AI is a Copy!!

[ISNAN]

On 4/25/2019 at 7:49 PM, GrimReaper said:

Humans aren't stupid, we just have a lot to deal with.

Most are though. It's not entirely their fault because of various reasons. The main one being the type of cognitive functions they have and how they use them. Some people simply can not use their visual spacial because it's not their main function. It's why INTJ or INFJ are considered "smarter" than the other 14 personality types. They use Introverted intuition as their main function which allows them to see things in their mind as concepts while their sub-conscience stores the data. They are good at seeing patterns and coming up with solutions to complex problems because all they do is think....these are the deep thinkers of our society, but they have a hard time expressing it outwardly. Those are the 2 rarest personality types. Since they are the rarest, it makes the majority seem "stupid" when you compare them to those types. That is not to say the other personality types are stupid though, as each type has it's strengths and weaknesses. 

 

Now when you think about functions, computers use them in a different way. It's all based on logic and algorithmic calculations. Logic and calculations that are based on a set of rules that do not change. A.I. is going to use code to achieve the simulated intelligence that it's designed to achieve. It wont change it's logic or variables simply because it's in a different mood depending on what day it is or the amount of stress it's dealing with. When it does change a variable, there is sound logic behind it. In other words, computer code is very consistent, humans are not. Even when it comes to machine learning. It learns based on logic, not feels. You can teach a human the basic principles of driving a car and the rules of the road, but each person will drive differently and break whatever rule they think is "stupid". It's why we have accidents and traffic jams. 

 

 

9 hours ago, wokking56 said:

So far this thread has touched on esoteric topics like intelligence, emotions and learning abilities. The fact of the matter being that we don't truly understand any of those things as of yet. Sure we have measurements and tests quantifying levels of intelligence but we don't completely understand how it works. We can experience emotions but we don't exactly understand how or where they are formed, so we sure as hell can't program them into a machine. Now as for learning we have made great strides in machine learning so that is not that big of a problem yet we still use 100+ year old methods to teach our own young many of which have already been proven to be ineffective.

 

So the question becomes do we, given our limited knowledge of intelligence create a super intelligent machine. The answer is yes, but aside from intelligence we need to program in some intellect as well.

intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity

intellect: the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.

 

Now on to the question of emotions, given that we don't completely understand them as of yet this is not a problem right now. However given that we may someday have the capacity to program it in should we?  No, no we should not emotion has been the downfall of humanity at numerous junctures. This is why we hear of crimes of passion periodically, someones emotions got the better of them and they lost control. So giving emotions to a machine that outmatches us in every way would be pure folly.

 

Scientists know quite a bit about intelligence, emotions, and how we learn. If we didn't, we wouldn't have the society and technology we have today.  We wouldn't have medicine for mentally ill patients. We wouldn't have curriculum for schools to teach. We wouldn't know if a student is ready to advance to the next grade. I think the problem people have with understanding A.I. is people generally think of it as an android like 'Data' from Star Trek, or they think it will be a big machine that knows everything. It wont be that way. If anything, it will be small robots that have a level of intelligence that performs a task or a complex series of tasks. It may be controlled by a larger machine that does all the learning, but that doesn't mean that the machine will have all the answers of the universe. It will just know enough to complete the tasks of whatever application a company sells. We may have androids, but they will be for human interactions in service industries. Sex robot, waiter, receptionist. In those types of applications, it may need to "mimic" emotions to give a better experience for the human customer. The human will still know it's "fake", much like how we view friendly customer service now. 

 

Intelligence to A.I. is simply the ability to learn from the environment and change variables on the fly by using logic. Similar to humans, but without the "feels".

[Grey Cloud]

My, my. How conditioned by modern, western, materialistic concepts you all are.

 

The ten thousand things carry Yin on their backs and wrap their arms around Yang.

Tao Te Ching,  Chapter 42.

 

 

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 6:45 PM, Nazzzgul666 said:

an AI does not need a body at all

It cannot exist in thin air. It will need a body (a physical residence or receptacle).

[Nazzzgul666]

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

It cannot exist in thin air. It will need a body (a physical residence or receptacle).

Well, yes. Some kind of physical existance has to be there. But if that's a server, a row of decentralized computers all over the world, a satellite, a phone, fridges, all at  once,... doesn't matter. By no means are AIs limited to robots, even less robots that look humanlike as Luke seems to believe.

 

*edit: Not the common action movie honestly i prefer, but for a broader impression what an AI could be like, i recommend the movie "Her". Imho that version is more likely to happen than the one from "I, robot" or something like that.

