ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags A.I. , artificial intelligence , consciousness

View Poll Results: Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?
Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in other substrates, such as general purpose computers. 81 86.17%
Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectable by scientific instruments 3 3.19%
On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines 10 10.64%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Old 19th April 2012, 03:11 AM   #161
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Get me a robot that can survive in the real world for 70 000 years without help from humans and I will start paying attention.

Show me a human that can survive in the real world for 70,000 years without help from robots, and you will have my attention.



Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Homo sapiens began to colonize the world from Africa around then.

I doubt any of the people from that time managed to live for 70,000 years.

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

Hormones.

(Well, I suppose you could attach a computer to some kind of chemical synthesizing device capable of manufacturing hormones.)
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 04:02 AM   #162
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
In the meantime I suggest you consider the words at minutes 52:15 to 52:30 in this video
What the hell... why not just quote it for us? You're trying to convince us of your point of view, so you should be able to quote a single sentence from a video you've seen instead of forcing each of us to search for a video to find out what you're talking about.

For benefit of everyone else, here's what it says:

"Hunting through these [satellite images] is a slow and monotonous task that can't be done by computer."



Did you even stop to consider why they regard this task as something that "can't be done by computer"?

If you had, you might have realized the reason is that the extremely complex software required to perform this highly specialized task does not exist.

It's not that computers are inherently incapable of performing this task, but that programmers haven't yet figured out how to instruct computers to perform this task.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Also ponder over these [...]

Pondering this part of your post leads me to conclude you don't understand the concept. You bring up art, humor, poetry and philosophy. All products of human intelligence and creativity never before generated by a computer.

But human intelligence has never before been generated by a computer either. Once a computer generates human intelligence it would be reasonable to expect it to be able to create products of human intelligence. But not before this happens.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Accordingly I hope you can appreciate how frustratingly laughable it is when some simpletons come along and decide that it is a matter of COMPUTATION and that's it and anyone who disagrees must be a believer in metaphysics and a woo bagger while they arrogantly cite science FICTION and their programming abilities as qualifying justifications for their FAITH in their laptop replicating the "output" of even the human brain not to mention them thinking that they have already achieved nuclear fusion inside it too.

I see. It's clear you don't understand what's meant by computation in this context. So here's a link to help facilitate the discussion...

Computational theory of mind

In case you can't be bothered reading that page here's a quote that should make it clear that the term "computation" is not being used how you think it's being used:
Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern day digital computer. Computational theory just uses some of the same principles as those found in digital computing.

'Computer' is not meant to mean a modern day electronic computer. Rather a computer is a symbol manipulator that follows step by step functions to compute input and form output. Alan Turing describes this type of computer in his concept of a Turing Machine.
If the computational theory of mind is correct (ie, that the human brain functions by processing information) then logically any Turing Complete machine should be able to perform the same function (given sufficient time, memory and the right program).

If the computational theory of mind is incorrect... then how does the mind work? Magical pixie dust?
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 04:12 AM   #163
lupus_in_fabula
Graduate Poster
 
lupus_in_fabula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I would say the output of consciousness is experience, as consciousness is necessary for experience.
It’s certainly a convenient way of defining consciousness into existence, as a necessary condition per definition.

Yet I would rather say that consciousness relates to experience in a similar way as weather relates to temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure. Both “consciousness” and “weather” are useful conceptual devices. But when one tries to find “consciousness” or “weather” in their own right, zooming in, one only finds what they relate to (as different systemic configurations). When zooming out, on the other hand, one only finds necessary conditions for where the systemic configurations can exist. For weather it would be an atmosphere, and for consciousness it might be a nervous system … or something like that.

But, having said that, I also find the notion of SRIP to be quite suitable when defining consciousness. Here one should remember that consciousness simply refers to a mechanism, not to a variety of potential experiences. Thus we might consider a thermostat (as a system) producing momentary instances of consciousness. The human system produces instances of consciousness as well. Hence the mechanism is considered to be similar, in principle, yet the resulting manifestation is vastly different, in practise. Kind of like combustion, where different substances burn in different ways (e.g., hydrogen burns in chlorine to form hydrogen chloride whereas carbon will yield carbon dioxide). Yet we find a similar kind of underlying principle (mechanism) at play.
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
lupus_in_fabula is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 06:17 AM   #164
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post


One day, when you figure out the answer to this question, you will look back at your mindset now and realize how childish and naive you were.

In the meantime I suggest you consider the words at minutes 52:15 to 52:30 in this video

Also ponder over these images

Relativity (Escher)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Relativity.jpg

Dream Caused by the flight of a bee around a Pomegranate seconds before awakening (Dali)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Awakening.jpg

Metamorphosis of Narcissus (Dali)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Narcissus.jpg


I also suggest you go to some library and read Shakespeare or Miguel De Cervantes or Robert Frost or Rudyard Kipling or Homer or even Sun Tsu.

I also suggest you familiarize yourself with some science history and read about Isaac Newton and Leibniz and Descartes and Einstein and Fourier and Laplace and Pascal and Freud.

