memories and thoughts, as we understand them today.

A simple analogy now is the reality of computer hardware existing independently of the computer software. The hardware is very physical but it is of little value without the specific bit patterns that form the software. Many computer illiterate people still have difficulty with this reality so it is no wonder that those of earlier centuries would have a similar difficulty seeing how the brain and mind are dependent on one another and are inseparable.

Our current knowledge of how the brain operates, even though we don’t have all the intricate details is easily more than enough to destroy the silly notion of an immaterial spirit component.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by Cris
Where AI is an attempt to design intelligence, MU is more about reverse engineering the brain and replicating near identical mechanisms.

Reverse engineering attempts at the solution starting from the periphery to the core. The main issue is the core. until you are sure about this core, which is not possible in the middle/start of reverse engineering, the rejection of this core as fantasy based on the peripheral knowledge is nothing but ignorance.

But the issue of a soul/spirit and dualism should really be discarded as a hopelessly out of date concept based entirely on ignorance of any knowledge of how the brain functions.

On the other hand your claim, yet_to_realise concept, does not replace this out of date concept unless you succeeded in getting the 'full' knowledge of brain and its function.

Our current knowledge of how the brain operates, even though we don’t have all the intricate details is easily more than enough to destroy the silly notion of an immaterial spirit component.

It seems to be more than enough because you think like a robot. Not as a human. In robotic view there is no need for immaterial component. It is alright for a robot to think so, it is dishonest if you think so. For a robot is controlled by algorithms as to how to think ; you're not - you can violate any thought / behavioural constraints by your free will.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Cris
The biggest problem seems to have been the comprehension of how a physical thing like the brain could give rise to something that appears non-physical like the mind, or consciousness, or whatever you might want to call such phenomena. This naturally gave rise to the concept of an immaterial/spirit component coexisting alongside the brain. But these thinkers had no knowledge of neural networks and how such patterns could be used to represent memories and thoughts, as we understand them today.

A simple analogy now is the reality of computer hardware existing independently of the computer software. The hardware is very physical but it is of little value without the specific bit patterns that form the software. Many computer illiterate people still have difficulty with this reality so it is no wonder that those of earlier centuries would have a similar difficulty seeing how the brain and mind are dependent on one another and are inseparable.

The analogy of the computer is entirely inapplicable and misrepresented. A computer may not be even run without the programming and the power that feeds it. And who programs the computer hardware, you'll say software, and who writes the software may I ask? And to go deeper, who programs us humans with abilities to program our computers.
Programming is not done by the computer but done by external software prepared by humans who are higher in intelligence than the computer...Higher intelligence is the key Cris. A creation no matter what it is must be created and managed by something of higher intelligence.
May you tell me who is the higher intelligence entity that is programming the human brain, as we are stupid enough not to know how our brain is run to know how to program our own brain. I don't see a human who doesn't understand how the basics of computer run venue in creating complex software for that same computer...

PS. Don't forget that Atheist computers probably think with their software capabilities that humans are nothing but invisible green giant elephants.

 

[Cris]

Everneo.

Reverse engineering attempts at the solution starting from the periphery to the core. The main issue is the core. until you are sure about this core, which is not possible in the middle/start of reverse engineering, the rejection of this core as fantasy based on the peripheral knowledge is nothing but ignorance.

No not really. The starting point of reverse engineering is ignorance, which is why the technique is valid. If you knew how the object worked then you wouldn’t need to use reverse engineering. If the core somehow had an immaterial component then the physicalist attempt at reverse engineering would fail, so be it. Until then a fantasy remains a fantasy and offers no blockage to progress.

The best analogy here would be that I would proceed to buy Christmas gifts for my children rather than assume that Santa Claus will turn up sometime. Until someone can show that a fantasy is more than a fantasy then it isn’t worth any serious attention.

On the other hand your claim, yet_to_realise concept, does not replace this out of date concept unless you succeeded in getting the 'full' knowledge of brain and its function.

