Mokele Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Sione, your definitions are simply wrong, and do not accord with those used by any workers in the field. You cannot simply make up new meanings for words in order to prove a point. That's like if I 'proved' turtles are the fastest land animals by re-classifying the cheetah as a type of turtle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) I reckon in the future yeah' date=' when we are able to program them to appreciate what we feel and program them to make choices based on their emotionals. Anything we can program them to do, they will be able to perform it. If we can't, they can't. [/quote'] You practically said we will be able to program it, once we are able to program it. The meaning of your sentence is my point. To know something is to DEFINE something, to be able to describe all the properties, especially MECHANICS of it, if you want to model mechanics of it. Word "simulation" means "to model mechanics of something". Why future, why not now? We can model it, simulate it, AS SOON as we DEFINE it. Since I did define it, I already did simulate it, and I'm telling you it works. Future is now, and I'm telling you HOW it works, ok? Do you not understand or do you not believe? Mokele, I told you my definitions are perfect and they do work. Perhaps, your dictionary is better than mine? This is mine - http://www.dictionary.com - what's yours? Why are you arguing instead to share information and work TOGETHER? Let me try to explain it again... 1.) Feeling = brain input = sensation Are you saying "feeling" IS NOT "brain input" IS NOT "sensation", what you call "stimuli"? feel⋅ing 1. the function or the power of perceiving by touch. 2. physical sensation not connected with sight, hearing, taste, or smell. stim⋅u⋅lus 1. something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc. 2. Physiology, Medicine/Medical. something that excites an organism or part to functional activity. 2.)Thought = brain output = cognition Are you saying "thought" IS NOT "brain output" IS NOT "cognition"? thought 1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought. 2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts. cog·ni·tion 1. the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment. 2. that which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. Now, look back at "stimuli" and you will see how 'output' (thought) is also the part of 'input' in the same time: -"that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc." 3.) Emotion = acquired feeling = previously felt Are you saying "emotion" IS NOT "memorized feeling" IS NOT "acquired input"? emo·tion 1. the affective aspect of consciousness; a state of feeling. 2. a psychic and physical reaction subjectively experienced as feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for action. 1. a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than consciously and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling. 2. a state of mental agitation or disturbance; mental imprint or image. 4.) Instinct = genetic/acquired memory based reaction Are you saying "instinct" IS NOT "reaction based on genetic or memorized input" IS NOT "trained stimuli reaction/response without thinking"? in·stinct 1. an inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason. 2. behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level. 1. an inherited tendency of an organism to behave in reaction to its environment and purpose of fulfilling a specific need. Just like a SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY that can INHERIT some shape i.e. MEMORIZE it, and later react accordingly. This is how you think mind works anyway, like spring based wrist-watch... even thought it is obviously electrical. Note the word PURPOSE in above definition, it is the key to defining what is "intelligence", and automatically, what is not, like instinct or emotional reaction. Did you know "consciousness" has the same units as modem speed, "thought" (information) can be measured in Bytes and that "intelligence" is 'rate of success', can be both positive and negative? Thought = information output, Byte Emotion = memorized input(felt), Byte Consciousness = produced output, Byte/Sec Instinct = emotion biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec Intelligence = thought biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec You cannot simply make up new meanings for words in order to prove a point. That's like if I 'proved' turtles are the fastest land animals by re-classifying the cheetah as a type of turtle. I was not proving anything. I was asking you for the correct definition. There is no more points I need to make, I made my point. I did not make up any meanings, the meanings are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Your definitions seem to be wrong or you failed to understand them. Why don't you just look it up, pick your favorite encyclopedia and check it, then you may realize, or at least you might be able to copy/past what you think is the correct definition. You always have to start from somewhere, even if it is completely wrong we now know what needs to be defined. You offer no better definition, you do not point what and how to improve and what is actually wrong, your comment is emotional rather than rational, it was unpredictable. YOU SAID: -"Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion." ...you actually agree with me, you just need to realize it, again. Not to worry, because I can explain everything. Sione, your definitions are simply wrong, My dictionary is simply wrong? At least I tried, sorry for that. ...and do not accord with those used by any workers in