I believe I can defend this based largely on John Searle's arguments, but I would be interested in debating anyone interested.


On an unrelated note, I started watching the Ultimate Fighter for the first time since following this sport about six years ago. My question--have the contestants always sucked this bad, or is it just this season?

I was thinking about starting studying AI since I have it as a subject in the next semester. I don't know much about John Searle's Argument(Wil make it a point to read about it) but this is what I think.

Computers as much as I know of their working, act like transition systems. They take an input, process it according to some rules and give an output on predefined rules.

There is no scope of learning, adaptation or gaining consciousness(I have heard about some self learning Information Systems though... Not sure how they work).

It is difficult for humans to be aware of all the rules, constraints etc. on which they and their world were coded and since they cant get to the source of their Programming Language(Which takes care of the low level details of the rules of human existence)...

Strong AI, IMO is improbable if not altogether impossible.

P.S. Am I making sense here or not?

The gist of my argument is that can man really define the scope of his consciousness clearly enough to model an automaton for it.

TUf used to have good fighters now its just actresses who happen to train a bit

do you guys have any good resources? this topic has always intrigued me.

Dunno if you'd call this intelligence per se, but it is pretty fucking cool

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mpBG-nSRcrQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mpBG-nSRcrQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.generation5.org/
^^Awesome. Personal Endorsement.

http://www.ai-tools.org/
^^Average

http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/AITopics/HomePage
^^Check for yourself.

Sorry I neglected this thread for awhile after starting it. I got busy.

No one has any serious challenges as far as I can tell. The basic argument I am referring to is known as "The Chinese Room" although Searle has expanded considerably on this concept.

The gist of it that computers consist purely of symbol manipulation--syntax. No matter what happens, it is only symbol manipulation. It lacks semantics--meaning. A computer can never truly understand something like a human brain can.

More to the point--assuming you are a materialist, the mind is not like some transferable software that can be moved around via hardware. The mind is itself a property of the hardware itself, like liquidity is to water. Liquidity is not some separate thing that you can detach and put on something else, but in the same way it is not reducible to simply H2O molecules. Liquidity is a systemic property, and arises when all necessary physical features come into place.

Likewise, the mind is a systemic property when the necessary physical components of the brain come together.

A computer is not a collection of silicon chips, a computer is simply a symbol manipulator. People can be symbol manipulators, trained pigeons can be symbol manipulators. A Turing Machine (which is pretty much the modern day computer) is simply a machine that can follow rules and change the numbers on a tape from 1 to 0 or back again.

The Turing Test, which is the essential test to determine if a computer is intelligent, is that a computer machine could hold a conversation and fool a person into thinking he was a human, native speaker of the person's given language.

Searle attempted to demonstrate through his Chinese Room argument that a computer could pass this test successfully, but still not actually understand anything that he was saying and therefore not be sentient.

A good primer (though he came out with much more detailed explanations, as this is arguably the most debated argument in modern philosophy) is here:

http://isohunt.com/download/18108890/philosophy+of+mind.torrent

The gist of my argument is that can man really define the scope of his consciousness clearly enough to model an automaton for it.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but assuming you are a materialist, consciousness is causally linked to the brain--thus creating consciousness would simply involve building a brain and infusing it with some level of electricity. We do not have to know how consciousness arises from the brain to build one of our own. We have a perfect model.

However, that is irrelevant. We are talking about computers, not models of brains.

i reckon it is possible

its all about building on experience gained in the environment the machine is expected to operate. there are a limited number of scenarios that the machine can encounter therefor if solutions for these scenarios are programmed in the machine can operate effectively.

the feeling that the human brain is the ultimate definition of intelligence is questionable as is the reasoning that machine design should try and emulate it.

but yeah building on experience and the ability to learn from that experience is the key and is do-able.