No far from it since it is not a yet_to_realise concept. We know from direct brain probes and by studying brain damage that thoughts, emotions and memories are held within the physical brain. These were all phenomena that were once considered to be the sole role of the soul. The additional knowledge we have concerning the formation of neural networks helps us achieve the beginnings of true understanding of how the brain operates. The soul concept was never based on observation but on ignorance of how the brain operates. We can now see that the soul concept was invalid. To then insist that it still might be valid in some aspects is an indication of desperation by those who depend on the idea for their way of life, i.e. religionists.

It seems to be more than enough because you think like a robot. Not as a human. In robotic view there is no need for immaterial component. It is alright for a robot to think so, it is dishonest if you think so. For a robot is controlled by algorithms as to how to think ; you're not - you can violate any thought / behavioural constraints by your free will.

How do you know how a robot might think? There are no such things as thinking robots yet. If a robot brain is based on a replica of the mechanisms in a human brain then why would there be any significant difference? I watched a computer using neural networks learn from simple examples and solve mathematical problems some 15 years ago. I don’t see any obstacles to why a robot will not be equally capable at thinking as any human and then do much better.

Your objection appears to be based on how you think AI will evolve and dismisses the adaptability, creativity, and ingenuity of human inventiveness. Natural intelligence evolved in small steps through a chain of viable organisms, artificial intelligence can do the same, but how fast? Large computer's capacities have been growing each decade about as much as the large biological nervous systems grew every hundred million years. We seem to be re-evolving mind (in a fashion) at ten million times the original speed!

Try this very readable article by Hans Moravec on the evolution of the robot.

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/robot.papers/2000/Cerebrum.html

 

[Cris]

Flores,

The analogy of the computer is entirely inapplicable and misrepresented.

There are some limits to the analogy, I agree, but the biggest problem comes when people try to compare a single processor to the human brain. The human brain is much more like a massively parallel computer system rather than a single computer.

A computer may not be even run without the programming and the power that feeds it.

Yes OK.

And who programs the computer hardware, you'll say software, and who writes the software may I ask?

To a large extent humans have had that traditional role but the complexity of new machines means that humans can no longer keep up or comprehend the issues involved. Self profiling, and self modifying programs, can now adapt dynamically to changing environments much faster than humans can design code to do the same thing. The optimizing techniques used in modern advanced compilers that target RISC based systems are perhaps a modest but common example. And AI learning techniques used in the more recent RDBMS optimizers is yet another example of how humans are being increasingly removed from the loop.

And to go deeper, who programs us humans with abilities to program our computers.

Your train of reasoning here is a logical fallacy. You are attempting to show that something of less ability cannot generate something with a greater ability. This is nonsense. As a simple example; man cannot fly, but aircraft can. How is it possible that an aircraft created by man can do something that man can’t?

Programming is not done by the computer but done by external software prepared by humans who are higher in intelligence than the computer...

If we were still writing programs in machine code then I might agree, but most modern compilers take care of complexities and generate program code that goes way beyond the abilities of all but a few of the most brilliant programmers.

Higher intelligence is the key Cris.

The key to what?

A creation no matter what it is must be created and managed by something of higher intelligence.

As shown above this is a logical fallacy.

May you tell me who is the higher intelligence entity that is programming the human brain, as we are stupid enough not to know how our brain is run to know how to program our own brain.

You might do well to re-phrase that since it seems like a very confused sentence. I think you are trying to claim that something more intelligent than us created our intelligence. But there is no evidence for that. Evolution explains our intelligence. And besides there is no evidence that shows that anything complex was ever designed by intelligence. Everything we observe has evolved from something simpler. Even modern computers were not designed by intelligence, they too have and are still evolving.

I don't see a human who doesn't understand how the basics of computer run venue in creating complex software for that same computer...

Sorry, a confused sentence again. I can’t quite figure out what you are saying. You seem to be implying that a human will always understand the complexity of the software he has written. I suggest you try debugging a multi-threaded program compiled with 2nd or higher level compiler optimization running in a multi-processor SMP with SMT RISC based system.