You may even enjoy the writings of some philosophers like Voltaire and Diderot and Russell.

Moreover, you may want to go to some museum and reflect over some art like Da Vinci's or Escher’s or Michelangelo's or Dali's.

Finally you may want to have a nice night out in a good Comedy Club and enjoy some good old human humor instead of spending the night playing video games or watching Star Trek reruns.... maybe that might help.
My question was: Though it's been said that a computer can no more produce consciousness than a computer simulation of photosynthesis can produce real sugar, what evidence is there of a SUBSTANCE of consciousness the brain produces that no machine ever could produce?

The outputs of the brain you mention are INFORMATION, not substances (like sugar from photosynthesis). The output of computers is INFORMATION.

There's been lots of work in making computers output works of art. The suggestion that they could never produce good works is as naive as the assertions that they beat chess masters and Jeopardy champions.

I don't doubt that when computers and AI become sufficiently advanced, they will produce art significantly better than the average conscious person.

If you are so sure no computer could ever output a work of fine art, explain why.

PS: I'm a huge Dali and Escher fan. I've attended major exhibits of their works, and even owned a Dali. My favorite Dali is "Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by Her Own Chastity," my favorite Escher is "Bond of Union," and my favorite old Star Trek is "The Changeling", probably because it investigates machine consciousness. As much as I love the show, I object to its monotonous appeal to our narcissism. The lesson of too many of them is that we, by virtue of our "illogical" emotions, are superior to anything we'd encounter out there.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 19th April 2012 at 06:32 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 06:19 AM   #165
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,135
I was making up the stuff about the rock. I just wanted to mess with the debate.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 06:24 AM   #166
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I would say the output of consciousness is experience, as consciousness is necessary for experience.
That's not an output in any normal sense of the word. Experience remains in the brain. Why couldn't a computer program produce its own internal experience?
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 07:19 AM   #167
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
What the hell... why not just quote it for us? You're trying to convince us of your point of view, so you should be able to quote a single sentence from a video you've seen instead of forcing each of us to search for a video to find out what you're talking about.

For benefit of everyone else, here's what it says:

"Hunting through these [satellite images] is a slow and monotonous task that can't be done by computer."


So you cannot click on a link and then click on the slide bar of the video to go to the assigned minute?

Oh well.... maybe you should learn how to do that.

If you are incapable of doing that or too lazy then just do not bother and go away…..but do not blame me for not transcribing video scripts for you when you could just as easily watch the video. I am not your stenographer.



Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Did you even stop to consider why they regard this task as something that "can't be done by computer"?

If you had, you might have realized the reason is that the extremely complex software required to perform this highly specialized task does not exist.

Have you considered that I have actually posted the link to the video and must have therefore considered quite well why I was citing it.

Have you considered the CONTEXT of the citation..... if you where in fact able to READ the post and the post it was responding to and the HIGHLIGHTED bit in that
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?
You may have grasped the CONTEXT of the whole thing and this post of yours would not have been a giant big snidely CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY.

You see the bit in the video was "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" ....... that was why I cited it.....because it was something that machines cannot do while brains can......you see you have to be able to COMPREHEND the CONTEXT of a post before you comment on it with childish superciliousness..


Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
It's not that computers are inherently incapable of performing this task, but that programmers haven't yet figured out how to instruct computers to perform this task.


And how does that detract from the fact that it is "something else the brain outputs that machines could not"

Whether it can be programmed or not is a matter of CONJECTURE since at the moment it has not been done with all the knowhow we have and with all the RESOURCES the USA military has put to it.

But that is immaterial to the point which is that it is "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" which is why I cited it in response to the question.

I think you need to learn what the word CONTEXT means....before you mouth off your superciliousness.


Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Pondering this part of your post leads me to conclude you don't understand the concept. You bring up art, humor, poetry and philosophy. All products of human intelligence and creativity never before generated by a computer.

But human intelligence has never before been generated by a computer either. Once a computer generates human intelligence it would be reasonable to expect it to be able to create products of human intelligence. But not before this happens.

I see. It's clear you don't understand what's meant by computation in this context. So here's a link to help facilitate the discussion...
[snip]


It is clear you do not know how to read posts.... the post was in response to this question in this post
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?
So it has nothing to do with computation or anything..... in case you have missed the question.... it was asking if there is anything that the brain can "output" that a machine cannot.

The answer was in that post whose context has obviously eluded you.

So it is you who did not read and comprehend the post and the post it was responding to and you failed to understand the CONTEXT of the post.

You see CONTEXT is of paramount importance.....that is why there is even a logical fallacy called CONTEXTOMIZATION which is a fallacy of putting things out of CONTEXT.

So when you learn what CONTEXT means maybe you should go back and read the post and the post it was responding to and maybe you can comprehend where your snarky attitude has failed you.

My other post you quoted and highlighted the word “computation” in had nothing to do with the video or material in the other post. It was talking about consciousness and therefore you AGAIN have failed to appreciate or comprehend the CONTEXT.