the field. No problem, and I'm sure glad that you do know the correct definitions used in the field, so can you please tell us, according to what definition my definitions are wrong, please give us correct definitions: Life = ? Memory = ? Feeling = ? Thought = ? Emotion = ? Instinct = ? Intelligence = ? Consciousness = ? --------------------- Processing System/Nervous System = ? Information = ? Information INPUT = ? Information OUTPUT = ? Until then, fully working, mathematically logical definition, like mine, is good for start. At least I know what is state, what is process and what is reaction, you have no idea what you consider "input" and what you consider "output", or do you? Edited February 2, 2009 by Sione Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 You practically said we will be able to program it, once we are able to program it. The meaning of your sentence is my point. To know something is to DEFINE something, to be able to describe all the properties, especially MECHANICS of it, if you want to model mechanics of it. Word "simulation" means "to model mechanics of something". Why future, why not now? We can model it, simulate it, AS SOON as we DEFINE it. Since I did defined it, I already did simulate it, and I'm telling you it works. Future is now, and I'm telling you HOW it works, ok? Do you not understand or do you not believe? Mokele, I told you my definitions are perfect and they do work. Perhaps, your dictionary is better than mine? This is mine - http://www.dictionary.com - what's yours? Why are you arguing instead to share information and work TOGETHER? Let me try to explain it again... 1.) Feeling = brain input = sensation Are you saying "feeling" IS NOT "brain input" IS NOT "sensation", what you call "stimuli"? feel⋅ing 1. the function or the power of perceiving by touch. 2. physical sensation not connected with sight, hearing, taste, or smell. stim⋅u⋅lus 1. something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc. 2. Physiology, Medicine/Medical. something that excites an organism or part to functional activity. 2.)Thought = brain output = cognition Are you saying "thought" IS NOT "brain output" IS NOT "cognition"? thought 1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought. 2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts. cog·ni·tion 1. the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment. 2. that which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. Now, look back at "stimuli" and you will see how 'output' (thought) is also the part of 'input' in the same time: -"that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc." 3.) Emotion = acquired feeling = previously felt Are you saying "emotion" IS NOT "memorized feeling" IS NOT "acquired input"? emo·tion 1. the affective aspect of consciousness; a state of feeling. 2. a psychic and physical reaction subjectively experienced as feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for action. 1. a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than consciously and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling. 2. a state of mental agitation or disturbance; mental imprint or image. 4.) Instinct = genetic/acquired memory based reaction Are you saying "instinct" IS NOT "reaction based on genetic or memorized input" IS NOT "trained stimuli reaction/response without thinking"? in·stinct 1. an inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason. 2. behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level. 1. an inherited tendency of an organism to behave in reaction to its environment and purpose of fulfilling a specific need. Just like a SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY that can INHERIT some shape i.e. MEMORIZE it, and later react accordingly. This is how you think mind works anyway, like spring based wrist-watch... even thought it is obviously electrical. Note the word PURPOSE in above definition, it is the key to defining what is "intelligence", and automatically, what is not, like instinct or emotional reaction. I was not proving anything. I was asking you for the correct definition. There is no more points I need to make, I made my point. I did not make up any meanings, the meanings are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Your definitions seem to be wrong or you failed to understand them. Why don't you just look it up, pick your favorite encyclopedia and check it, then you may realize, or at least you might be able to copy/past what you think is the correct definition. You always have to start from somewhere, even if it is completely wrong we now know what needs to be defined. You offer no better definition, you do not point what and how to improve and what is actually wrong, your comment is emotional rather than rational, it was unpredictable. YOU SAID: -"Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion." ...you actually agree with me, you just need to realize it, again. Not to worry, because I can explain everything. My dictionary is simply wrong? At least I tried, sorry for that. No problem, and I'm sure glad that you do know the correct definitions used in the field, so can you please tell us, according to what definition my definitions are wrong, please give us correct definitions: Life = ? Memory = ? Feeling = ? Thought = ? Emotion = ? Instinct = ? Intelligence = ? Consciousness = ? --------------------- Processing System/Nervous System = ? Information = ? Information INPUT = ? Information OUTPUT = ? Until then, fully working, mathematically logical definition, like mine, is good for start. At least I know what is state, what is process and what is reaction, you have no idea what you consider "input" and what