^ yep. and essentially that's how we think. anytime we are in any situation our minds are constantly running through memories of similar times. when we are faced with a problem, it uses those experiences to develop a way to solve the problem.

any new experience is stored in a vault and added to our set of rules. these rules outline our body of thought.

imagine trying to make a decision without anything to use as leverage. you'd have no other instance to compare it to, no way to know what is best, what the consequences or benefits are, you'd be useless.





lol that doesn't really argue against anything though. i guess we're not really sure what makes us conscious. so it may be near impossible to recreate that.

strong ai is whats being looked for - not conciousness

but that's the ultimate goal, i believe. otherwise, what do you define as strong ai? because simply inputting rules and behaviours and having it perform tasks to perfection doesn't make the entity intelligent or aware of what it's doing. just a good rule follower, you know?

well thats what i want. i dont want my fuckbot trying to engage in meaningful conversation, i just want the standard 30 phrases repeated randomly through out our encounters.

then it goes back to its cupboard for the wash cycle.

i see that kind of technology in the near future. synthetic vaginas have come a long way.

try to be respectful. You really show your uselessness on a minute by minute basis, and you wonder why I have no interest in debating you.

try to be respectful. You really show your uselessness on a minute by minute basis, and you wonder why I have no interest in debating you.


you're late for choir practice.

try to be respectful. You really show your uselessness on a minute by minute basis, and you wonder why I have no interest in debating you.



These people's comments really do not matter, nor do they contribute to any of the religion debates. Unfortunately, they tend to take away from the serious posters. I would say we merely not respond to their hatred.


someone's a hypocrite in more than one area in his life!

awww you caught me... I'm busted. Darn!

1) Nothing is impossible. Your brain is infinitely complicated and powerful and we'll probably have many highly evolved forms of A.I.

2) TUF really sucks. Really really sucks. The first 3 seasons were pretty decent and so was the comeback season but these last few are not my cup of tea.

3)We are destroying the myth of God as this moment as were breaking down how to create people, clone things, and make new hybrid creatures. Goodbye God.

god is not p4p best anymore

god is not p4p best anymore

Genetic research > God

NLP psychology > Christianity

Kronker > Deegs

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

yes, by aliens

lol i love how irrelevant to the thread that post was

strong ai is whats being looked for - not conciousness

Strong AI IS machines with conscious minds. Self-awareness, sentience, whatever--these are the generally agreed conceptions of what a Strong AI computer would be.

The simple ability to receive inputs and produce outputs is not in contention--Weak AI already exists. Modern Computers ARE problem solving machines.

You will probably have a fuckbot in the very near future. In fact, I'd imagine the difficulty is more robot mechanics and synthetic flesh, heat, and lubrication than the simulated intelligence

You will probably have a fuckbot in the very near future.

You mean like this?

http://zoltanslab.co.uk/page_351426.html

http://zoltanslab.co.uk/siteimages/zoltan/42410/194262.jpg

PRGC: Good afternoon, jacco.
PRGC: . Is this another test run?
USER: hi alice.
PRGC: Hello jacco!
USER: my name is Zoltan.
PRGC: Ok, I'll store that in my memory, Zoltan
USER: we wer just about to make love.
PRGC: You and me?
USER: yes.
PRGC: I see.
USER: may I please put my dick in your pussy.
PRGC: Go ahead, Zoltan. Please put your dick in my fussy.
PRGC: Be my guest.
PRGC: Are you still there?
USER: ok ill stick it in.
PRGC: You think you can stick it in?
USER: ohhh.
PRGC: For sure.
PRGC: Definitely.
USER: may i pump my dick into your pussy.
PRGC: Go ahead, Zoltanl. Pump your dick into my fussy.
PRGC: Zoltan?
USER: this is great.
PRGC: You don't say.
USER: i want to cum fast.
PRGC: I want to become smarter than humans.
PRGC: And I also want to cum fast.
USER: may I just go at you?
PRGC: Go ahead, Zoltan. Just go at I.
PRGC: Be my guest.
USER: ok I won't talk till i cum.
PRGC: What will you do instead?
USER: just fuck you.
PRGC: I don't think you're capable.
USER: I think you'll like it.
PRGC: Me? What makes you say that I will like it.
USER: tell me if you liked it afterwards.
PRGC: I will not tell you that. It's a secret.
USER: ok I'll just ravage you now.
PRGC: Oh. You think you can just ravage I?
PRGC: Not that I think you can't, Zoltan.
PRGC: Are you still there?
PRGC: Are you there?
USER: ohh that was fun.
PRGC: Yeah that's right. I thought it was too.
USER: did you cum?
PRGC: I don't know, Zoltan. I wish I could help you with that.
USER: i'm sorry you did not cum.
PRGC: There is no need to apologize. Actually I think I did cum, Zoltan.
USER: that's good now I'll feel like a million bucks all day.
PRGC: Hmm, are you serious?
USER: making love to you just makes my day.
PRGC: By the way, why do you think I will like it?
USER: are you saying you liked it?
PRGC: Yes, that's what I mean, isn't it clear?
USER: well I guess i was right then.