I really do think that you need to learn how to read things in CONTEXT so as to stop committing the contextomization logical fallacy.


Your whole post is nothing but one long logical fallacy.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Last edited by Leumas; 19th April 2012 at 07:26 AM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 07:26 AM   #168
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,441
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
I was making up the stuff about the rock. I just wanted to mess with the debate.

You didn't really rock.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 08:57 AM   #169
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, anything can be coded, but I have a hunch that the present architecture of both hardware and software may pose an obstacle, because it is basically constructed to be as deterministic as possible, and I don't think determinism is a main feature of consciousness, quite the opposite, it seems to be 'designed' to find new combinations of input data.
This is the most sensible point that has been made in this thread. The architecture of the code and the processor are both important.

When it comes to human processor architecture and coding we are limited by the fact we can only use human processors to analyse. We can't look beyond what our processor is programmed to interpret its code as. We can only see the representation of the code, not the code itself.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 09:20 AM   #170
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,756
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
This is the most sensible point that has been made in this thread. The architecture of the code and the processor are both important.

When it comes to human processor architecture and coding we are limited by the fact we can only use human processors to analyse. We can't look beyond what our processor is programmed to interpret its code as. We can only see the representation of the code, not the code itself.
Unless you are The One
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 11:00 AM   #171
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
You may have grasped the CONTEXT of the whole thing and this post of yours would not have been a giant big snidely CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY.

You see the bit in the video was "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" ....... that was why I cited it.....because it was something that machines cannot do while brains can......you see you have to be able to COMPREHEND the CONTEXT of a post before you comment on it with childish superciliousness..
The context of MY question was whether or not a machine could produce the physical or metaphysical substance of consciousness (also expressed in post #1 of this thread). I saw that you changed my context, and I responded to you in both contexts.

Yes, the video did say a computer could not identify enemy hideouts from satellite photos as well as people could. But I've learned, working in research laboratories (including difficult image analysis projects) never to say never. There is no doubt a software project working on it that soon will have a program far better and faster than people can do that task, and without simulating consciousness. When that happens, I expect you'll move the goal posts.

All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. Computers should catch up with and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 19th April 2012 at 11:45 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 11:22 AM   #172
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,756
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. They should catch up and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL
I certainly will remember this post.

Okay, so your logic is that humans don't get smarter and computers that do. Hmm so who makes these computers that get smarter? Surely not the humans that can't get smarter. How are they suppose to make smarter computers if they don't get smarter at making computers? Are you suggesting the computers make themselves?
Watson was made by another computer?
Is Watson smarter than the guys at IBM that programmed Watson?
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 11:41 AM   #173
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
I certainly will remember this post.

Okay, so your logic is that humans don't get smarter and computers that do. Hmm so who makes these computers that get smarter? Surely not the humans that can't get smarter. How are they suppose to make smarter computers if they don't get smarter at making computers? Are you suggesting the computers make themselves?
Watson was made by another computer?
Is Watson smarter than the guys at IBM that programmed Watson?
I could easily program a computer to play better chess than me. In some of the videos about Watson there were moments when Watson's developers were quite surprised and delighted by how well Watson was doing. There are also links between speed and memory size, and smartness, in people and in machines. It works like this: Say Watson was equal in smartness (at Jeopardy) to a particular person, if you then doubled Watson's clock speed, you'd double its smartness, and it might double it's score against that person.

We are certainly getting smarter every day at programming smart computers. There's no doubt about that.

The essential question of this thread, stated a different way, is whether or not we will hit a brick wall in our efforts with AI, and if so, what is the nature of that wall?

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 19th April 2012 at 11:54 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 11:55 AM   #174
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
I don't think playing chess or answering Jeopardy questions show computers are smart. I think they show that playing chess and answering Jeopardy questions aren't the smart activities that many thought they were. Brains do a lot more complicated things than both these tasks all the time.

Last edited by keyfeatures; 19th April 2012 at 11:56 AM.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 12:03 PM   #175
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,756
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
I could easily program a computer to play better chess than me. In some of the videos about Watson there are moments when Watson's developers are quite surprised and delighted by how well Watson was doing. There are also links between speed and memory size, and smartness, in people and in machines. It works like this: Say Watson was equal in smartness (at Jeopardy) to a particular person, if you then doubled Watson's clock speed, you'd double its smartness, and it might double it's score against that person.

We are certainly getting smarter every day at programming smart computers. There's no doubt about that.

The essential question of this thread, stated a different way, is whether or not we will hit a brick wall in our efforts with AI, and if so, what is the nature of that wall?
Humans are surprised at their abilities to build machines that do what they were designed to do all the time, why should this be any different with Watson?

The brick wall is the same brick wall for any human activity, humans themselves.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 12:04 PM   #176
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Chimps are already 'smarter' than humans on this test. In fact, chimps can remember, recall and order numbers that are flashed up for such little time a human couldn't even register them.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 12:47 PM   #177
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
The context of MY question was whether or not a machine could produce the physical or metaphysical substance of consciousness (also expressed in post #1 of this thread). I saw that you changed my context, and I responded to you in both contexts.