you consider "output", or do you? Well your definition of determinism isn't from that source (are you happy I filled the screen using the quote now?). They have 7 definitions, none of which are the one you are attempting to use in this discussion. I haven't investigated your other definitions but would be surprised if you didn't use the most obscure and nebulous one available. I will bite and try to define your terms so we can sensibly discuss things. life; any system that can use available external energy to make itself sustainable and has evolutionary potential. memory; ability to accept, store, and recall information feeling; input from the sense of touch thought; visualization through a priori processes emotion; thought and action from instinctual rather than logical processes instinct; tendency of a given species to act in a certain manner intelligence; ability to alter surroundings to provide for self-perpetuation consciousness; awareness of being distinct and separate from ones surroundings All I want from you is a word that would describe a person who believed that everything in the universe has an underlying cause and observes a set of fixed rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'll go for some definitions as well. In order of relevance to the thread: intelligence: the capacity to solve problems of an informational nature thought: a portion of an intelligent process consciousness: the capability to choose, plan, justify, and/or explain one's own thoughts, actions, and/or objectives self-awareness: the ability to recognize self [as distinct from the environment and other individuals] emotion: an inbuilt (eg instinctual) process that biases thoughts and actions toward a predictable subset. Eg fear --> avoid, anger --> attack, anxious --> (tense, fidget, alert). empathy: the ability to guess others' emotions and to partially simulate them inside self. life -- life is badly defined, and irrelevant since an Artificial Intelligence does not need life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Please, have you not noticed that I'm the DEFINITION MASTER? All that shows is you'd rather argue semantics than substance. I say electromagnetic fields are physical, and you say they're spiritual. Sorry, you're wrong, they're physical. And to reiterate: the brain is a classical physical system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) life; any system that can use available external energy to make itself sustainable and has evolutionary potential. memory; ability to accept, store, and recall information feeling; input from the sense of touch thought; visualization through a priori processes emotion; thought and action from instinctual rather than logical processes instinct; tendency of a given species to act in a certain manner intelligence; ability to alter surroundings to provide for self-perpetuation consciousness; awareness of being distinct and separate from ones surroundings How do you *know* if an AI is intelligent or conscious? How can you test it? as Mokele said, it's about how to recognize and test it in a system like BlueBrain AI project - http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/ - just like with C++ and OO programming, you first need to define the most general class and later derive from there, full self-contained definition must not have any undefined terms. "thought; visualization through a priori processes" while your definitions are "correct" like many definitions of words with multiple and interchangeable meanings can be, you need to be more specific, i.e. how to *know* "visualization" occurred inside BlueBrain AI, how does "visualization" look like, what is it, how do you recognize it? definition needs to narrow the meaning, that is not to include any more abstract concepts. I'll go for some definitions as well. In order of relevance to the thread: intelligence: the capacity to solve problems of an informational nature thought: a portion of an intelligent process consciousness: the capability to choose, plan, justify, and/or explain one's own thoughts, actions, and/or objectives self-awareness: the ability to recognize self [as distinct from the environment and other individuals] emotion: an inbuilt (eg instinctual) process that biases thoughts and actions toward a predictable subset. Eg fear --> avoid, anger --> attack, anxious --> (tense, fidget, alert). empathy: the ability to guess others' emotions and to partially simulate them inside self. life -- life is badly defined, and irrelevant since an Artificial Intelligence does not need life. "thought: a portion of an intelligent process" while your definitions are "correct" like many definitions of words with multiple meanings can be, some meanings there are still vague and it does not describe it in a way to be recognized and not confused with something else. we can't really look for some "portion" in BlueBrain AI, we need to know what is "portion" and how to test if it is there or not. [-edit-] current dictionary definitions of these concepts are vague, depend on context and many terms can be used interchangeably. it is correct that technical definition must relate with terms in computer science aka. information technology. it is not important to name the terms at all, thought it is necessary if one wants to compare AI with real living organism. Sione was a bit verbose really, only these three *must* be defined: - information - information input - information output input is pretty much anything that changes the system, therefore information is "change" and memory is "preserved change". output is also some change and the trick seem to be how to recognize one change from another. Feeling= brain