Bulgaroctonus

NOTE This thread also accidently exists under the Pub forum. This was merely an accident, and this is the true home of the following topic.

.................................................. .................................................. ...........

Anyway, Seeing as the Supreme Dictator thread has moved into the bionic age, I have
created a new post dedicated to this topic.

I expect this thread to wander widely, that's fine. All those interested in science, information technology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, all are invited. Speculation, conjecture, and hypothesizing are all encouraged.

Artificial intelligence captures my imagination because in a distant age it offers the possibilities of minds that are exponentially greater than our own. Of course, many advances need to be made. The most fundamental one is the transfer from a digital computer, to a more organic, analog computer.

This discussion will also involve neurology, since in order to built a better human brain, we must first understand it.

How possible is genuine artificial intelligence? What implications does is have? How will it affect the world? How far are we away from this goal?

Take a look at the websites: http://www.kurzweilai.net

and 'What is Artficial Intelligence?' at:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/...i/whatisai.html
The above website contains easily understood information, and the 'Basic Questions' section is beneficial.

To see AI in its infancy see a story I read recently at:
http://www.informationweek.com/shar...cleID=171203982

barrowaj

Cool stuff. Although I disagree with Ray Kurzweil that the singularity is near. We don't even understand human consciousness, we can't apply it to machine consciousness.

But anybody who says that artificial intelligence is impossible is going to look like a real idiot at some point in the future. We are beginning to understand the biological underpinnings of intelligence, and what we can figure out will increase with the more we know.

The best solution is to harness the power of evolution and try to evolve consciousness through intelligent programs.

gilgamesh

AI is an off-shoot of that bastard science of logic. Essentially, its old money's( ) attempt to automate intelligence and make redundent human creativity. I believe this was doomed from its inception. Future? Maybbe synthetic life.

Bulgaroctonus

I disagree. First of all, logic is not a 'bastard science,' but is an important way of organizing our thoughts. I think AI is an offshoot of the study of intelligence, and is closely related to neurology.

Old money is involved only to a certain extent. Most of the people at the forefront of information technololgy are young professionals and scientists from plebeian families. Those companies that sponsor AI research are often headed by modern business men, not antiquated members of a financial dynasty.

AI has the ability to become vastly more intelligent than humans. Of course, scientists need to understand intelligence better before the real fireworks can begin.

For an interesting, but perhaps unrealistic sci-fi look at AI, go to the website Orion's Arm .
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

In this world, mankind spawned artificial intelligence (unlike the Matrix, humanity was not enslaved). This artificial intelligence eventually reached superhuman intelligence levels and eventually came close to, or even reached the level of godly intelligence. Such awesome futures may be purely fancy, but that draws my attention to an Arthur C. Clarke quote,

"Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God—but to create Him. "

Parihaka

Artificial intelligence is much over-rated as a milestone. For computer based 'intelligence' which is what we are talking here, we don't need a machine for solving philosophical questions, we need one to organise all the toilet cleaning robots, or effectively move a cargo spaceship through the asteroid belt while organising thousands of mining robots. These aren't higher brain functions. Anything that can mimic the intuitive characteristics of humans (or for that matter frogs) lower brain stem functions will do nicely. In this way we also avoid that 'machine-intelligence-takes-over-world-kills-humans' crapola that keeps popping up. We can happily avoid all the killer mind stuff until we're ready to move into a machine based consciousness ourselves, and that has to be a wee while away yet.

Logic is a very useful tool for dealing with the minutae of how to go about this but what I want to know here is how does 'intuition' begin, how do you build it? I know we now have programmes that learn, is this all that is required?

gilgamesh

"Logic was intended as facilitation; as a means of expression and not as truth; only later did it acquire the effect of truth."
"Our intellect is a consequence of the conditions of existence,"
"what convinces is not necessarily true, it is merely convincing."

Nietzsche

Bulgaroctonus

Aha! Very good to hit me with Nietzsche, since I have soft spot for that bespectacled, German wanderer. I'd like to see what book of aphorisms (Beyond Good & Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and so on...) these quotes are drawn from, so I could look them up myself.

1. Nietzsche's first statement seems to mean that we cannot always trust logic. In keeping with his general nihilism, he probably mean that logic is only a means to an answer.

2. I agree with Nietzsche's second axiom here. Perhaps its means that intellect is an inherent property of the brain, a by-product of chemical processes within the living tissue.

3. A very good third aphorism, a theme I have been using in the philosophy thread. I'm currently locked in battle against some WAB members about the issue of free will. Many people have concluded that they have free will simply because our will seems so obvious. Of course, modern science and neurology have some startling insights into the nature of the will (namely that it doesn't exist). This is a clear case of something convincing not necessarily being true.

I also invite you to join the Philosophy thread, since you seem to have some knowledge of Nietzsche, you may find the arguments interesting.