[ISNAN]

15 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

My, my. How conditioned by modern, western, materialistic concepts you all are.

 

 

 

What does that even mean? What's the alternative of the concepts we have? 

[Grey Cloud]

7 hours ago, ISNAN said:

 

What does that even mean? What's the alternative of the concepts we have? 

What about ancient, eastern, non-materialistic?

[Nazzzgul666]

 

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

What about ancient, eastern, non-materialistic?

Don't get it either. Do you want a buddha AI or what do you have in mind. I admit my knowledge about ancient easter non-materialistic stuff is limited, but afaik they weren't very explicit how AIs are supposed to work.

[Grey Cloud]

Where is your intelligence situated? In the brain?

Why do you think you are an individual? Because your senses tell you so?

Why do you think you are solid/material? Science tells you that your body is made up of atoms which in turn are made of smaller things which are ultimately just vibrating energy.

[Nazzzgul666]

4 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

Where is your intelligence situated? In the brain?

Why do you think you are an individual? Because your senses tell you so?

Why do you think you are solid/material? Science tells you that your body is made up of atoms which in turn are made of smaller things which are ultimately just vibrating energy.

Oh, i see. You were talking about us, not computer stuff.

For your questions:

Yeah, brain. I managed to get my head steaming once doing maths outside at winter, if my penis would have started steaming i might have changed my opinion about that.

For the other two... i'm not even sure i exist, there is no valid way to prove it. No reason to bother with the other questions if even that can't be said for sure.^^

[Grey Cloud]

20 minutes ago, Nazzzgul666 said:

Yeah, brain.

Where in the brain? All of it or a specific area? In the molecules or in the chemicals or in the atoms?

How could, eg. Mozart write complex music as a young child? How can people who have larger chunks of their brain missing function normally?

The brain is just a transceiver.

 

Why does Odin sacrifice an eye in exchange for knowledge?

Why does he hang himself from Yggdrasil?

Why does he seek out and talk to the Vola?

Why is the Fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil forbidden but not that of the Tree of Life?

Why do Adam and Eve put on skins?

Why does Krishna open the brow chakra of Arjuna?

Why does Odysseus have himself tied to the mast so he can hear the Sirens?

Why is he striving to get back to Penelope?

What is the meaning of the name 'Pinocchio'?

 

All these stories and a host of others tell the same thing. That they tell the truth can be confirmed by meditation. To borrow from the Buddha: 'One eye for study and one eye for medition'.

Modern 'experts' say that there are two things - the knower and the known. The ancients, and easterns, say there are three things - the knower, the known and the knowing. When the knower and the known are one then there is only the knowing.

 

The OP is essentially correct in that AI is not artificial but merely an extension of human intelligence, or a sub-set of it. Humans exist only in the Universe, are made of the same atoms as the rest of the Universe and yet think they are capable of behaviour which is not part of the Universe. (Universe = one face).

[ISNAN]

8 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

Where is your intelligence situated? In the brain?

Why do you think you are an individual? Because your senses tell you so?

Why do you think you are solid/material? Science tells you that your body is made up of atoms which in turn are made of smaller things which are ultimately just vibrating energy.

We "think" we are individuals because it's a byproduct of using our senses and the signals the brain gets from introspection...(the signals coming from your body to alert the brain about what is going on with a particular organ or lack of a chemical it needs in order to function.) The sense of self is an illusion. All of this takes place in the pineal gland (your third eye). The reason we call it that is because it's where the brain becomes aware of itself. That awareness becomes an illusion because we tie complex thought patterns onto it to give us of the sense of "I". Now tack on that sense of self with 'theory of mind' and you get a complex human who thinks it has a soul or a unique personality that gives it purpose. 

 

When it comes to atoms and such, it is true that we are made up of smaller things whether it be atoms, cells, bacteria. We need these things in order to survive. If it wasn't for bacteria living in your gut, your brain wouldn't have the ingredient it needs to form new brain cells, which comes from the excrements the "good" bacteria leaves behind. This kind of proves the whole illusion of self idea. We have all these processes going in the body, but for some reason we overlook it as if we are in control. We really are not. The latest in neuroscience suggests that our brains will determine an action milliseconds before it reaches our consciousness. We think we made a decision, but our brains already made it for us based on patterns and knowledge we have developed since birth. Have you ever "been on the fence" about a certain action and you are not sure of what direction to take? It's because you are going against the course of action your brain has already determined to take. We call this intuition and most people don't listen to it when they should. This could be what leads to anxiety.

7 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

 

All these stories and a host of others tell the same thing. That they tell the truth can be confirmed by meditation. To borrow from the Buddha: 'One eye for study and one eye for medition'.