input Thought = brain output Emotion = memorized feeling Instinct = emotion based reaction Intelligence = thought based reaction Verily, this Vichyssoise of Verbiage Veers most Verbose... dear Sione, while your definitions are "correct" like many definitions of words with multiple and interchangeable meanings can be, if you think your definition is good because of low number of symbols, then this definition will beat yours, it will put your definition to shame and your definition can eat the dust and shorts of my definition: info= change A= info input B= info output C= memory(A) D= reaction(C) E= reaction(B) ...so let me simply add that it's my Very good honor to meet you and you may call me "V". [-edit-] Sione's definition is too general, it includes too much. it says system "sees", "hears" or "feels" by receiving info about change/displacement, _infoA. than it has a "choice" to "react" in two ways: 1.) _response©, immediate response without processing _infoA or 2.) _response(B), based on more complex information processing, _infoB. any input/change that stays within the system is a part of "memory", so _reaction© will act on raw _infoA and physical response of such systems can behave life-like without any "brain", similar to shape memory alloy or spring. 'spring' has A, C, D and maybe even B and E, which would, according to Sione, classify a spring not only as emotional, but even intelligent being! according to Sione, spring would "feel" when you compress it, input information about the change becomes a part of the system as "emotion" and spring then "feels depressed", "not happy" about the change and new "emotional state". springs apparently don't "enjoy" the "feeling" of being "depressed" and they "react" with _reaction©, possibly without any _reaction(B), without "thinking". Sione calls this reaction "emotional" or "instinctive", she would actually suggest simple everyday spring is ALIVE! she must be crazy because it sounds crazy, imagine a spring with "senses", "feelings", "emotions" and "reactions", "sensitive" to change and external force, doesn't "like" to be "depressed", always "wants" to go back to original state and it "says" that with it's "reaction"... spring with an attitude, what a nonsense! Edited February 3, 2009 by Vesna Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Vesna; I would submit to you that at present there is no way to tell if any Artificial Intelligence is conscious or intelligent. IMO this has more to do with lack of concise definitions that can be agreed upon than way of testing for it. Having said that, there may be a very exact way of doing it someday (how long have we been able to use brain scans for anything?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 npts2020, i submit to you that. thought, there are many definitions, but just as you say people do not agree. for example, the above definition predicts a dead spring has senses, feelings, emotions and reactions. generally speaking this is true because we can use those words to describe how spring behaves. the trouble is that definition suggests it's all for real quite literally. information technology boils everything down to *information*, the most basic form of anything, and it suggests there is no real distinction between spring - virus - bacteria - monkey, it says they all equally alive, or not. this is in accord with bascule and Mokele theory of brain as mechanical turing machine, "system of springs and gears" governed by action/reaction and deterministic results. there is no real difference between simple turing machine like spring and complex turing machine like brain, both are "alive and feeling" or they are both just a dead spring and consciousness is an illusion, according to them. there is no clear path as how to agree completely because what comes out of precise definition does not fit philosophical or religious views, the implications are simply hard to accept. definitions get refused based on opinions and until some AI is clever enough to start talking and explain everything from it's point of view there will hardly be any agreement about intelligence and consciousness, but emotions and feelings can be investigated as soon as wee agree on definition. thought, some people will never agree with any of that until they literally *hear* it coming from AI itself, for the same reason they think animals don't have emotions just because they can't say so, in English that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Well, IMO one day we may be able to test to prove for sure that a spring has (no) thoughts, feelings, etc. but aren't most of those things predicated on being "alive"? I don't see what evolutionary potential a spring has, or do you wish to use a definition other than the one i gave? I would tend to agree with Mokele and bascule about the brain only being a more complex Turing machine (maybe one with the halting problem solved?). For humans to create a machine that even approaches our abilities in a very small fraction of the time that it has taken nature to create us would be pretty amazing, so it may be a while before we have a definitive answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) How do you *know* if an AI is intelligent or conscious? How can you test it? what to look for? how to recognize and test it in a system like BlueBrain AI project? to answer this question more directly, you look for the changes in a system and try to separate changes caused by input from changes caused by output. once you can isolate output the information can be coded into any kind of pattern according to input, the rest is easy. however, this is only possible if we can actually measure