19 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhy do I selectively apply my criticism, why am I skeptical at what
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 ...[text shortened]... t it's ridiculous, as you can see if you try to apply it consistently to the rest of your life.
I am skeptical about? Ah, doesn’t everyone do that for their own
reasons? My complaints about how people view the distant past is
because they assume things that cannot be proven, and build upon
them as if they were facts within their reasoning. Then call what they
believe facts about the distant past.
While here in this discussion, there is nothing to build upon with regard
to computers, yet people want to believe what they will about what may
happen in the future. Why, so far in my opinion because they believe
in evolution, even though there is no evolution taking place in the tech
world. They believe it happened with us through evolutionary processes
therefore it must be possible in the tech world, no matter what the
tech world is really made up with, and it is currently capable of now.
The distant past, the distant future are both matters of faith in my
opinion; if your going to tell me what did happen or is going to
happen, unless of course you are God you’re just speaking about
beliefs when refering to the distant past or future.
We build new systems; we use different patterns to issues commands,
we apply new designs for each model, there is no evolution taking
place in the tech world as people believe took place in the living bio
world. There are models that get cancelled during the planning phase,
there are models that get cancelled during later phases of R&D, some
live out their human decided life span, because it is more profitable
to sell the next model than the older ones at some point.
You believe my criticism, my being skeptical is ridiculous, than point
out to me what I have said that is ridiculous! I have pointed out to you
that you I have bias, we all do. I do not mind defending mine and I’m
not ashamed of admitting and sharing my beliefs. Some here try to
play both sides of the fence at times without admitting what they
believe to others, thinking that makes themselves superior after a
fashion. I have more respect for an atheist that admits his or her
stance than someone who doesn’t want to get labeled one thing or
another so they play both sides of the fence if they have strong bias
or beliefs one way or another.
Kelly
19 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayMy complaints about how people view the distant past is
Why do I selectively apply my criticism, why am I skeptical at what
I am skeptical about? Ah, doesn’t everyone do that for their own
reasons? My complaints about how people view the distant past is
because they assume things that cannot be proven, and build upon
them as if they were facts within their reasoning. Then call what they
believe facts about ...[text shortened]... y play both sides of the fence if they have strong bias
or beliefs one way or another.
Kelly
because they assume things that cannot be proven, and build upon
them as if they were facts within their reasoning.
You do the same thing every day. For example, you make assumptions that cannot be proven about whether or not other people exist whenever you're not looking at someone else. In fact, even if you are looking at someone else, you don't know if they are a hallucination, or a sophisticated robot...yet you consistently act as though other people exist. This is because you put on hold your view of what constitutes evidence for something when it's convenient for you.
While here in this discussion, there is nothing to build upon with regard to computers
That's not true. The brain, a physical, electrical and chemical entity, strongly influences the mind. As computers get more and more advanced they become more and more capable of mimicing humans. To someone who looks at things like you do in every day life, this strongly suggests that an artificial mind might be possible. But you don't like this for some reason, so you change the way you look at the world and decide to be extremely skeptical. I am pointing out your extreme skepticism is not reasonable or rational by showing how it would affect your ability to do the things you do every day if you applied it consistently.
Interestingly, you say AI is IMPOSSIBLE. What happened to your skepticism? How do you know what's possible and what's not?
point out to me what I have said that is ridiculous!
One the one hand you say this:
You believe chemical reactions, electric currents within living systems is all that is required for understanding, thought, and reason; how do you know?
Then you say
I understand this is what your claim is, I’m telling you that it isn’t
possible, because our computers have no understanding, they are
not intelligent.
You don't apply your own skepticism to yourself. "How do you know" what is possible and whether computers have understanding? You are inconsistent. That's ridiculous. You don't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people.
20 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJay"nothing to build upon with regard to computers"
... While here in this discussion, there is nothing to build upon with regard
to computers, yet people want to believe what they will about what may
happen in the future. Why, so far in my opinion because they believe
in evolution, even though there is no evolution taking place in the tech
world. They believe it happened with us through evolutionary p ...[text shortened]... ause it is more profitable
to sell the next model than the older ones at some point.
Kelly
why not?
"There are models that get cancelled during the planning phase,
there are models that get cancelled during later phases of R&D, some
live out their human decided life span, because it is more profitable
to sell the next model than the older ones at some point"
that's not evolution? ...