Modern complex software is increasingly progressing to a state where humans cannot comprehend what it is doing and need several other layers of software to help analyse it. I.e. we are generating software that is beyond our comprehension. AI software will most certainly extend this phenomenon.

 

[Flores]

Should I even bother debating with a person with lower intelligence than a machine.

Too bad, I can't unplug you and save the agony, I guess you're pretty intelligent afterall.

Cris, Granted that you have ran the circular argument marathon many times before and can leave me in the dust, but consider the fact that my methods and fresh train of thoughts though much different than yours might be hundred times more efficient in achieving the goal, and is clearly equipped with a life Jacket to grab you out your circular reasoning. Your thoughts appear to me to be simply a fancy justificational at best with no merging or new ideology in the horizon.

Originally posted by Cris
To a large extent humans have had that traditional role but the complexity of new machines means that humans can no longer keep up or comprehend the issues involved.

I disagree with passion. A fluke accidental operation in the new machine while might be out of the temporary understanding of humans, could be understood by humans. Afterall, understanding mistakes take time even for a machine and humans alike, but mistakes and lack of understanding issues are deemed to be understood and corrected...Just ask me as a civil engineer, I never dare try to hide my mistakes, because I know that they will be discovered one day....Also, in case of total malfunction of the machine, the machine is helpless unless that same human that created it gives it a hand in operating again.

Originally posted by Cris
Self profiling, and self modifying programs, can now adapt dynamically to changing environments much faster than humans can design code to do the same thing.

And who embedded those features of self modifying and self profiling in the machine. Did the machines do that by themselves, or did a human give them that ability. I can easily write a random number generator program, yet I can't generate the numbers with the speed of the programs, yet, without me writing the simple program, there wouldn't be numbers for the computer to generate. Does that make the program more superior to me? Can the program change a diaper, make love to a husband, do a pre-school homework, kiss butt a boss, ect....

Originally posted by Cris
The optimizing techniques used in modern advanced compilers that target RISC based systems are perhaps a modest but common example. And AI learning techniques used in the more recent RDBMS optimizers is yet another example of how humans are being increasingly removed from the loop.

Again, fancy words without a clue. Humans will never be removed from the loop of an element that they have designed. Machines are designed as predictable exact functions..Humans are unpredictable inexact, misunderstood functions. Sixties scientists are being rehired to offer help with upgrading and bringing satelite equipments back to efficient operation. And hell, can I for instance design a nuclear bomb that bomb the hell out of your RISC stupid system to show you that I'm more superior to the dumb machine......If you select to think you are stupid and below machine intelligence you wouldn't surpise me, for that is quite evident from your writing, but please don't generalize, some of us, are still clinging and respecting our human status.

Originally posted by Cris
Your train of reasoning here is a logical fallacy. You are attempting to show that something of less ability cannot generate something with a greater ability. This is nonsense. As a simple example; man cannot fly, but aircraft can. How is it possible that an aircraft created by man can do something that man can’t?

Crap with fancy Katchup and Soy sauce again, still an idiot arab can run the stupid helpless plane in the trade center and the only other creature that have enough intelligence to do something about it are the passengers in the plane who have a higher intelligence brain to process various complex types of danger and react to it. Why would you say that flying is more suprior than making love or convincing another....Are you always so simplistic minded viewing things as if they are invisible sky flying powers....Damn English cartoons, supermans, and batman, they corrupted the human mind.

Originally posted by Cris
If we were still writing programs in machine code then I might agree, but most modern compilers take care of complexities and generate program code that goes way beyond the abilities of all but a few of the most brilliant programmers.

Too bad the modern compilers need very sensitive tempratures, clean rooms, upgrades, electricity, ect...provided by humans to stay running. May I pull the plug Cris and see how one of your best compilers will behave...ok. ok. I'll remove all backup electric source too...You are too naive.....at best a good fictional writer.

Originally posted by Cris
The key to what?

The majic invisible green elephant key that you will never find.