the change, i.e if the "change" itself was some kind of measurable physical displacement. but if any information is stored on quantum scale, then we simply can not measure that change, according to current theory at least: "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both exist with arbitrary precision. This is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but rather about the nature of the system itself." apparently, the first question to be answered is whether any information inside the brain is stored on quantum level or is all information stored on a physical measurable scale, in which case we can measure a physical displacement as same as with the spring, while the quantum brain scenario would try to measure electromagnetic potentials and distribution, unfortunately never able to obtain the full information. npts2020, yes. but once you agree brain is turing machine you practically classify it as "dead", no different to a dead spring in it's operating principles, so you already have all the answers you need and your definition is the "most general" one, given by Sione. anyway, i have another, thought similar, solution that might give some more room for compromise... *) there is a clear distinction between static and dynamic systems, like brick and spring. the difference is in *flexibility* or ability to sustain and/or adopt to external forces and changes. brick either stays as it was or it breaks into pieces, hence they can not take any "change" as input and their reaction is either "no change" or "loss of information/system collapse". on the other hand, dynamical systems can be flexible, they can, not only endure external input and changes, but they can even absorb the "change" exerted on them, memorize and convert it in some internal state, like spring or shape memory alloy. *) so the question is, where does one dynamical system becomes "alive" and the trick is to answer the question in percentages and floating point, rather than in absolutes and boolean. that would classify a brick to be 0.0% alive, spring would be 0.1% alive, virus would be, say 0.9% alive, bacteria would be 1.0% alive and healthy adult would be 100.0% alive. how does this sound? Edited February 4, 2009 by Vesna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Well that is what I tried to address in defining life as needing evolutionary potential, how is that ambiguous? If you can explain to me what evolutionary potential a brick or spring has I may concede they are alive. I would think the definition would point more toward a Turing machine being alive than the brain being dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) yes, that is a very good definition, not ambiguous at all. "evolutionary potential" actually sums it all up beautifully. i was talking about it too and we have exactly the same definition, only i call it "flexibility/adaptivity/absorbency" or "ability to receive information without losing information", i.e. "memory(input)". memory= information within the system A= change/info input B= memory(A) C= reaction(B) - any system that has B is flexible system, it has evolutionary potential - any system that has C can act life-like, similar to spring and shape memory alloy it is important to realize evolution is not only growth in outside complexity, as when two or more springs tangle together, but also any change/increase of information *inside* the system. brain does not need to grow in mass to be able to receive a "change" and increase the information within, the memory and information inside can also evolve as a change of internal state (memory). so, lets see how our definition works, we have this - evolution is "change" or "mutation" and 'evolutionary potential' is flexibility, ability to change internal state, adapt to external factors by gaining information (memory) rather than losing it. - brick does not have B, no evolutionary potential brick can not take in any info or change inside the system, it can not adapt, evolve nor grow (unless it's sticky). it can not change internal state in a way to increase information within the system, it can only change by breaking and loosing information, this is devolution, hence brick is not alive and dead person decomposing is not alive either. definition seems to work here. - spring has B, it has evolutionary potential spring, or any other dynamical system, automatically has evolutionary potential proportional to it's flexibility. spring can take "change" as input, absorb it and "evolve" accordingly, storing the new information as internal state. even more hilarious, springs can actually tangle together, so they could evolve in even more obvious and less predictable way, by increasing the information with additional external complexity. any *addition* of information to a system by either internal or external change can be called "evolution of the system", hence this ability practically classifies a spring as alive and "spring based" turing machine like brain is automatically alive as well, according to our definition at least. X-Men: "Mutation. It is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single spring organism into the dominant tangled-spring species on the planet. This process is slow, and normally taking thousands and thousands of years... But every few hundred millennia, some new spring gets tangled in, and evolution springs forward." Edited February 4, 2009 by Vesna addendum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well, if the spring happens to be a strand of DNA or RNA I would agree that it has evolutionary potential. The typical spring (a mechanical one anyway) does not. Evolutionary potential has to do with offspring being