A.I.

Originally posted by KellyJay
One last responce before I go.
It is a matter of understanding, not obeying commands with
conditions. I can flip a die and know it is going to land on
either head or tails, no understanding required... (snip)
Kelly

Die don't have heads or tails. 😉. I know what you meant though.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess it is splitting hairs, but I don't call programmed choices
with all the possible outcomes mandated by the programmer AI,
it is simply cause and effect programmed into the system.

I can get my butt kicked by my chess software anytime I play it,
it moves the pieces by itself, but it is a matter of programming
not knowledge as I would define it ...[text shortened]... bilities, I just don't see us doing it period
from what I know about design and code.
Kelly

Okay, if I grant your definition of intelligence, then most animals have no intelligence, even though the program nature has given them to run is pretty clever. For instance, consider locusts. Humans have been trying to eradicate locusts for decades, and what's our best weapon against them? A natural enemy (A fungus) that kills them. That, and weather. So, with all our smarts, knowing exactly what we are doing, we don't make a dent in the number of locusts. The locusts are as close to robots as you can get. they respond to stimuli, and nothing more, and their intelligentless ways have served them just fine against the best we can throw at them. If you want to define intelligence as something so rigid as to having to have problem solving abilities, then there are a lot of people who miss your cut for being intelligent. In fact, a lot of solutions that we have to problems today are followed blindly by society, because we just know they work. Some people know why these solutions work, but the vast majority just accept the fact that the given solutions are working solutions, and we take it on faith that they work. I can write programs, but in the end, I am taking on faith that the development environment I am using works. I have no clue how, or why, I just accept that it does. Similarly, a space probe may not know why it should avoid slamming into an asteroid going 1000 miles per hour, but it's program tells it to avoid it, and so it does. It saves itself from a collision. The asteroid, on the other hand has no intelligence at all. It travels blindly through space.

Originally posted by rheymans
Die don't have heads or tails. 😉. I know what you meant though.

Yep, a brain fart on my part. 😳
Kelly

Originally posted by rheymans
Okay, if I grant your definition of intelligence, then most animals have no intelligence, even though the program nature has given them to run is pretty clever. For instance, consider locusts. Humans have been trying to eradicate locusts ...[text shortened]... and has no intelligence at all. It travels blindly through space.

I would say that even insects are aware after a limited fashion, at least
in my opinion. My point with logic inside a computer is...that it all
belongs to the programmers and operators, not the computer itself.
All the computer does is hold the values where we design them to be
held. All the values are, are simply voltages, little bits of highs and
lows, or 1 and 0. That doesn't change no matter where the output is
going, or what media it is geared to.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would say that even insects are aware after a limited fashion, at least
in my opinion. My point with logic inside a computer is...that it all
belongs to the programmers and operators, not the computer itself.
All the computer does is hold the values where we design them to be
held. All the values are, are simply voltages, little bits of highs and
low ...[text shortened]... That doesn't change no matter where the output is
going, or what media it is geared to.
Kelly

I understand your point. I get the impression that you would require self awareness as a prereq for intelligence. Fair enough. Then I can't argue. I still think it is possible to make self aware machines, but not in my lifetime. Also, just because it is possible, does not mean we'll ever do it. Because of our previous arguments about what people want in computers, unless NASA, or academia create such a machine, I doubt it will ever be created.

Originally posted by KellyJay
One last responce before I go.
It is a matter of understanding, not obeying commands with
conditions. Kelly

you're welcome ... please describe understanding ... how is it different from a computer that learns ...

Originally posted by rheymans
I understand your point. I get the impression that you would require self awareness as a prereq for intelligence. Fair enough. Then I can't argue. I still think it is possible to make self aware machines, but not in my lifetime. Also, just because it is possible, does not mean we'll ever do it. Because of our previous arguments about what people want in computers, unless NASA, or academia create such a machine, I doubt it will ever be created.

It makes for great Science Fiction, I can see it now, they have a little
room to contain a box. The box becomes alive, and the morons who
made it, think it is contained, until they realize it reached out through
the power lines and starts to take over, they should have used a
battery for powering it. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is simply the little bit of knowledge I have on CPU design and basic
electronics. It is true that I believe only God can create life from non
life, but that isn’t the discussion. I am assuming intelligence is not a
result of voltage and circuitry design and lay out, because the circuitry
does not mystically turn electricity into something else after ...[text shortened]... the same rules/laws and again
nothing is different except what is we are using it for.
Kelly

Kelly, you are so skeptical it makes it hard to believe you're still alive. Isn't it faith on your part that eating will take away your hunger and keep you alive? Isn't it faith on your part that you existed ten seconds ago? Isn't it faith that if you point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger, you won't die? How do you make any decisions in your life if there is no way to make decisions except arbritrary choice of what to put faith in? How do you decide what to have faith in and what not to have faith in? It seems like to you, nothing is supported by evidence, and people arbritrarily decide what their opinions are and whether evidence supports their opinions or not.