Originally posted by Cris
You might do well to re-phrase that since it seems like a very confused sentence. I think you are trying to claim that something more intelligent than us created our intelligence. But there is no evidence for that. Evolution explains our intelligence. And besides there is no evidence that shows that anything complex was ever designed by intelligence. Everything we observe has evolved from something simpler. Even modern computers were not designed by intelligence, they too have and are still evolving.

There is no evidence to you that a creator is more sophistcated than a creation. To me, it's the only logical answer to the question of our existance. May you elaborate on how our brains evolved exactly....Do you suggest that we were monkeys, although be carefull, because most human brains don't seem to be as evolved as a monkey, or do you advocate the notion that we all evloved from a single cell, then I implore you to explain the variety contained in the evolution process that just doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Cris
Sorry, a confused sentence again. I can’t quite figure out what you are saying. You seem to be implying that a human will always understand the complexity of the software he has written. I suggest you try debugging a multi-threaded program compiled with 2nd or higher level compiler optimization running in a multi-processor SMP with SMT RISC based system.

Why degub the bastard, I can just throw it in a very big dumbster and create a new one that will fit my purpose....Who gives a F##k about those abbreviated useless processors that you are describing if we are stupid enough not to be able to figure out the stable morphology of one stream....or the migratory patterns of animals.

Originally posted by Cris
Modern complex software is increasingly progressing to a state where humans cannot comprehend what it is doing and need several other layers of software to help analyse it. I.e. we are generating software that is beyond our comprehension. AI software will most certainly extend this phenomenon.

Too bad, my two year old can smash one of these bastards to pieces or disconnect or deactivate one of these bastards and we don't have to worry about analyzing some useless outdated went out of hand crap, others though don't see such simplicity and are absorbed by analysing garbage that they created with their own hands that may have simply have went out of hand mainly due to our ignorance.....I feel pity for you, start watching the wiggles, they originate in your country of residence and offer quite great lessons in logic. Start with the Quack Quack Quack Quack Quack Cock doodle Doo.

 

[Cris]

Flores,

consider the fact that my methods and fresh train of thoughts though much different than yours might be hundred times more efficient in achieving the goal,

Except that I don’t see anything fresh in your thoughts. Sorry.

and is clearly equipped with a life Jacket to grab you out your circular reasoning.

LOL. Dream on my friend.

Your thoughts appear to me to be simply a fancy justificational at best with no merging or new ideology in the horizon.

I have no idea what you mea by that.

Also, in case of total malfunction of the machine, the machine is helpless unless that same human that created it gives it a hand in operating again.

Wanna bet? My specialty is in the area of massively parallel fault tolerate systems, i.e. machines that never fail.

And who embedded those features of self modifying and self profiling in the machine. Did the machines do that by themselves, or did a human give them that ability.

Excellent. Now you are beginning to understand. Humans are merely the catalysts using their ingenuity to begin a chain of events that progress beyond their comprehension. For example if you press the button that begins a nuclear explosion, can you then stop the explosion once started?

I can easily write a random number generator program, yet I can't generate the numbers with the speed of the programs, yet, without me writing the simple program, there wouldn't be numbers for the computer to generate. Does that make the program more superior to me? Can the program change a diaper, make love to a husband, do a pre-school homework, kiss butt a boss, ect....

So you should read the article I posted above where Hans Moravec explains the evolution of the robot. You need to understand that the robot brains are some several orders of magnitude less capable than ours are at this stage. But that they are evolving several million times faster than our own intelligence did.

Again, fancy words without a clue.

Lost you huh? If you are going to talk about computers and their capabilities then perhaps you need to understand a little bit more about them. For reference, just in case you are interested – RISC= Reduced Instruction Set Computer, RDBMS = Relational DataBase Management System.

Humans will never be removed from the loop of an element that they have designed.

That is clearly not true. The NASDAQ stock exchange is fully electronic and requires no human interaction for continuous operation. It connects traders directly with market makers with no middlemen. But I don’t think that is what you meant is it?