20 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt is after a fashion, but not in the same sense as when we use
"nothing to build upon with regard to computers"
why not?
"There are models that get cancelled during the planning phase,
there are models that get cancelled during later phases of R&D, some
live out their human decided life span, because it is more profitable
to sell the next model than the older ones at some point"
that's not evolution? ...
the word with what people believe (took place/is taking place) in the
biological world. Which has the living systems change through
generations of small changes within DNA. What we do is build a new
model, and our knowledge of the previous models are with us, but
each new model stands alone in our making it. My saying it isn't
evolutionary is strictly a comparison to the biological world. It
is a change with each generation new models and the word can be
used in my opinion to describe computers evolution correctly. It
depends on the context, I suppose. I just waned to be clear on how
these changes are taking place.
Kelly
20 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou do the same thing every day. For example, you make
[b] My complaints about how people view the distant past is
because they assume things that cannot be proven, and build upon
them as if they were facts within their reasoning.
You do the same thing every day. For example, you make assumptions that cannot be proven about whether or not other people exist whenever you're not looking at someon ...[text shortened]... That's ridiculous. You don't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people.[/b]
assumptions that cannot be proven about whether or not other people
exist whenever you're not looking at someone else. In fact, even if
you are looking at someone else, you don't know if they are a
hallucination, or a sophisticated robot...yet you consistently act as
though other people exist. This is because you put on hold your view
of what constitutes evidence for something when it's convenient for
you.
Yea, okay your point? I’ve had this discussion before, it is a topic
about faith and belief. We can say your walking across the floor, out
on a balcony, or across the ground is an act of faith because you
believe what you are doing something that is safe and reliable since
you have walked across floor, balconies, and the ground before. You
are acting in faith by simply walking where you believe you are safe
and die, because either the floor your walking on, or the balcony
collapse for some reason; with the ground like happened to me once.
I found a hole in the ground covered up by a small layer of earth I
thought was solid, and I fell into the hole while I was in Alaska.
If you want to talk about evidence, bring up the evidence and tell me
how I’m applying my faith to it, my criticism, my being skeptical about
a particular bit of evidence is ridiculous. What you are doing here feels
like is that your simply attacking me personally, not addressing an
issue. Be specific, pick a point, talk about it. Because I don’t agree
with you more times than not isn’t a big deal in my opinion. What is
convenient for me, what is convenient for you is simply our looking at
the universe with our foundation world views, those things we believe to
be true and worthy of our trust, then in these discussion attempt
to make small parts of what we believe, believable or acceptable to
others. There isn’t anything thing different about what I’m doing than
what you do! You accused me of bias once and I said you had it too
within this discussion. If your going to paint me out to be something
different at least pick some specific points and address them, don’t
accuse me of doing something everyone does and call me ridiculous
for doing so.
Kelly
20 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's not true. The brain, a physical, electrical and chemical entity, strongly influences the mind. As computers get more and more advanced they become more and more capable of mimicing humans. To someone who looks at things like you do in every day life, this strongly suggests that an artificial mind might be possible. But you don't like this for some reason, so you change the way you look at the world and decide to be extremely skeptical. I am pointing out your extreme skepticism is not reasonable or rational by showing how it would affect your ability to do the things you do every day if you applied it consistently.
[b] My complaints about how people view the distant past is
because they assume things that cannot be proven, and build upon
them as if they were facts within their reasoning.
You do the same thing every day. For example, you make assumptions that cannot be proven about whether or not other people exist whenever you're not looking at someon ...[text shortened]... That's ridiculous. You don't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people.[/b]
Interestingly, you say AI is IMPOSSIBLE. What happened to your skepticism? How do you know what's possible and what's not?
I understand we disagree, and your point is that because I say AI is
impossible and it is something you believe in I must be wrong? I am
aware of that the brain is made up of different material and there are
some similarities about the function of the brain and our man made
computers. I have been pointing out to you why I believe that is as far
as it goes, and why your fantasy about AI isn’t possible with the
current make up of computers and the software we use to run them.
Simply mimicking what a human brain does in a small way does not
make anything intelligent any more than my flapping my arms like
a birds wings means I can fly. If you want to call a computer moving
around little bits of electricity within it intelligence, go for it. If you want
to say that how a computer using little bits of electricity shows
understanding, do so. If you want to believe that our ability to design
and manufacture computer components along with our ability to
write computer code can give a nonliving computer system
intelligence, believe what you will.