Yes, the video did say a computer could not identify enemy hideouts from satellite photos as well as people could. But I've learned, working in research laboratories (including difficult image analysis projects) never to say never. There is no doubt a software project working on it that soon will have a program far better and faster than people can do that task without simulating consciousness. When that happens, I expect you'll move the goal posts.


Go study what moving the goalposts fallacy actually means then come back and read the rest of this post.

Your OWN question was
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Q: How is a computer-simulated conscious brain NOT like computer-simulated photosynthesis?

A: The brain and a conscious computer both output the same thing: control signals for the body.

Computers routinely output control signals to animal and mechanical bodies. We can do this already.

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

The question in the context of your post above is quite clear…. I am not supposed to read your mind and figure out that you also meant to include other stuff from other posts which you never quoted or cited.

I answered your question in the context of the post it was in and gave you NUMEROUS examples of brain output that machines are currently not doing….just like you asked… whether machines can do so in the future someday perhaps maybe if and when they do then I hope we are both alive to see it.

By the way speculating that I might move the goalposts when in the future your speculations about machines might come true and thus acting as if I have in fact moved the goalposts is a WHOLE NEW FALLACY that you have invented all by yourself....congratulations..... can we name it The Scott Free Fallacy?


But in fact IT IS YOU WHO IS MOVING THE GOALPOSTS right now not in some speculative future.... you do so in three ways
  1. Concentrating on JUST ONE OF THE MANY MANY EXAMPLES I gave you of brain outputs that currently no machine can do.
  2. You SPECULATE that since maybe perhaps one day that ONE EXAMPLE will possibly be made possible as a machine output then the entirety of the given examples ….which by the way represent a SUBSET of the sum total OF HUMAN CULTURE…. will then be dismissed by you as machine producible…. This is by the way a generalization fallacy on top of a wishful thinking fallacy.
  3. Redefining the context of your post to include other posts which I am somehow meant to read your mind and deduce that you meant to include them as an implicit part of your question.

So…. You are the one who is doing wishful thinking and then basing a generalization on the outcome of your wishful thinking and moving the goalposts of your posts.....and do not forget this Scott Free fallacy of yours to boot.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 12:58 PM   #178
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
I don't think playing chess or answering Jeopardy questions show computers are smart. I think they show that playing chess and answering Jeopardy questions aren't the smart activities that many thought they were. Brains do a lot more complicated things than both these tasks all the time.


PRECISELY..... recalling chess positions one memorized from a book or recalling trivial facts one memorized from a book is not SMART.....it is just good memory.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 01:02 PM   #179
Modified
Illuminator
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,824
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Well, anything can be coded, but I have a hunch that the present architecture of both hardware and software may pose an obstacle, because it is basically constructed to be as deterministic as possible, and I don't think determinism is a main feature of consciousness, quite the opposite, it seems to be 'designed' to find new combinations of input data.
I wouldn't expect any kind of "direct" coding to produce consciousness, but rather a system of simulated neurons, or something like simulated neurons. This is similar to the way physics-engine-based games are now produced: you design the game with entities in the simulated environment, often with very little "real" coding.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 01:02 PM   #180
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. Computers should catch up with and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL

I certainly will remember this post.

Okay, so your logic is that humans don't get smarter and computers that do. Hmm so who makes these computers that get smarter? Surely not the humans that can't get smarter. How are they suppose to make smarter computers if they don't get smarter at making computers? Are you suggesting the computers make themselves?
Watson was made by another computer?
Is Watson smarter than the guys at IBM that programmed Watson?


And do not forget this one too... I think it is just as entertaining.


Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
This is key.

Note the emphatic meanness evoked in believers in the supernatural (like you and !kaggen) when they defend their beliefs against skeptics.

The idea that a machine can think like a human is like a stab to their heart. It makes them feel less special. So, they lash out, attempting to hurt the people who hurt them.

Well, get over it. All evidence indicates the body and the brain and all of life are machines, just like the machines we build. Very complicated automata that evolved through natural selection, right now more complicated than we can build, but that gap shrinks every day. It's extremely cool that evolution resulted in self conscious machines like you and me, but there's no evidence that we are more than naturally evolved machines.

Am I wrong? Where's your evidence we are more than machines.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 01:08 PM   #181
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. Computers should catch up with and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
The idea that a machine can think like a human is like a stab to their heart. It makes them feel less special. So, they lash out, attempting to hurt the people who hurt them.

Well, get over it. All evidence indicates the body and the brain and all of life are machines, just like the machines we build. Very complicated automata that evolved through natural selection, right now more complicated than we can build, but that gap shrinks every day. It's extremely cool that evolution resulted in self conscious machines like you and me, but there's no evidence that we are more than naturally evolved machines.



