chenGOD Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 yer gonna get murked bumbaclaat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El_Chemso Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 breakthroughs.... achievements... concorde apparently society is degenerating in other ways, too sup is back Christ alive, fixt! Its the demise of my spell checker! It doesn't work with the new WATMM board, its to fancy and new. I just bang along then look for red and change it if I'm honest. But now that it doesn't work on WATMM I'll try to pay attention. Sparked some interesting discussion thou. The cost of space travel, surely it must have come down since the 1970s a little bit? And regarding AI, I've been studying Computer Science for a few years now at uni and have done a few AI modules. I think the general consensus is that AI as movies depict will never really exists. It’s all about the definition of AI, if AI is clever programming to imitate human response and action then we've already done that. But true AI that decides things has feelings and plans. I don't think it’s held by the CS community as even possible or ever really spoken about. AI in CS is all about programs that learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 but on a fundamental level we're just (gene-based) programs that learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enter a new display name Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 breakthrews.... acheivements... concord apparently society is degenerating in other ways, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 yer gonna get murked bumbaclaat sup, cup, those guys, they mad fiery straight man see no point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adam Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 And regarding AI, I've been studying Computer Science for a few years now at uni and have done a few AI modules. I think the general consensus is that AI as movies depict will never really exists. It’s all about the definition of AI, if AI is clever programming to imitate human response and action then we've already done that. But true AI that decides things has feelings and plans. I don't think it’s held by the CS community as even possible or ever really spoken about. AI in CS is all about programs that learn. Really? that's weird. I haven't studied CS but this is basically one of the first things I have ever read about strong AI. First premise: humans are intelligent systems. Second premise: humans are also systems governed by the equations of physics. Third premise: the equations of physics can be approximated, to within any degree of accuracy, by space and time discrete iterations that can be represented as Turing machine programs. Conclusion: intelligent behavior can be simulated, to within any degree of accuracy, by Turing machine programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 c'mon guys we're way past Turing it's 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 And regarding AI, I've been studying Computer Science for a few years now at uni and have done a few AI modules. I think the general consensus is that AI as movies depict will never really exists. It’s all about the definition of AI, if AI is clever programming to imitate human response and action then we've already done that. But true AI that decides things has feelings and plans. I don't think it’s held by the CS community as even possible or ever really spoken about. AI in CS is all about programs that learn. On the contrary - the consensus among workers in both AI and the science/philosophy of mind is that at some level, our consciousness is turing emulable. Just what do you suppose consciousness comes from otherwise...some magical property of our grey matter? God? Keep in mind that intelligence and consciousness are not equivalent (or if they are, we don't know it). First premise: humans are intelligent systems. Second premise: humans are also systems governed by the equations of physics. Third premise: the equations of physics can be approximated, to within any degree of accuracy, by space and time discrete iterations that can be represented as Turing machine programs. Conclusion: intelligent behavior can be simulated, to within any degree of accuracy, by Turing machine programs. Sophistry. The matter of whether or not consciousness is computational cannot be decided in such a trivial manner. By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El_Chemso Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think the thing with AI, and I must stress I've sat through a few modules of this now and been totally like OMG at what we can do, but on the whole felt massivly out of my depth, but the thing is with AI, in the end it comes down to your own vision of AI is. Calling the Turning test into play, basically iep has it on the button, we are way past that. The turning test is simply a program that can pass for human. And they are already around, you get those chat bot things. I don't believe AI such as the Cyclones will ever exist. A cross between computers and biologics? That might be closer to a real AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 who brought up the turing test? its irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El_Chemso Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. who brought up the turing test? its irrelevant I thought you did, but I guess you didn't mean it like that. But we are getting off topic, If the achievements of the past are no longer comparable to the 21st Century achievements, what do we think is going to be the blow your mind human achievement in our collective lifetimes? My guess is something medical, something completely amazing, probably to do with Stem cell research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. who brought up the turing test? its irrelevant I thought you did, but I guess you didn't mean it like that. But we are getting off topic, If the achievements of the past are no longer comparable to the 21st Century achievements, what do we think is going to be the blow your mind human achievement in our collective lifetimes? My guess is something medical, something completely amazing, probably to do with Stem cell research. turing emulable is completely different from the turing test. but i agree about stem cells, i've done a lot of research on that topic and i think the prospects are incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think the thing with AI, and I must