Modern 'experts' say that there are two things - the knower and the known. The ancients, and easterns, say there are three things - the knower, the known and the knowing. When the knower and the known are one then there is only the knowing.

 

The OP is essentially correct in that AI is not artificial but merely an extension of human intelligence, or a sub-set of it. Humans exist only in the Universe, are made of the same atoms as the rest of the Universe and yet think they are capable of behaviour which is not part of the Universe. (Universe = one face).

 

The thing about meditation is that it works ONLY because we shut down the complex thought patterns we typically create when we feel an emotion. By meditating, we allow those emotions and thoughts to run in and out of consciousness freely. It doesn't mean there is "truth" being derived from it though. Meditation actually helps to prove that our sense of self is an illusion. 

 

A.I. IS artificial because it's replicating biological intelligence in non biological systems. We are taking different forms of matter that doesn't think and combining them in such a way to give the impression of thinking by manipulating the polarity of elections through circuit boards, which then goes through a series of logic gates controlled by algorithms. It's still not going to think the same way a human will think though. Mainly because humans use abstraction in our thought processes. This is why A.I. wont become self aware....because it's an illusion created by a biological brain. 

[GrimReaper]

9 hours ago, Grey Cloud said:

How can people who have larger chunks of their brain missing function normally?

 

On the other hand, missing a small piece, through a lobotomy for example, can quickly erase what makes you that what most would consider human. It's not necessarily the quantity of brain matter that's important, but about what specific part you're talking about. Some parts of the brain are able to fulfill the roles of other parts, albeit not as good as the original ones. But that's not always the case, damage the right parts - which can be extremely small - and you'll cause instant death.

 

That being said, young children are known to survive excessive brain damage whereas adults are extremely vulnerable when it comes to that. At a certain age, the brain has effectively finished developing and it becomes more rigid, unable to 'morph' if you will. I think there's a place for spirituality, but I don't think waving everything we know away for some spooky nonsense is the right way. Obviously, even in ancient times people were smart and able to observe what happens, that's why some of the stuff works. But the flavor text around all that, with all the ghosts and spirits, that we don't need anymore. Ancient philosophy and religion are pretty interesting and can teach us a lot, but you have to be able to tell the nonsense and the valuable information apart.

[Grey Cloud]

3 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Ancient philosophy and religion are pretty interesting and can teach us a lot, but you have to be able to tell the nonsense and the valuable information apart.

As you do with any information. I've studied and tried to live according to philosophy for 20 years or so and am pretty good at it.

 

My point about the damaged brain was where is the 'intelligence' located. My point about Mozart was how did he get the knowledge without the time to learn it.

9 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

but I don't think waving everything we know away for some spooky nonsense is the right way

How do you know it is spooky nonsense? Have you ever studied any of it in any depth?

[GrimReaper]

53 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

As you do with any information. I've studied and tried to live according to philosophy for 20 years or so and am pretty good at it.

 

My point about the damaged brain was where is the 'intelligence' located. My point about Mozart was how did he get the knowledge without the time to learn it.

How do you know it is spooky nonsense? Have you ever studied any of it in any depth?

That's an odd question, to be honest. That would be similar to asking someone to point at the place where a computer generates the frames per second. Brains are pretty complex and most parts interact with each other constantly. But to give a more practical answer, that would be the prefrontal cortex. As for Mozart, it's not like he invented music or sound, he was 'just' very good at it and processed sound related information much, much faster than other people could.

 

I know it's spooky nonsense because you can't falsify metaphysical theories. I could also say that antidepressants don't work because they utilize complex chemical compounds to stimulate brain activity but that they work because they contain magical gnome dust that's invisible. I could even explain why sometimes certain antidepressants don't work for some people while they do for others, because the gnome dust needs to have the same color as your soul does so you have to keep trying until they match.

[FauxFurry]

On 4/25/2019 at 1:29 PM, Yinkle said:

Artificial beings should have no intelligence otherwise we are fucked when they realise how stupid humans are.

Humans compared to other life forms on this planet are like Capitalism compared to other means of wealth generation and distribution in that it is the worst thing ever except for all of the other ones that came before it.

If humans deserves extinction for their stupidity, then the planet would have to be wiped clean of life since everything else is a fair sight dimmer, pettier and more brutish on the whole than humanity is.

[KoolHndLuke]

5 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

I could even explain why sometimes certain antidepressants don't work for some people while they do for others, because the gnome dust needs to have the same color as your soul does so you have to keep trying until they match.