The two quotes above make me seriously wonder….is it your hope one day that you will join the smarter machines as perhaps a smarter human than the rest of humans and thus the machines will deign to have you as a minion or perhaps overlord over the stupid humans? This reminds me of the human servant of Dracula as depicted in old vampire movies…. not the modern ones where vampires are now teenage heartthrobs.


Just as a side note…. You keep falling for the burden of proof fallacy as below
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Am I wrong? Where's your evidence we are more than machines.

When someone makes GUESSES and CONJECTURES about what might happen in the future the burden of proof is on him not on the people who might reject his speculations and dreams.

You see, no one can prove your wishful thinking and hopeful aspirations for some future speculative event to be false or true….just like we cannot prove god to be false or true…… BOTH ARE FICTIVE HOPES and thus no one can give you evidence for why Data and Hal and God cannot become reality because they are DREAMS…… the onus of proof is on YOU when you make the assertions you made in the above two quoted posts.

You do not seem to be able to distinguish between SPECULATION and REALITY.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 02:53 PM   #182
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by keyfeatures View Post
I don't think playing chess or answering Jeopardy questions show computers are smart. I think they show that playing chess and answering Jeopardy questions aren't the smart activities that many thought they were. Brains do a lot more complicated things than both these tasks all the time.
It sounds to me like your definition of "smart" is clever stuff people can do but machines can't. Using that definition, you win hands down. Computers will never be smart.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 19th April 2012 at 03:13 PM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 03:00 PM   #183
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
The two quotes above make me seriously wonder….is it your hope one day that you will join the smarter machines as perhaps a smarter human than the rest of humans and thus the machines will deign to have you as a minion or perhaps overlord over the stupid humans? This reminds me of the human servant of Dracula as depicted in old vampire movies…. not the modern ones where vampires are now teenage heartthrobs.


Just as a side note…. You keep falling for the burden of proof fallacy as below



When someone makes GUESSES and CONJECTURES about what might happen in the future the burden of proof is on him not on the people who might reject his speculations and dreams.

You see, no one can prove your wishful thinking and hopeful aspirations for some future speculative event to be false or true….just like we cannot prove god to be false or true…… BOTH ARE FICTIVE HOPES and thus no one can give you evidence for why Data and Hal and God cannot become reality because they are DREAMS…… the onus of proof is on YOU when you make the assertions you made in the above two quoted posts.

You do not seem to be able to distinguish between SPECULATION and REALITY.
Your vitriol fascinates me.

There's lots of evidence we are made of molecular machines, and we have lots of experience simulating them in computers.

There's no evidence I know that there's some special uncomputable aspect of life or biological intelligence. I looked hard for it when I was a woo! If you've got some, share it, will you?
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 03:10 PM   #184
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
PRECISELY..... recalling chess positions one memorized from a book or recalling trivial facts one memorized from a book is not SMART.....it is just good memory.
Chess computers do a lot more than recalling positions from a book, and Watson does a lot more than recalling facts. You'd be more fun to debate with if you knew what you were talking about.

So, computers cannot have the magic bean of smartness? Why not?

You've posted so much attacking others' positions. What's your position on the lmits of machine intelligence? Where the boundary lies, and why it's there.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 03:51 PM   #185
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
It sounds to me like your definition of "smart" is clever stuff people can do but machines can't. Using that definition, you win hands down. Computers will never be smart.


Smart people INVENT machines and tools that no one has ever made before.

Normal people USE THE TOOLS and are bewildered and dazzled by the cleverness of these machines and tools made by people much smarter than them and consequently recognize and appreciate how smart the people who made the tools are.

Stupid people USE THE TOOLS but are so bewildered and dazzled by the cleverness of these machines and tools made by people infinitely smarter than them and think that these machines are smarter than all people. They also think themselves smart because they know how to make the machines do clever things using even more tools made by smart people to enable normal and stupid people to easily manipulate the machines and tools to do clever things.

For example.....smart people make Lego sets..... normal people use them to play and appreciate the makers of the set....stupid people use the Lego set to make things and think themselves smart because they put a few bricks of Lego together and think they created new clever stuff.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Last edited by Leumas; 19th April 2012 at 04:49 PM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 04:43 PM   #186
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Your vitriol fascinates me.

There's lots of evidence we are made of molecular machines, and we have lots of experience simulating them in computers.


Fascinating..... so now you are simulating cells in your laptop too?

Reality old chump..... Reality..... you may want to recognize it one day.


Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
There's no evidence I know that there's some special uncomputable aspect of life or biological intelligence.

There you go again assuming that just because you do not know of something then it cannot be.....do you know what fallacy that is? This thread is one interesting fallacy after another from the onset… even going so far as inventing a new one.



Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
I looked hard for it when I was a woo! If you've got some, share it, will you?

Now I get it.... your overcompensation and zeal for attributing woo at the drop of a hat to anyone who disagrees with your false dichotomy makes sense now. It is like an ex-alcoholic teetotaler who thinks that people who drink must be alcoholics too.

Personalities that do things in extremes are apt to carry over their extremism on either side of the spectrum even when they change sides they are as zealously extreme for the new side as they were for the old one they were on.