Machines are designed as predictable exact functions.

Ahh then you haven’t heard of fuzzy logic, fuzzy software, and fuzzy compilers. These types of software attempt to interpret what you really mean rather than what you say. Pretty much in the way that I attempt to interpret some of your less well formed sentences.

Try this introduction to fuzzy logic. http://www.emsl.pnl.gov/proj/neuron/fuzzy/what.html

I hope you can appreciate how very ‘human’ such software will appear.

Humans are unpredictable inexact, misunderstood functions.

Pretty fuzzy, right?

If you select to think you are stupid and below machine intelligence you wouldn't surpise me, for that is quite evident from your writing, but please don't generalize, some of us, are still clinging and respecting our human status.

So examine this diagram of where computers are evolving –

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/talks/revo.slides/power.aug.curve/power.aug.html

The progression of increasing computer power has held steady since the 1940’s and there is all indication that it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The chart shows the progression to human level power, but many of us are considering what happens beyond that. So feel free to cling to your human status but also be aware that in a few decades humans are unlikely to be the dominant intelligence on the planet. As with every species in the history of evolution, adapt very fast or become extinct.

Why would you say that flying is more suprior than making love or convincing another....

You are missing the point. Humans can’t fly, but they can create machines that can. Humans can’t solve quadratic equations very quickly but they can build machines that can do such things millions of times faster, humans can’t saw wood in half but they can build machines that do it very easily. The point is that humans can create tools and enhancements for themselves that can massively extend basic human capabilities. The rapid development of AI indicates man’s continuing creativity towards enhancing his abilities. Extending and enhancing his intelligence seems a rather obvious goal. Why would you claim he can’t do this but can do everything else?

Too bad the modern compilers need very sensitive tempratures, clean rooms, upgrades, electricity, ect...provided by humans to stay running.

You mean like humans need to eat to stay functioning, food that is only possible because of the energy from the sun. If the sun were cut off then the food supply for humans would cease and humans would die. Perhaps you should start worshipping the sun for your continued survival.

May I pull the plug Cris and see how one of your best compilers will behave...ok. ok. I'll remove all backup electric source too...You are too naive.....at best a good fictional writer.

Do you really want to debate or just engage in negative cynicism, I can be good at that as well?

There is no evidence to you that a creator is more sophistcated than a creation.

That is correct. Show me something complex that human intelligence has created in a single step that wasn’t the result of an evolutionary process of multiple stages. You won’t find anything.

The argument for an intelligent creator is based on the idea that human intelligence can create complex objects, like watches for example. The conclusion is that anything complex must be the result of intelligence. But even in the example of the watch it was the result of a long evolutionary process from very crude time keeping mechanisms to the modern watch. Human intelligence is just a naturally evolved process that has become a catalyst in the evolution of other objects.

If human intelligence designed the modern computer why didn’t cavemen have computers?

To me, it's the only logical answer to the question of our existance.

Given my explanation why would you continue to conclude that? What is the basis for your logic since it cannot be based on the example of complexity from human intelligence?

May you elaborate on how our brains evolved exactly....

OK. http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm

Do you suggest that we were monkeys, although be carefull, because most human brains don't seem to be as evolved as a monkey,

This is a common error made by people who have not studied evolution. Monkeys and apes evolved along parallel paths to Homo-sapiens. If you want to debate the issues of evolution then please please obtain the basics first. Here is a good site to study as the first pass. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Beyond that I can point you at some appropriate books.

or do you advocate the notion that we all evloved from a single cell, then I implore you to explain the variety contained in the evolution process that just doesn't make any sense.

I think you mean abiogenesis which is separate from evolution although closely connected. And I can well imagine that evolution doesn’t make sense to you since your first comment above shows you haven’t studied it yet. Do that first then you will understand how abiogenesis is a simple logical and inevitable extention that explains the existence of life.

Who gives a F##k about those abbreviated useless processors that you are describing if we are stupid enough not to be able to figure out the stable morphology of one stream....or the migratory patterns of animals.