I believe for a computer to be called intelligence it has to know
something, and our current models do not know anything, they are
simply machines that store and manipulate voltages in 1 and 0, or
highs and lows as we design them to move the voltages through them
nothing more than an electronic abacus. If you believe that the
abacus is intelligent at least you would be consistent in your stance.
Kelly
20 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou don't apply your own skepticism to yourself. "How do you know" what is possible and whether computers have understanding? You are inconsistent. That's ridiculous. You don't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people.
[b] My complaints about how people view the distant past is
because they assume things that cannot be proven, and build upon
them as if they were facts within their reasoning.
You do the same thing every day. For example, you make assumptions that cannot be proven about whether or not other people exist whenever you're not looking at someon ...[text shortened]... That's ridiculous. You don't apply the same standards to yourself as you do to other people.[/b]
Okay, you got me there, I don't apply my skepticism to others that
I apply to myself. If I have reasoned something out, and I accept
a point I do not question it as I do when someone gives me a new
idea that I don't agree with, my inconsistency abounds.
Kelly
20 May 05
1 edit
I have followed this thread with a bit of interest, and it strikes me that nobody has yet thought it important to define "Real Intelligence". We all just cruise along on a sea of ignorant bliss, assuming that there is such a thing as "Intelligence". Define it. What is it? Do "we" have it? Who are "we"? and Why?
Is there such a thing as "Real Intelligence"? Then we can talk about the "artificial" form of the real.
Just a thought. Maybe real. Maybe not.
20 May 05
5 edits
As a follow up thought. What if we discovered a race of people who were "stuck" in an apparently intelligent state? Say that of a four year old?
The problem is that an average four year old is intelligent, but not yet "conscious".
I often wonder if half the beings about me are caught in this permanent state. Seemingly intelligent. Seemingly aware. But not really conscious.
Could we be sure that a discovered civilization on a far planet was really "conscious" and not just intelligent? We learn language without being conscious. We react intelligently to our surroundings without being conscious. We grin. We kiss. We laugh and love. Without being conscious.
A perfect example of an "empire" of unconscious beings would be the Ancient Egyptians. From all their writings, they talked with gods and got answers. And there isn't a single "lie" or "bluff" recorded in all their writings. Think about that.
One sure test would be the use of language. The very first person to realize the meaning of "to lie" would be known as being conscious. Every thing before that was untrue would be only the word of God. How do we know this? Because of all creation myth in sum. "Innocence" is the first victim of conscious thought. That "poker" should be played is the sign of conscious thought. It more than anything else betrays a conscious mind. To lie. Or not to lie. That is the question. Only a "conscious" mind can bluff. Which is just a lie.
Ok. I admit it. I am curious about people. I bluff often. It is a way of finding out who is conscious and who is not. And it works quite well. Show me a person who can't bluff... I'll show you an intelligent being who isn't conscious. Try it. You'll like it.
21 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI agree with SVW's point. What is "intelligence" such that a human can have it yet cannot create it via technology?
I have followed this thread with a bit of interest, and it strikes me that nobody has yet thought it important to define "Real Intelligence". We all just cruise along on a sea of ignorant bliss, assuming that there is such a thing as "Intelligence". Define it. What is it? Do "we" have it? Who are "we"? and Why?
Is there such a thing as "Real ...[text shortened]... we can talk about the "artificial" form of the real.
Just a thought. Maybe real. Maybe not.
21 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI never said we had to "create" it. I just said it would be cool if we understood it before we start defining the "artificial" variant of it.
I agree with SVW's point. What is "intelligence" such that a human can have it yet cannot create it via technology?
It seems the height of stupidity to rave on about "artificial intelligence" when we know absolutely nothing of "real intelligence". Or can you define it for us?
21 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayMy point is that the world around us provides evidence which helps us decide what is best to believe; that is, what is most likely to be true. If a baseball came flying through my window and I looked outside and there was a person with a baseball bat, then assuming that the person with the bat hit the ball through the window is reasonable. If there was minor damage to the ball and the bat which were exactly consistent with the idea that the bat hit the ball and sent it through the window, it would support the idea that the kid hit the ball through the window. If an expert in projectile motion concluded the ball came from the same point as the kid with the bat was standing in, this would help the hypothesis even further. It would be unreasonable to say it's just as likely that the ball just appeared a foot before it hit the window and the kid had nothing to do with it unless you had some extremely good evidence suggesting that was the case. Evidence is what leads us to what beliefs we hold if we are rational.