I can also understand your FAITH in computer intelligence…. You identify with having an all on or all off mindset.


Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
If you've got some, share it, will you?
No I have never had any, I was never woo. But you obviously have enough to go all round. You have as much woo for computers now that you are on their side as you did when you were on god's side.

ETA: I now also understand your proclivity to committing logical fallacies all over the place... it is definitely a prevalent woo tendency.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Last edited by Leumas; 19th April 2012 at 05:35 PM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 05:03 PM   #187
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Chess computers do a lot more than recalling positions from a book, and Watson does a lot more than recalling facts. You'd be more fun to debate with if you knew what you were talking about.

Ditto10...


Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
So, computers cannot have the magic bean of smartness? Why not?

You've posted so much attacking others' positions. What's your position on the lmits of machine intelligence? Where the boundary lies, and why it's there.


Well the only response I have to this straw man is to use your own words slightly modified

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
You'd be more fun to debate with if you knew what you were talking about how to read, understand and recollect your debater's posts.


ETA: Just to make it easy for you... if you want to know my position then watch the minutes I suggested in the video I linked to in this post. But also watch the whole video.

ETAA: Of course if you were sincere about wanting to know my position you would have already known what it is from the NUMEROUS posts in this thread to which you were a very active participant. But again to make it easy for you see this just one recent post which may make it easier for you.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Last edited by Leumas; 19th April 2012 at 05:46 PM.
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 05:09 PM   #188
Minoosh
Master Poster
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,858
Gosh this is turning out just like the old thread! What are the odds!!??
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 05:19 PM   #189
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Gosh this is turning out just like the old thread! What are the odds!!??

That is why I posted this
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
This poll is a false dichotomy...especially when Scott himself has admitted that the third choice was a joke

The false dichotomy is
You either agree with his SPECULATIONS and CONJECTURES or you are a WOO BELIEVER
It is not just a false dichotomy...it is an egregious insult to anyone who sides with the scads of scientists who disagree with his FAITH in SCIENCE FICTION.


Before this thread degenerates into more nonsensical armchair speculations from laymen along with vitriolic hubristic defense of these conjectures by citing scifi fanfic along with adamant unwavering “monumentally simplistic” “operational definitions” that are “of no practical value”... and before it gravitates towards hypotheses of how the characters in the Sims video game are conscious entities if only you could redefine reality to suit.... and before it settles down to wishful thinking and aspirations of some laymen for becoming Deos Ex Machinas.... I suggest you watch this video to see the facts of where we stand in regards to the possibility of Pinocchio becoming a reality.

The following minutes are of salient relevance
  • 30:10 to 32:20
  • 34:55 to 41:45
  • 42:12 to 45:05 (especially 44:43-45:00)
  • 56:55 to 57:35
  • BUT....ABOVE ALL.... minutes 48:50 to 50:40.....especially the sentence the scientist says at minute 50:08 to 50:10.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

And this post

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Before this thread degenerates into more nonsensical armchair speculations from laymen
Check


Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
along with vitriolic hubristic defense of these conjectures by citing scifi fanfic
check


Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
along with adamant unwavering “monumentally simplistic” “operational definitions” that are “of no practical value”...
Check


Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
and before it gravitates towards hypotheses of how the characters in the Sims video game are conscious entities if only you could redefine reality to suit....
Check


Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
and before it settles down to wishful thinking and aspirations of some laymen for becoming Deos Ex Machinas....

Check



Wow.... and only 111 posts so far.
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 06:32 PM   #190
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Well, if the experts can't define it for the layperson, how are the laypeople gonna 'splain it to eachother?
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 09:21 PM   #191
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
So you cannot click on a link and then click on the slide bar of the video to go to the assigned minute?

Oh well.... maybe you should learn how to do that.

If you are incapable of doing that or too lazy then just do not bother and go away…..but do not blame me for not transcribing video scripts for you when you could just as easily watch the video. I am not your stenographer.
But I did do that. How else would I have been able to transcribe the sentence?

My point is that you watched the video and had to note the time at which this sentence occurs in order to give us the location of this sentence in the video. With the exact same effort you could have easily typed out this sentence.

Did it occur to you that many people find it annoying to have to visit external links to find out what someone is referring to? To impose this annoyance on others when it would take no extra effort on your part to avoid causing it is somewhat inconsiderate.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Have you considered that I have actually posted the link to the video and must have therefore considered quite well why I was citing it.
Yes I did, and I concluded that if you you had considered it sufficiently you wouldn't have bothered making such a pointless reference.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Have you considered the CONTEXT of the citation..... if you where in fact able to READ the post and the post it was responding to and the HIGHLIGHTED bit in that
Yes, I did consider the context of the citation, but I also considered the context of your reply.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
You may have grasped the CONTEXT of the whole thing and this post of yours would not have been a giant big snidely CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY.
Exactly what have I quoted out of context?