different from the parent and the ability of an organism to adapt to its surroundings. IMO you could wait forever and the spring would never change other than degrading over time from use, corrosion etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sione Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sheesh, what happened here? V for Vendetta, eh? Dear V, I see you fiddled with my beautiful definition, very good. Everything seems to be defined now and the conclusion is that people just don't like to agree, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) npts2020, information technology, don't get carried away with your personal feelings about abstract meanings. definition must apply and it all must boil down to: input - output - memory. we do not expect AI to have children, or do we? *) you want to change your definition? what it is your dictionary? it's wrong. i'm sorry to say, your definition of "life" turns out ambiguous after all. evolution has nothing to do with offspring and parents, ability to reproduce is a part of definition of "life", not "evolution". please use some dictionary. *) chemistry based turing machine brain is a system of springs, there can be no other mechanical reaction, but spring based, do you know? there can be no re-action of any kind without flexibility/memory, look at the definition: memory= information within the system A= change/info input B= memory(A) C= reaction(B) no memory = no flexibility = no reaction = no evolution *) we are talking about *potential*. you are mistaken in your imagination, way too literal. this is off topic really, so just remember that if protein folding were not spirals they would disintegrate and devolve, lose information much more easily. spirals are very special three-dimensional shapes: resilient, very sensitive, interactive and _combinatorial. given enough time and suitable external dynamics springs would be able to combine and evolve into sentient beings, do you not believe in evolution and natural selection? Edited February 6, 2009 by Vesna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 we do not expect AI to have children, or do we? Sure I do. Even a simple computer program can spawn child processes. Eg fork(). Vesna and Sione, keep in mind that dictionaries are often dangerously misinformed. Not that they are wrong, per se, but they give multiple definitions of which only one may be applicable (ie, you can use the dictionary wrong), and they are also vague to the point of near-uselessness (eg circular definitions). Dictionaries are intended for spelling and for understanding conversation, not as a technical resource. In some cases, the meaning of a word is disputed by the professionals who best know it (eg life). In any case, I don't think definitions are necessary to answer this question. For example, if you found that a computer could simulate a person to the point that the simulation would be indistinguishable from a real human, then the answer would be "yes" regardless of whether the AI or human were intelligent, emotional, or whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Sure I do. Even a simple computer program can spawn child processes. Eg fork(). so far we were talking about one physical system to accommodate one consciousness. what you are talking about now is to simulate the whole environment where these digital entities can live their lives - The Matrix kind of simulation, and the beauty is that my definition applies there too, even more so, since it is about pure information. Vesna and Sione, keep in mind that dictionaries are often dangerously misinformed. Not that they are wrong, per se, but they give multiple definitions of which only one may be applicable (ie, you can use the dictionary wrong), and they are also vague to the point of near-uselessness (eg circular definitions). Dictionaries are intended for spelling and for understanding conversation, not as a technical resource. In some cases, the meaning of a word is disputed by the professionals who best know it (eg life). you mean: "...like many definitions of words with multiple and interchangeable meanings can be"? i'm glad you realize that. it is the reason why i made a new definition using technical terminology and the power of information technology - IT definition of living process, life, evolution and everything: memory= information within the system A= change/info input B= memory(A) C= reaction(B) In any case, I don't think definitions are necessary to answer this question. For example, if you found that a computer could simulate a person to the point that the simulation would be indistinguishable from a real human, then the answer would be "yes" regardless of whether the AI or human were intelligent, emotional, or whatnot. do you want to fool someone, or do you want to know the principles behind it? the problem with that kind of understanding is you expect of AI to communicate, you are talking about some very advanced intelligence or about fakes and tricking someone. if you want to know the principles and the real essence of emotions and feelings, then you must be able to understand the basic form of it and how to recognize it. long before AI can tell you anything, you must be able to "read the mind", and *know* what is *information*, feeling, emotion, memory... you can't take definition out science like math, logic or IT, these sciences *are* definitions. you can play around with biology and dream about philosophy, but here, in computer science, it is all about definitions, classifications, relations, logic and mathematics. as a programmer you simply must have a definition as a means to program it and test it, don't expect you can