You mock and I say you might be closer to the truth than you realize I think. Accepting the first plausible answer to all of life's mysteries according to some philosophical idea or scientific theory is quite lazy in my opinion- and even more arrogant to present as fact (of which I am guilty myself to an extent). Doctors and Scientist see the pieces better and kind of understand how it all works together. But there are still unknown and unaccounted for variables that they might never be able to explain unless they open their minds to new possibilities- like say another dimension of existence or something. Basically meaning that people should leave their core beliefs open to further examination.

 

 It is sometimes pride that blinds us to alternate explanations of enduring questions about life and it meaning or lack thereof. If life doesn't have any inherent meaning, then we each seemed to have assigned it one so as to give us all purpose. I mean no one just wanders around aimlessly and even those with brain damage search for a meaning and purpose to their existence. When they lose that meaning, they begin to die. One reason so many people die shortly after their retirement. Sorry, sort of rambling there.

[Guest]

I have an interest in artificial intelligence, so here's my thoughts:

 

I do not think artificial intelligence will ever become self-aware or otherwise "alive". You'd have to implement a component that has biochemical properties to it. In other words, you have to make it a little organic and at that point it ceases to be purely artificial. Without any living component, all you're going to get is basically a fancy calculator (a machine). I think we might be able to emulate intelligence to a point where it is pretty believable, but nothing will ever be alive unless it actually has living cells, that's literally just a matter of life.

[Jazzman]

What soul are we talking about here?

 

- the spirit of the deity that hovers as smoke over the waters to create life on still lifeless land?

- following in the path of named deity to create our own holy smokescreen, and much of it?

- the academic diversification (complication) of the Hebrew term 'ruakh' in the medieval Kabbalah?

- or the principle of breathing life, the classical manifestation of life on our home planet Earth?

 

Please don't take an ancient metaphor literally only because it got passed on as such over millennia.

We write the year 2019 in the meantime, ring a pious bell, no?

 

 

[Grey Cloud]

1 hour ago, Jazzman said:

ring a pious bell, no?

No.

You are just referencing the Abrahamic nonsense your culture conditioned you with.

Spirit and soul refer to two different things (even in the Abrahamic traditions)

'Water' is a metaphor and the stories are generally allegoric (even in the Abrahamic traditions).

Kabbalah is overly intellectualised theory and has no real practical side.

 

You throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because you reject the Abrahamic religions you assume that all ancient philosophies should be rejected too.

 

2 hours ago, BWithLola said:

but nothing will ever be alive unless it actually has living cells, that's literally just a matter of life.

A single cell creature only has one cell, is it alive? That's 'literally' just your definition of life.

 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Grey Cloud said:

No.

You are just referencing the Abrahamic nonsense your culture conditioned you with.

Spirit and soul refer to two different things (even in the Abrahamic traditions)

'Water' is a metaphor and the stories are generally allegoric (even in the Abrahamic traditions).

Kabbalah is overly intellectualised theory and has no real practical side.

 

You throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because you reject the Abrahamic religions you assume that all ancient philosophies should be rejected too.

 

A single cell creature only has one cell, is it alive? That's 'literally' just your definition of life.

 

 

How do you define life then?

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, Grey Cloud said:

No.

You are just referencing the Abrahamic nonsense your culture conditioned you with.

Spirit and soul refer to two different things (even in the Abrahamic traditions)

'Water' is a metaphor and the stories are generally allegoric (even in the Abrahamic traditions).

Kabbalah is overly intellectualised theory and has no real practical side.

 

You throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because you reject the Abrahamic religions you assume that all ancient philosophies should be rejected too.

 

A single cell creature only has one cell, is it alive? That's 'literally' just your definition of life.

 

I just see that we're playing in different leagues along the historic timeline of man. Which one is which is up to you.

But do me a favor - don't talk about things you can't even grasp for still stuck in the Agricultural Age of farmers and pastoralists without any understanding of the ancient metaphors used to describe the mysteries of life from a still primitive point of view in the best contemporary way possible. Knowing as little (and mostly only from hearsay) as a dirt farmer in the Levant 3.000 years ago doesn't suit you well today...

 

NB Knowing something nipple to bones doesn't mean rejecting it. It just means being capable to put it into its historic perspective. But those of us that take ancient metaphors literally are too late born. It is as simple as that.

 

I'll give you an example for beginners:

For Christians the Savior... he is called Jesus, that's Yeshua in Hebrew.

I say, of course, He is. For that's the translation of the Hebrew... 

 

Nuff said.

[Grey Cloud]

12 minutes ago, BWithLola said:

How do you define life then?

There is only life.