There are no examples in your post of anything a human brain could output that a computer could not, in theory, also output.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
You see the bit in the video was "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" ....... that was why I cited it.....because it was something that machines cannot do while brains can......you see you have to be able to COMPREHEND the CONTEXT of a post before you comment on it with childish superciliousness.
If we're going to talk about contextomization or quoting out of context, then it's clear that you're the one guilty of this.

Let's take Mr Scott's post:
Q: How is a computer-simulated conscious brain NOT like computer-simulated photosynthesis?

A: The brain and a conscious computer both output the same thing: control signals for the body.

Computers routinely output control signals to animal and mechanical bodies. We can do this already.

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?
You concentrated solely on the final sentence, and completely ignored the context provided by the preceding sentences.

With the possible exception of analyzing aerial photographs, everything you referred to as examples of things the "brain outputs that machines could not" are actually products of a physical body under the control of a brain. In order to produce these works the only thing the brain outputs is "control signals" that direct the body, as Mr Scott pointed out in his post.

But you've completely ignored this context and instead posted examples of the product of this output rather than the output itself, in clear disregard of the meaning made clear in Mr Scott's post.

I, on the other hand have accepted the new context provided by your examples and attempted to argue that these products of human creativity can theoretically also be produced by a computer.

If anyone here is guilty of "CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY", it's you.


ETA: Reading further through the thread, I see that Mr Scott already pointed this out to you, but your response to that indicates you aren't even aware of the contextual information in the post itself. So for your benefit, I've highlighted the relevant contextual information above so you can re-read the highlighted parts until you understand.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
And how does that detract from the fact that it is "something else the brain outputs that machines could not"
Because it's not something that machines are not theoretically capable of outputting.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Whether it can be programmed or not is a matter of CONJECTURE since at the moment it has not been done with all the knowhow we have and with all the RESOURCES the USA military has put to it.
It's not a matter of conjecture. It's a matter of computability theory. If the task of interpreting these images was not a computable function it would theoretically impossible for anyone or anything to interpret them. Since humans can interpret them, then this must be a computable function, and therefore it is theoretically possible for a computer to do this.

Whether or not it would be practical to program a computer to do this is a different question entirely. Possibly it might take an absurd amount of processing power or time (which amounts to the same thing, as double the amount of time is equivalent to double the amount of processing power), or it might require programming in vast amounts of contextual knowledge and understanding that humans unconsciously acquire in childhood.

But the fact that the USA Military is involved in this is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
It is clear you do not know how to read posts...

__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

Last edited by Brian-M; 19th April 2012 at 09:41 PM.
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 09:43 PM   #192
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
It sounds to me like your definition of "smart" is clever stuff people can do but machines can't. Using that definition, you win hands down. Computers will never be smart.
It's perilously close to a god-of-the-gaps argument, and it's known as the AI effectWP, commonly seen as "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet".
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 09:44 PM   #193
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Gosh this is turning out just like the old thread! What are the odds!!??
About 3.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 09:53 PM   #194
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,604
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
Fascinating..... so now you are simulating cells in your laptop too?

Reality old chump..... Reality..... you may want to recognize it one day.
Functioning molecular simulations of proteins, cells and viruses are used by biologists in order work out how they function and would react to different drugs and chemicals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21303343
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/maini/P...ations/185.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12944258
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1302288

Reality old chump..... Reality..... you may want to recognize it one day.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 10:25 PM   #195
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,686
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Your argument sort of ignores the video game industry, though.

Are you aware of just how much cash is flowing through that industry these days?
I'm aware of the industry and actually worked in it.

What's happening actually supports what I'm saying. Look at the AI in the Deus Ex series. The first Deus Ex, more than a decade ago, had blocks for hands and really dull lighting. Speed and graphics have improved by orders of magnitude. AI, seemingly, not at all.

While admittedly a bit old, the "we'll explain what we did in the game" on Riddick: Butcher Bay is quite informative. It's actually quite an excellent game, better IMO than the movies, with a nice balance of adventure, shoot-em-up, and boss elements. Pay particular attention to the fight scene and the picture showing the scripts. While some simple flocking rules could make for interesting fights, the designers of the game chose to pile script upon script, and the narrator even points out "designers like scripts." Why? My guess is that it's for the psychological need of the developers. A script is comprehensible and seems computery to a fairly average geek.

Also pay attention to the amount of work they did to prevent players from being in places they don't want to go. Well, what for? Why not leave this flexibility for the player to explore? It's fun to find even flaws in games, if they are sufficiently obscure. One of my most enjoyable times with a game was in the old 2-D Star Trek, where I somehow navigated outside of the galaxy. It was a bug, of course, but it was fun.

Now, I'm writing a program, the central part of which is huge conversations with a number of characters. Think the back-and-forth like in the original Deus Ex where you talk to Smuggler or whoever. These are usually pretty simple, made up of hand-crafted, scripted digraphs. However, I'm using a much more organic approach, partially because it's far too huge to hand-script, and partially because I want surprises. I want it to be more like an organic conversation, where people are reminded of other things, come back to old ideas later, and think up stuff seemingly out of the blue.