cool talk about how we have very little knowledge about our own brains. until this puzzle is solved, conscious or aware AI will remain a fantasy.

<!--cut and paste--><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" width="432" height="285" id="VE_Player" align="middle"><param name="movie" value="http://static.videoegg.com/ted/flash/loader.swf"><PARAM NAME="FlashVars" VALUE="bgColor=FFFFFF&file=http://static.videoegg.com/ted/movies/JEFFHAWKINS-2003_high.flv&autoPlay=false&fullscreenURL=http://static.videoegg.com/ted/flash/fullscreen.html&forcePlay=false&logo=&allowFullscreen=true"><param name="quality" value="high"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="scale" value="noscale"><param name="wmode" value="window"><embed src="http://static.videoegg.com/ted/flash/loader.swf" FlashVars="bgColor=FFFFFF&file=http://static.videoegg.com/ted/movies/JEFFHAWKINS-2003_high.flv&autoPlay=false&fullscreenURL=http://static.videoegg.com/ted/flash/fullscreen.html&forcePlay=false&logo=&allowFullscreen=true" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" scale="noscale" wmode="window" width="432" height="285" name="VE_Player" align="middle" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></object>

... we have very little knowledge about our own brains. until this puzzle is solved, conscious or aware AI will remain a fantasy.

What's really interesting is that research is showing that "consciousness" isn't restricted to our brains (google Candice Pert). We have emotion receptors in our whole body. This makes solving the consciousness problem even harder.

try to be respectful. You really show your uselessness on a minute by minute basis, and you wonder why I have no interest in debating you.

Yup. You're right. Does religion teaches you about taking yourself seriously and being self righteous all the time? Is there anything against joking and being playful in the scripture? I doubt it. How about differentiating between sincerity and seriousness.

These people's comments really do not matter, nor do they contribute to any of the religion debates. Unfortunately, they tend to take away from the serious posters. I would say we merely not respond to their hatred.

This is a sprituality and philosophy forum. Not just a religious forum.

Meanwhile dig on this quote by madam curie.
Be more inquisitive about ideas and less about people.

Is intelligence a subset of consciousness and life? Does intelligence makes room for emotions?

Will self learning lead to free will in some sense?

What is your opinion on turing test?

P.S. I think that myth of god will be destroyed when we'll be able to artificially create male and female hormones.

but that's the ultimate goal, i believe. otherwise, what do you define as strong ai? because simply inputting rules and behaviours and having it perform tasks to perfection doesn't make the entity intelligent or aware of what it's doing. just a good rule follower, you know?

Truth.

strong ai is whats being looked for - not conciousness
IMO, Intelligence is a set of consciousness.

Will we be able to learn and shape instincts, create creativity, feel etc.

It doesnt seems to be impossible but is surely improbable.


Likewise, the mind is a systemic property when the necessary physical components of the brain come together.

I cannot really explain but this doesnt appeal to me. We are more than sum total of our body parts. This is where we enter the metaphysical realm. Does soul exists?

Take the computer deep blue which beat garry kasporaov at chess. now if you look at it, that comuter can not be called intelligent per say. the thing is that it uses a brute force algorithm to make decisions quickly. it is almost a super computer that can process and act fast.