So does that mean you prefer ignorance?

Too bad, my two year old can smash one of these bastards to pieces or disconnect or deactivate one of these bastards and we don't have to worry about analyzing some useless outdated went out of hand crap, others though don't see such simplicity and are absorbed by analysing garbage that they created with their own hands that may have simply have went out of hand mainly due to our ignorance.....I feel pity for you, start watching the wiggles, they originate in your country of residence and offer quite great lessons in logic. Start with the Quack Quack Quack Quack Quack Cock doodle Doo.

Looks like your brain has just snapped. Sorry I didn’t mean to overload you. Come back when you’ve unscrambled all those wonderful neural networks you have somewhere.

 

[Flores]

Your post is sorry at best, but it's magically 4:30 US eastern time, and I'll have to answer you tomorrow......All your points are weak and have been already answered in my mind in the exact time that it took me to read them.

In a nut shell, :

1- You don't see anything, because you're untalented, old, damaged goods, with identity crisis.

2- Yes me, your so called friend, do dream, because I have a fresh mind, you on the other hand is incapable of dreaming, the vision section of your brain is dead.

3- You know exactly what I mean, but you are in denial, or could you just be a liar, or too chicken to confront the real world.

4- So your specialty is in the area of massively parallel fault tolerate systems, sounds like total bull shit to me. Science fiction at it's best, might make a good movie. But for your sake and since you have spent your life on a totally stupid idea, I'll be easy on you and I'll try to regard this made up discipline with respect. For start, may these all powerful systems get me out of the awful mood that I have right now to punch you without destroying half the hemisphere.

5- Yes I can stop an explosion, because if I designed such a system, I would make sure that I have designed safety mechanisms. I can undo in software, so why can't I undo explosion.

6- Cris, seriously, do you fantacize about being abducted or fucked by a robot. The way you talk of the evolution of these things is quite scary.

7- And yeah, I'm again and always lost in the Cris Sauce, who wouldn't.

8- In a nut shell, and I don't want to continue this discussion, beside your wildest dreams, there exist no creation on earth that is more perfect and practical than a human being, and all the crap you talk of are theoretical unpractical never made it to the market ideas that only you worship.

 

[okinrus]

If we were still writing programs in machine code then I might agree, but most modern compilers take care of complexities and generate program code that goes way beyond the abilities of all but a few of the most brilliant programmers.

This is mainly only because they have had programmed into them many optimizing techniques. Also RISC machines are harder to write optimized assembly code for than like the x86 because of the sheer number of registers. I think RISC machines were made to be compiler friendly. Anyways many game programmers do write faster x86 assembly code than any compiler. New technologies are not always realized into the compiler so taking advantage of a specific machine will produce faster code.

Now for a thought expierment. Say were playing baseball and you are at bat. You see the pitcher throw the baseball, you see the baseball and you decide to swing. The decision process in the brain must have all the visual information. Yet the choice to swing must come from a single nueron correct? But how can you hear, feel the bat hit the ball, and see all at the same time? I don't really see how that is possible unless if it is all done by a single observer. Supposing that the actions do not occur at the same time but happen very fast, we still have to ask how this blurring into one single person happens? If this single observer is an illusion, why would random evolution give us the illusion of concience? Our concience and unique personhood does not serve the existance of species.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Just a comment on RISC: most optimization is concerned not primarily with writing efficient code but about maximizing cache line hits and branch prediction. Runtime profiling with feedback to the compiler generates object code location and sequencing that optimizes both those factors. But this is really off topic and in the wrong forum.

Now for a thought expierment. Say were playing baseball and you are at bat. You see the pitcher throw the baseball, you see the baseball and you decide to swing. The decision process in the brain must have all the visual information. Yet the choice to swing must come from a single nueron correct? But how can you hear, feel the bat hit the ball, and see all at the same time? I don't really see how that is possible unless if it is all done by a single observer. Supposing that the actions do not occur at the same time but happen very fast, we still have to ask how this blurring into one single person happens? If this single observer is an illusion, why would random evolution give us the illusion of concience? Our concience and unique personhood does not serve the existance of species.