stress I've sat through a few modules of this now and been totally like OMG at what we can do, but on the whole felt massivly out of my depth, but the thing is with AI, in the end it comes down to your own vision of AI is. Calling the Turning test into play, basically iep has it on the button, we are way past that. The turning test is simply a program that can pass for human. And they are already around, you get those chat bot things. I don't believe AI such as the Cyclones will ever exist. A cross between computers and biologics? That might be closer to a real AI. those chat bots can barely pass for skrillex fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. who brought up the turing test? its irrelevant I thought you did, but I guess you didn't mean it like that. But we are getting off topic, If the achievements of the past are no longer comparable to the 21st Century achievements, what do we think is going to be the blow your mind human achievement in our collective lifetimes? My guess is something medical, something completely amazing, probably to do with Stem cell research. turing emulable is completely different from the turing test. but i agree about stem cells, i've done a lot of research on that topic and i think the prospects are incredible. i haven't heard of the phrase turing emulable before and i'm intrigued. explain or point me in the right direction with some links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 turing emulability simply means that whatever-it-is could be run on a universal turing machine. Like how you can emulate console games on a PC. By church's thesis any algorithm can be run on a universal turing machine. A turing machine is an abstract computer. so "x is turing emulable" means essentially "x could be run on a computer". The Turing test, on the other hand, is a "test for consciousness" devised by turing which says that if a machine can trick people into thinking its fully conscious, then its fully conscious. that's much more controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I don't know if there's already been anything that could pass the Turing test. Those chatbots aren't that good. Maybe Watson could pass the Turing test. However it is, Watson was a good step towards an AI that can "think" and draw conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adam Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 If anyone though that my post had something to do with Turing test it didn't. First premise: humans are intelligent systems. Second premise: humans are also systems governed by the equations of physics. Third premise: the equations of physics can be approximated, to within any degree of accuracy, by space and time discrete iterations that can be represented as Turing machine programs. Conclusion: intelligent behavior can be simulated, to within any degree of accuracy, by Turing machine programs. Sophistry. The matter of whether or not consciousness is computational cannot be decided in such a trivial manner. By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. Well, there is a part of the brain which is responsible for consiousness. It's made of neurons and is affected by laws of physics. We can emulate laws of physics and neurons and structures made of neurons in Turing machines. That seems quite simple to me. Why everything isn't Turing emulable? Just curious, I've been asking people why not, because I believe it can and nobody was able to answer me. Does it have anything to do with uncertainity principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 If anyone though that my post had something to do with Turing test it didn't. First premise: humans are intelligent systems. Second premise: humans are also systems governed by the equations of physics. Third premise: the equations of physics can be approximated, to within any degree of accuracy, by space and time discrete iterations that can be represented as Turing machine programs. Conclusion: intelligent behavior can be simulated, to within any degree of accuracy, by Turing machine programs. Sophistry. The matter of whether or not consciousness is computational cannot be decided in such a trivial manner. By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. Well, there is a part of the brain which is responsible for consiousness. It's made of neurons and is affected by laws of physics. We can emulate laws of physics and neurons and structures made of neurons in Turing machines. That seems quite simple to me. Why everything isn't Turing emulable? Just curious, I've been asking people why not, because I believe it can and nobody was able to answer me. Does it have anything to do with uncertainity principle? First of all note that emulation means that whatever-it-is can be exactly implemented in a computer, not "in the limit" or as a very close approximation. As far as I can tell it is entirely possible that the latter be true but not exact emulability. Quantum computations can be emulated on classical machines but not in real time. Any hypercomputation is not turing computable, but then again it is not known whether or not that has anything to do with the "physical" world. So the main reason which my attention has been drawn to only recently, and which is kind of complicated, is that: it has been shown that if our minds are computers, then the laws of physics are given by a measure on the execution of all possible programs, which is not computable. If the entire universe is computable, then our minds are computable, but then the universe is not computable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 *Turings out* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kokeboka Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 the space race was mainly a trophy of the cold war where capitalism cheated and won That's a crucial point. The motivation towards space exploration was never about desire to achieve - it was always political. Governments were never really interested in the advancement of humanity by exploring space, it was all about fighting a PR war and gaining a potential military advantage. There are no longer any evil empires to fight, hence no longer any interest in exploring space. Politicians only remember to invest in science when they need a strategic advantage - rocketry, nuclear fission and space flight are prime examples of that. In addition to that, space is no longer a relevant issue to public opinion, it won't get votes and win elections. It's never about man's