Yet somehow you are typing English into the computer and clicking on the Post button. How did you develop the faith that leads you to think this will communicate to anyone else? How come you don't run around naked and pick your butt and scream gibberish in order to make posts appear in this thread? Did you just get lucky as far as what you decided to have faith in? Are logic and reason useless?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It makes for great Science Fiction, I can see it now, they have a little
room to contain a box. The box becomes alive, and the morons who
made it, think it is contained, until they realize it reached out through
the power lines and starts to take over, they should have used a
battery for powering it. 🙂
Kelly

ok, i think the story was "Press Enter" in John Varley's "Blue Champagne" short story collection, 1986:

http://www.ffbooks.co.uk/c0/c891.htm

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Kelly, you are so skeptical it makes it hard to believe you're still alive. Isn't it faith on your part that eating will take away your hunger and keep you alive? Isn't it faith on your part that you existed ten seconds ago? Isn't it faith that if you point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger, you won't die? How do you make any decis ...[text shortened]... id you just get lucky as far as what you decided to have faith in? Are logic and reason useless?

You have something you want to believe in, go ahead. I do believe
we all live by our faith throughout our daily lives.

Many here seem to move towards evolution, with some wanting to
apply it to technology, as it has been done in Science Fiction. I’m
not sure what your complaint is about what I have been saying. This
particular subject has only been about things in the here and now,
and where it could possibility end up later. I have for my part of the
discussion kept it very basic, and on topic.

You have something to say about my points, or were you just
taking a little dig on me?
Kelly

Originally posted by zeeblebot
you're welcome ... please describe understanding ... how is it different from a computer that learns ...

I said a computer learns, but basically it is only taking in more
variables to play with. They are all the same to the computer,
they are all 0 and 1 nothing else, while with a human we know
what we are talking about, what we are thinking about, we are
aware of the subject matter. While a computer is only playing
with 0 and 1. I don't know how to say it any other way than I
have been saying it throughout this discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I said a computer learns, but basically it is only taking in more
variables to play with. They are all the same to the computer,
they are all 0 and 1 nothing else, while with a human we know
what we are talking about, what we are thinking about, we are
aware of the subject matter. While a computer is only playing
with 0 and 1. I don't know how to say it any other way than I
have been saying it throughout this discussion.
Kelly

"They are all the same to the "
human
", they are all "
bias voltages and firing rates and connection nets
"while with a "
computer it
"know"s "what " it " is " presenting " about, what " it is computing "about" it has stored the " subject matter.
"While a " human "is only playing with " bias voltages and firing rates and connection nets. ....

software is still kind of primitive ... add lots (LOTS) more project hours more RAM more HD space, out pops a consciousness ....

Originally posted by zeeblebot
"They are all the same to the "
human
", they are all "
bias voltages and firing rates and connection nets
"while with a "
computer it
"know"s "what " it " is " presenting " about, what " it is computing "about" it has stored the " subject matter.
"While a " human "is only playing with " bias voltages and firing rates an ...[text shortened]... ... add lots (LOTS) more project hours more RAM more HD space, out pops a consciousness ....

Out pops consciousness? Exactly where have you seen that happen
before so tha you know that is all there is to it?

They are all the same to the human, how? You understand what
is going on inside a human, you know a computer "knows
what is inside it's memory? Where are you getting all your facts?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Out pops consciousness? Exactly where have you seen that happen
before so tha you know that is all there is to it?

They are all the same to the human, how? You understand what
is going on inside a human, you know a computer "[b]knows
what is inside it's memory? Where are you getting all your facts?
Kelly[/b]

(i didn't mean to say it's -already- been done ...)

just because our understanding of human understanding is fuzzy does not mean a computer cannot achieve it ...

amp up your system, let it become self-observant and self-correcting and self-optimizing, and how would that be much different from human understanding? ... but it's going to take a lot more person-hours to get to that point, first ...

possibly there are too many projects out there, re my freshmeat post, it might be nicer if more of the coders banded together into a larger project for an AI framework ... or probably one or a few of those already exist, i didn't actually look at the hit list i posted it (plus the search was just for neural networks, actually i think there is a whole category for artificial intelligence on sourceforge and probably on freshmeat) ...

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have something you want to believe in, go ahead. I do believe
we all live by our faith throughout our daily lives.

Many here seem to move towards evolution, with some wanting to
apply it to technology, as it has been done in Scien ...[text shortened]... t my points, or were you just
taking a little dig on me?
Kelly

It's not that I have something I want to believe in; I choose what to believe in based on what seems to be most likely given what I observe in the world around me.

My criticism about what you've been saying is that you often say things like "evidence doesn't point towards XXX, peoples' opinions point towards XXX." Well, ok; but why do those opinions point towards XXX, and why do they mention the evidence? Is it completely arbritrary in your opinion? If one applies that attitude consistently, then it becomes impossible to live because you can't consistently make any kind of model of reality that will actually work. However I don't think you apply it consistently; you only apply it to certain things. For example, you don't apply it to your model of reality which says that if you do certain things with the buttons on your keyboard then internet posts will come into being and other people can read what you're thinking. Why do you selectively apply your critical attitude about evidence, opinions, and models of how things work?

It's not a dig at you; it's a legitimate challenge to your very common criticism about how evidence doesn't suggest anything which supports MacE. Your criticism is so skeptical that it's ridiculous, as you can see if you try to apply it consistently to the rest of your life.