I don't know what the final product will look like, but I am pretty sure that the only reason I can even try is that I'm doing it on my own whilst starving, and that there would be no chance in hell that any company would let me try such an approach. I might be able to get away with it for a little while as a research professor, but I was a research professor once, and it's stultifying in it's own way.

So if machine consciousness ever happens, it will be up to the Mad Scientist like me, which is coincidentally the way it's always portrayed.
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th April 2012, 10:27 PM   #196
annnnoid
Muse
 
annnnoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 989
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Unless you are The One

...and what do you say to that? I bet Chuck Norris would know.
__________________
…finally…progress, understanding (and not). Kinds of.
But I lose you. A terrible blow. Far beyond terrible.
Only myself to blame…. somehow.
Must continue… and help to seek.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2012, 12:27 AM   #197
Leumas
Master Poster
 
Leumas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,943
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Functioning molecular simulations of proteins, cells and viruses are used by biologists in order work out how they function and would react to different drugs and chemicals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21303343
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/maini/P...ations/185.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12944258
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1302288

Reality old chump..... Reality..... you may want to recognize it one day.


You are conveniently EQUIVOCATING the word simulation now.... this is disingenuous to the extreme.....you are relying on the evasiveness so far by computationalists to accept the DISTINCTION between simulation and emulation. I think this has been a DELIBERATE tactic and a very dishonest one.

If all the time you are talking about simulations producing a replica of something (emulation) then you cannot all of a sudden switch to saying here is one that is just a computer simulation (simulation) and make it count.

Do you think there are computerized replicas (emulations) of cells?

Your post is a disingenuous and deliberate Equivocation fallacy old chump.....
__________________
"I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain
Leumas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2012, 06:16 AM   #198
keyfeatures
Critical Thinker
 
keyfeatures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
It sounds to me like your definition of "smart" is clever stuff people can do but machines can't. Using that definition, you win hands down. Computers will never be smart.

No, they will be smart when they can do what a human can do.
keyfeatures is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2012, 08:18 AM   #199
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,548
Originally Posted by Leumas View Post
No I have never had any, I was never woo. But you obviously have enough to go all round. You have as much woo for computers now that you are on their side as you did when you were on god's side.
This is about god? Elaborate.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th April 2012, 08:27 AM   #200
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,929
Originally Posted by epepke View Post
I'm aware of the industry and actually worked in it.

What's happening actually supports what I'm saying. Look at the AI in the Deus Ex series. The first Deus Ex, more than a decade ago, had blocks for hands and really dull lighting. Speed and graphics have improved by orders of magnitude. AI, seemingly, not at all.

While admittedly a bit old, the "we'll explain what we did in the game" on Riddick: Butcher Bay is quite informative. It's actually quite an excellent game, better IMO than the movies, with a nice balance of adventure, shoot-em-up, and boss elements. Pay particular attention to the fight scene and the picture showing the scripts. While some simple flocking rules could make for interesting fights, the designers of the game chose to pile script upon script, and the narrator even points out "designers like scripts." Why? My guess is that it's for the psychological need of the developers. A script is comprehensible and seems computery to a fairly average geek.

Also pay attention to the amount of work they did to prevent players from being in places they don't want to go. Well, what for? Why not leave this flexibility for the player to explore? It's fun to find even flaws in games, if they are sufficiently obscure. One of my most enjoyable times with a game was in the old 2-D Star Trek, where I somehow navigated outside of the galaxy. It was a bug, of course, but it was fun.

Now, I'm writing a program, the central part of which is huge conversations with a number of characters. Think the back-and-forth like in the original Deus Ex where you talk to Smuggler or whoever. These are usually pretty simple, made up of hand-crafted, scripted digraphs. However, I'm using a much more organic approach, partially because it's far too huge to hand-script, and partially because I want surprises. I want it to be more like an organic conversation, where people are reminded of other things, come back to old ideas later, and think up stuff seemingly out of the blue.

I don't know what the final product will look like, but I am pretty sure that the only reason I can even try is that I'm doing it on my own whilst starving, and that there would be no chance in hell that any company would let me try such an approach. I might be able to get away with it for a little while as a research professor, but I was a research professor once, and it's stultifying in it's own way.

So if machine consciousness ever happens, it will be up to the Mad Scientist like me, which is coincidentally the way it's always portrayed.
That isn't a full representation of the industry, though.

In fact every place I have worked there is a constant argument between AI programmers on whether we should concentrate on making the AI scriptable, so designers can get the exact presentation they want ( cinematic games like Modern Warfare ) or making the AI very intelligent and organic, so players can experiment with it and get a more real feeling from it ( open world games like Grand Theft Auto 4, sim games like The Sims, and even some FPS games like Half Life 2 or Crysis ).

It usually ends up being a compromise, with us putting in pretty intelligent behavior in some aspects that end up being entirely scripted anyway due to the designers having the final say in the matter. But that doesn't mean the AI doesn't get more and more advanced each time.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.