LOL. OK I understand your confusion but this is not a difficult issue. The brain has 200 billion neurons with some 100 trillion synaptic connections between them. All these cells are operating independently and in parallel. This enables the human brain to conduct a vast array of simultaneous operations and functions.

As far as species survival is concerned these parallel tasks are essential. To be the most effective at avoiding a predator the ability to hear, see, smell, run, and reason must all occur simultaneously.

Does that help?

 

[Cris]

Flores,

1. Your post is sorry at best,
2. All your points are weak.
3. you're untalented, old, damaged goods, with identity crisis.
4. you on the other hand is incapable of dreaming, the vision section of your brain is dead.
5. you are in denial, or could you just be a liar, or too chicken to confront the real world.
6. do you fantacize about being abducted or fucked by a robot.
7. all the crap you talk of are theoretical unpractical never made it to the market ideas that only you worship.

It would appear you have exhausted any pretense at reason and have resorted to insults. I believe that is the usual desperate tactic of the bitter loser.

4- So your specialty is in the area of massively parallel fault tolerate systems, sounds like total bull shit to me. Science fiction at it's best, might make a good movie. But for your sake and since you have spent your life on a totally stupid idea, I'll be easy on you and I'll try to regard this made up discipline with respect. For start, may these all powerful systems get me out of the awful mood that I have right now to punch you without destroying half the hemisphere.

Here is a link describing the technology - http://www.gartner.com/gc/webletter/hp/article1/article1.html

5- Yes I can stop an explosion, because if I designed such a system, I would make sure that I have designed safety mechanisms. I can undo in software, so why can't I undo explosion.

You’ve missed the point. Read the question again. It was how do you stop an explosion once it has started.

The way you talk of the evolution of these things is quite scary.

Good. You are wise to be scared. Check these out.

http://www.singinst.org/
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html

If you do a google search on “the singularity” you can discover more on this.

8- In a nut shell, and I don't want to continue this discussion, beside your wildest dreams, there exist no creation on earth that is more perfect and practical than a human being.

Perhaps, for the moment. But read the articles on the singularity before you assume that the status quo isn’t going to change soon.

 

[okinrus]

LOL. OK I understand your confusion but this is not a difficult issue. The brain has 200 billion neurons with some 100 trillion synaptic connections between them. All these cells are operating independently and in parallel. This enables the human brain to conduct a vast array of simultaneous operations and functions.

As far as species survival is concerned these parallel tasks are essential. To be the most effective at avoiding a predator the ability to hear, see, smell, run, and reason must all occur simultaneously.

Does that help

No. I agree that we our heart, smell, sight, feel, hearing and all of our sensory functions happen in parallel. The problem is that they are not part of our concience. We can not choose to pump our heart, smell, see, feel or hear. So why would these not be part of our concience? Yet they do feed back into our concience and decision processes. So for example, we smell and see at the same time, and then we decide to eat. But the choice to eat must be made by one entity? Otherwise I think were left with something more complicated then the Trinity.

 

[everneo]

Cris,

Originally posted by Cris
We know from direct brain probes and by studying brain damage that thoughts, emotions and memories are held within the physical brain. These were all phenomena that were once considered to be the sole role of the soul.

How the memories are stored and recalled is not yet explained / understood. Ofcourse it should happen with the help of brain. You should explain how, say, memory of events happened 10 years back could be recalled. People can recall the distant memories, vividly, under hypnotic trans. IF the synaptic connectivities remain unalterd during such a long period then that particular chunk of brain is not available for anything else.

The problem is in your estimation of consiousness as mere dynamic tranistion of thoughts and awareness (the awareness itself is loosely used term by physicalists - for example a robot described as having spatial awareness if it could find its way in a crowded room - leaving everyone to confuse ability with awareness).

Brain is the stage of consiousness rather than orginator of consiousness itself.