You do the same thing every day. For example, you make
assumptions that cannot be proven about whether or not other people
exist whenever you're not looking at someone else. In fact, even if
you are looking at someone else, you don't ...[text shortened]... mething everyone does and call me ridiculous
for doing so.
Kelly
Your saying the light from the star just appeared, or that light moved differently from how physics would predict based on tremendous amounts of experiment, without any evidence supporting this view is irrational.
Your example about the hole is different because you actually fell in the hole. If you pointed at some place on the ground and said there was a hole there with zero evidence that such holes exist often in the area or that there is a hole in that particular spot, it would be irrational. However it would be less irrational than saying light moved at a different speed than 3 x 10^8 m/s because it is perfectly consistent with physics that holes might exist yet be covered by something so you can't see them.
I am not attacking you so much as I am criticising the way you analyze things that do not agree with your religious beliefs. You do not analyze everything this way; you only analyze that which you choose not to believe before you look at the evidence. Choosing what to believe independent of the evidence that is available is irrational.
If you want to talk about evidence, bring up the evidence and tell me how I’m applying my faith to it, my criticism, my being skeptical about a particular bit of evidence is ridiculous.
OK. You gave an example of a star being eight light years away, and light reaching our eyes. I can't find it so I will try to reconstruct it. The light is travelling on a path and is of a wavelength and intensity perfectly consistent with the model that says the light originated in the star as a result of normal stellar activity.
Your response - why assume it came from the star? Why not assume it appeared a couple thousand years ago with those exact characteristics, violating the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy? Or maybe the nature of light in the past was totally and completely different from how the Theory of Relativity describes light to be. You've presented zero evidence that these are the case, yet you've presented these alternate models several times as though they were reasonable alternatives to the idea that the light came from the star. When you're hungry, you do the rational thing and eat food; but when it comes to explaining how starlight came to the Earth you develop a level of skepticism that would be equivalent to trying to cure your hunger by jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. I mean, how do we know eating cures hunger? That's just an assumption; it's just faith right?
This level of skepticism is ridiculous, and is on the level of saying that a well nourished person hasn't eaten or been given food through an IV for ten years, or that the CIA created the memories in the minds of everyone now alive and we are all really BIG CATS, or that dancing naked and beating your monitor with a baseball bat will cause your thoughts to be written down in to form of posts on the RHP forum.
I'm not trying to "paint you". I am trying to describe you accurately because you don't seem to have an accurate view of yourself.
...your point is that because I say AI is impossible and it is something you believe in I must be wrong?
It's not about what I believe; it is inconsistent for you to have the level of skepticism you (sometimes) do and then to say something is impossible. "How do you know"?
I have been pointing out to you why I believe that is as far
as it goes, and why your fantasy about AI isn’t possible with the
current make up of computers and the software we use to run them.
No, you've been talking about what might be possible in the future with further advances in technology taken into account.
21 May 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis leads nowhere. If I used the words reasoning, understandment, creativive behaviour, etc... you would probably ask me to define them to. Shall we start with "I think therefore I am"?
I never said we had to "create" it. I just said it would be cool if we understood it before we start defining the "artificial" variant of it.
It seems the height of stupidity to rave on about "artificial intelligence" when we know absolutely nothing of "real intelligence". Or can you define it for us?
Intelligence is easily recognized but difficult to define, like most non-material concepts.
21 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree intelligence needs to be defined before we start talking about whether people can make an artificial version of it.
This leads nowhere. If I used the words reasoning, understandment, creativive behaviour, etc... you would probably ask me to define them to. Shall we start with "I think therefore I am"?
Intelligence is easily recognized but difficult to define, like most non-material concepts.
I would ask you to define, reasoning, creative behaviour...too.
That's the reason it's so strange to talk about how it's impossible to make AI. How can you say something's impossible without defining what exactly you think is impossible? I can define what I think is probably possible; an artificial entity that is capable of problem solving on the same level as a human being and can take an IQ test designed for humans and do ok with no specific preparation for the test.
A definition based on intuitive recognition would also allow us to make an AI. I am sure we could probably devise a device at some point in the future that would give a fairly large chunk of the populace an intuitive feeling that it has intelligence.