[Grey Cloud]

33 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

I just see that we're playing in different leagues along the historic timeline of man. Which one is which is up to you.

But do me a favor - don't talk about things you can't even grasp for still stuck in the Agricultural Age of farmers and pastoralists without any understanding of the ancient metaphors used to describe the mysteries of life from a still primitive point of view in the best contemporary way possible. Knowing as little (and mostly only from hearsay) as a dirt farmer in the Levant 3.000 years ago doesn't suit you well today...

Would you care to elaborate?

What different leagues?

What can I not grasp?

What agricultural age of farmers and pastoralists am I stuck in?

Why is the ancient view primitive?

What is this best 'contemporary way'?

How do you know I know little? Hearsay from who?

 

As I've already stated above. I've studied and lived philosophy for 20 years. I've read Homer, Parmenides, Plato, Patanjali, Lao, Chuang, the Upanishads, various Sufi texts, more Christian literature than a cathedral full of Christians, lots of Jewish literature including the major Kabbalistic texts, hundreds of alchemy texts, mythology from around the world and much more.

 

And the forum software has just eaten my fairly substantial edit.

[Grey Cloud]

36 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

I'll give you an example for beginners:

For Christians the Savior... he is called Jesus, that's Yeshua in Hebrew.

What has that got to do with anything?

'Yeshua' is a transliteration of the name in the Hebrew script into the Roman script which we use. 'Saviour' comes from a Greek word 'soter'. So what?

The gospels were written originally by Greeks, in Greek for Greeks therefore they should be read as Greek. Jesus (whether he actually existed or not) has to be male because of what the story is telling. Joseph is a craftsman (demiurgus) and Mary a virgin for the same reason. 'Son of god' has at least meanings and all of them pre-date Christianity.

[Grey Cloud]

11 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

That's an odd question, to be honest. That would be similar to asking someone to point at the place where a computer generates the frames per second. Brains are pretty complex and most parts interact with each other constantly. But to give a more practical answer, that would be the prefrontal cortex. As for Mozart, it's not like he invented music or sound, he was 'just' very good at it and processed sound related information much, much faster than other people could.

 

I know it's spooky nonsense because you can't falsify metaphysical theories. I could also say that antidepressants don't work because they utilize complex chemical compounds to stimulate brain activity but that they work because they contain magical gnome dust that's invisible. I could even explain why sometimes certain antidepressants don't work for some people while they do for others, because the gnome dust needs to have the same color as your soul does so you have to keep trying until they match.

Your analogies are not good. There is a place (and time) where a computer 'generates' a 'frame'. The thing about antidepressants is just childish.

 

What was different about Mozart's brain? Mozrt not only 'processed sound related information' he also wrote it. And what he wrote originated in his head - he was the author of the music.

 

'Spooky', at least where I live, is a child's word. It is not used in any sort of serious, adult conversation. You can falsify metaphysics. Ancient (and contempory Eastern) philosophy has a practical aspect; it is not just word-salad like the nonsense taught in Westerm universities.

It is not 'nonsense' it is entirely logical in that things follow logically from the initial premise.

 

And for your information, creatures such as gnomes, dwarves, elves etc have a specific meaning in mythology etc. I don't actually know what gnomes are but I do the other two.

[GrimReaper]

6 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

You mock and I say you might be closer to the truth than you realize I think. Accepting the first plausible answer to all of life's mysteries according to some philosophical idea or scientific theory is quite lazy in my opinion- and even more arrogant to present as fact (of which I am guilty myself to an extent). Doctors and Scientist see the pieces better and kind of understand how it all works together. But there are still unknown and unaccounted for variables that they might never be able to explain unless they open their minds to new possibilities- like say another dimension of existence or something. Basically meaning that people should leave their core beliefs open to further examination.

 

 It is sometimes pride that blinds us to alternate explanations of enduring questions about life and it meaning or lack thereof. If life doesn't have any inherent meaning, then we each seemed to have assigned it one so as to give us all purpose. I mean no one just wanders around aimlessly and even those with brain damage search for a meaning and purpose to their existence. When they lose that meaning, they begin to die. One reason so many people die shortly after their retirement. Sorry, sort of rambling there.

The beauty of science is that it's always open minded. If someone comes along with a better theory, the outdated one gets thrown out of the window, no hard feelings. That is how it should be, at least, because even scientists aren't immune to pride and groupthink, which may or may not sometimes complicate matters when scientists don't work as scientists but rather as people who want to earn fame and respect, for example. But it's easier to call them out on it in that context than a group of people who are beyond criticism, I'm sure you can think of a group or two that fit this description.