Your objection appears to be based on how you think AI will evolve and dismisses the adaptability, creativity, and ingenuity of human inventiveness. Natural intelligence evolved in small steps through a chain of viable organisms, artificial intelligence can do the same, but how fast? Large computer's capacities have been growing each decade about as much as the large biological nervous systems grew every hundred million years. We seem to be re-evolving mind (in a fashion) at ten million times the original speed!

But AI cannot create consiousness. It cannot have sudden glimpses of ideas, such things would be construed as its malfunctions / corruptions. Its is prisoner of its own rules. It cannot 'experience' what it is doing. When i say experience it is not the experience of learning , it is the experience of feeling. AI needs proper consiousness to have that.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Cris
It would appear you have exhausted any pretense at reason and have resorted to insults. I believe that is the usual desperate tactic of the bitter loser.

Reason and truth are simple concepts Cris, It could be exhuasted fast in a one wise liner. That's why people rely on false justifications, unnecessary complications, and lies to extent their empty of purpose lives and to get a fake temporary feel good about their status.

Originally posted by Cris
You’ve missed the point. Read the question again. It was how do you stop an explosion once it has started.

Man may not be able to stop an explosion once it has started granted, but how does that by any mean makes a statement on the supriority of the explosion to man? Also, explosion is at the mercy of the environmental status, an explosion in a vaccum is different than one in a gas filled chamber. An explosion is a non-consious thing that don't reap benefits or feel losses, how can machines be suprior to humans, that beats me...They don't even feel the accomplishment or care about losses, they are tools but never causes.

Originally posted by Cris
Good. You are wise to be scared. Check these out.

I'm scared for you, not of the machines. I'll dye of old age, car accident, ect, so I might as well be scared of old age than those machines of yours.

Originally posted by Cris
If you do a google search on “the singularity” you can discover more on this.

I do appreciate your effort to educate me...Seriously, but too much details on a fualty theory are not very impressive to a simple mind like mine....And yes, I love the face that I have a simple mind.

Originally posted by Cris
Perhaps, for the moment. But read the articles on the singularity before you assume that the status quo isn’t going to change soon.

I have read the article. In many ways, the article validates the concept of a singular force, god, dooms day, and judgement.. I know that you're too busy seeing other things to see that. But I swear that's all I see.

 

[Flores]

Damn Cris

From your singularity article

"I think it's fair to call this event a singularity ("the Singularity" for the purposes of this paper). It is a point where our old models must be discarded and a new reality rules. As we move closer to this point, it will loom vaster and vaster over human affairs till the notion becomes a commonplace. Yet when it finally happens it may still be a great surprise and a greater unknown. "

This what I see. A day when singularity or god will reveal tiself and discard all temporary lives with the new reality rules of the afterlife. As we move closer to this judgement day, we will start feeling the signs of our uneffectivness. We will feel unable to control our affairs, diseace, respond to natural disasters. We will feel unept. Yet when the judgement day arrives, it will be a great surprise and a much greater unknown.

I do love your singularity crap Cris, which Quranic or biblical scripture was those writings extracted from.?

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by everneo
How the memories are stored and recalled is not yet explained / understood. Ofcourse it should happen with the help of brain. You should explain how, say, memory of events happened 10 years back could be recalled. People can recall the distant memories, vividly, under hypnotic trans. IF the synaptic connectivities remain unalterd during such a long period then that particular chunk of brain is not available for anything else.

In a massive parallel computing environment like brain, and due the low speed of the brain, data/memory can't store in sequential pattarn. It's just too slow to read 1 at a time. It would be more like a RAID 0 system. Memory can be splited into millions of bits and then store in millions neurons. To recall, one burst read can get it back. On the other hand, synaptic connectivities are more like the hard disk head of the RAID 0 system. It doesn't change over time, but the neurons that store the memory will degrade over time. Good thing is that brain can self repair like many of the current hard disks, info on about to fail neurons are transfered to new neurons. It's possible that these info got lost or corrupted during the relocaiton. So when memory is recalled, it could be vividly, fuzzy, and no trace of it.