desire to achieve (sadly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericsosh Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 AI in CS is all about programs that learn. No. Machine learning is about that, but that's only a part of the AI domain. There's a lot more to AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I think the thing with AI, and I must stress I've sat through a few modules of this now and been totally like OMG at what we can do, but on the whole felt massivly out of my depth, but the thing is with AI, in the end it comes down to your own vision of AI is. Calling the Turning test into play, basically iep has it on the button, we are way past that. The turning test is simply a program that can pass for human. And they are already around, you get those chat bot things. I don't believe AI such as the Cyclones will ever exist. A cross between computers and biologics? That might be closer to a real AI. those chat bots can barely pass for skrillex fans. lol this thread is a good read btw, too sleepy and lazy to add any worthwhile comment myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adam Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If anyone though that my post had something to do with Turing test it didn't. First premise: humans are intelligent systems. Second premise: humans are also systems governed by the equations of physics. Third premise: the equations of physics can be approximated, to within any degree of accuracy, by space and time discrete iterations that can be represented as Turing machine programs. Conclusion: intelligent behavior can be simulated, to within any degree of accuracy, by Turing machine programs. Sophistry. The matter of whether or not consciousness is computational cannot be decided in such a trivial manner. By this reasoning everything is turing emulable, which is demonstrably false. Well, there is a part of the brain which is responsible for consiousness. It's made of neurons and is affected by laws of physics. We can emulate laws of physics and neurons and structures made of neurons in Turing machines. That seems quite simple to me. Why everything isn't Turing emulable? Just curious, I've been asking people why not, because I believe it can and nobody was able to answer me. Does it have anything to do with uncertainity principle? First of all note that emulation means that whatever-it-is can be exactly implemented in a computer, not "in the limit" or as a very close approximation. As far as I can tell it is entirely possible that the latter be true but not exact emulability. Quantum computations can be emulated on classical machines but not in real time. Any hypercomputation is not turing computable, but then again it is not known whether or not that has anything to do with the "physical" world. So the main reason which my attention has been drawn to only recently, and which is kind of complicated, is that: it has been shown that if our minds are computers, then the laws of physics are given by a measure on the execution of all possible programs, which is not computable. If the entire universe is computable, then our minds are computable, but then the universe is not computable. That's is not a proof, it's just a theory, isn't it? This guy also assumes that there could be two identical people in different places and they don't know about each other's existance. This imo cannot be assumed because we do not understand how concsiousness would work in such case. If you're teleported (destroyed in one place and reconstructed in other) it seems logical that you will remain consciouss and you will be the same guy just in other place. Now when you make two copies of yourself in two different places, what then? Which one of them will be you? None? Why? Both? How? Both seem more logical to me because identical systems work identical and there's no reason why you shouldn't be both of them. But if you're both this brings more problems related to the relationship of those two people. I don't think we need to emulate consciousness exacly as it is in brain do we? The thing is that if it works like consiounsness, it is consiousness. And unless you believe that theory that consiousness comes from quantum randomness it should be computable, or again I don't understand something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's is not a proof, it's just a theory, isn't it? This guy also assumes that there could be two identical people in different places and they don't know about each other's existance. This imo cannot be assumed because we do not understand how concsiousness would work in such case. If you're teleported (destroyed in one place and reconstructed in other) it seems logical that you will remain consciouss and you will be the same guy just in other place. Now when you make two copies of yourself in two different places, what then? Which one of them will be you? None? Why? Both? How? Both seem more logical to me because identical systems work identical and there's no reason why you shouldn't be both of them. But if you're both this brings more problems related to the relationship of those two people. I agree its a very difficult issue. And as far as I can tell what you are saying is indeed what is concluded in the article: both copies are "you" from a third person perspective, both have conscious states, both share the same memories up to the split. But from a first person perspective, each copy must now be an "isolated", "separate" person. It would be very bizarre to say that both copies would somehow "share" perceptions. (It would violate locality, among other things (if you take relativity as given)). So I don't see the problem I don't think we need to emulate consciousness exacly as it is in brain do we? Correct, we would only need to emulate it at a sufficiently detailed level. Which certainly would not be at the level of some ultimate physical theory, or even classical physics. Probably the neuron level, or molecular. The thing is that if it works like consiounsness, it is consiousness. And unless you believe that theory that consiousness comes from quantum randomness it should be computable, or again I don't understand something. I agree. Even if it comes from quantum randomness it is computable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Can't edit but: It can't be that none of the copies is "you", because that would violate the assumption that consciousness is computational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.