make neural network and it will suddenly start talking to you. you must be able to measure the *information output*, or you will never know if your program works or not, do you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 npts2020, information technology, don't get carried away with your personal feelings about abstract meanings. definition must apply and it all must boil down to: input - output - memory. we do not expect AI to have children, or do we? *) you want to change your definition? what it is your dictionary? it's wrong. i'm sorry to say, your definition of "life" turns out ambiguous after all. evolution has nothing to do with offspring and parents, ability to reproduce is a part of definition of "life", not "evolution". please use some dictionary. *) chemistry based turing machine brain is a system of springs, there can be no other mechanical reaction, but spring based, do you know? there can be no re-action of any kind without flexibility/memory, look at the definition: memory= information within the system A= change/info input B= memory(A) C= reaction(B) no memory = no flexibility = no reaction = no evolution *) we are talking about *potential*. you are mistaken in your imagination, way too literal. this is off topic really, so just remember that if protein folding were not spirals they would disintegrate and devolve, lose information much more easily. spirals are very special three-dimensional shapes: resilient, very sensitive, interactive and _combinatorial. given enough time and suitable external dynamics springs would be able to combine and evolve into sentient beings, do you not believe in evolution and natural selection? I did not say my definitions were from any dictionary, I said they were the ones I would work with until someone made a better one. Maybe in the definition of evolutionary potential I should have said and/or but I stand by the definition as being essentially correct. I might not expect any AI to reproduce any more than I would expect my 90 year-old grandmother to reproduce but I would expect either to be able to assimilate information and use it to improve their capabilities. If you wish to say that DNA or whatever is required to have life, go ahead and state that and we will change the definition for purposes of this discussion. Not every organism (or system) that can evolve will evolve, certain conditions must be met. What I am saying is that some things (a steel spring, for example) will never evolve regardless of the conditions it could feasibly be placed under. I suppose one could say there is no such thing as "life" per se, only a continuum of existence of matter but I fail to see how such a definition is useful for trying to distinguish if something is alive or not as everything would either be or not be life, no discussion required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) npts2020, you are not pointing out how definition is ambiguous nor that logic is false, you simply refuse to accept conclusions based on your general opinion about biology and philosophy. you do not accept one spring is alive, but you accept many springs are, why? in any case, this "virtual" definition need not to change at all, only to include additional specification to suit personal taste. unfortunately, any additional differentiation will be opinion based, not based on logic. unless, you can really point out the difference based on logic, mathematics and information technology, not philosophy. I suppose one could say there is no such thing as "life" per se, only a continuum of existence of matter but I fail to see how such a definition is useful for trying to distinguish if something is alive or not as everything would either be or not be life, no discussion required. it is useful because it tells us exactly what is what, so we can answer the question from a programmer's point of view. it answers all the questions that were posed here - is there any question you think it can not answer or was not addressed properly? are you programmer or philosopher? do you want to chit-chat or discover the very essence of life, universe and everything? definition is required in order to start *programming* and be able to *measure* life, memory, intelligence, consciousnesses, evolutionary potential... before it can talk, because you can not even start to design programs or test software with philosophical or biological opinions. I did not say my definitions were from any dictionary, I said they were the ones I would work with until someone made a better one. start from dictionary, improve from there. we already have technical definition in terms of information technology. it applies to any dynamical system and all of the concepts we were talking about like alive/dead, evolve/devolve, memory, input, output, sensitivity, reactivity... definition gets better the more context it can define and the less ambiguous it is. OO programming calls this "abstract class" in Java, or "virtual function" in C++. IT definition is where we start if we are to program us some AI. - DEFINITION - information= change memory= info within the system A= info input B= memory(A) C= reaction(B) D= output-> A E= reaction(D) - INTERPRETATION - *) 1st law of everything: any system that has 'B', i.e. memory(input), is flexible system, it has evolutionary potential *) 2nd law of everything: any system that has 'C', i.e. reaction(memory), can act life-like, similar to spring or humans *) 3rd law of everything: any system that has 'D', i.e. "processing power", can evolve memory internally with self-input *) 4th law of everything: any system that has 'E', i.e. reaction(output), can appear intelligent, similar to monkeys and cats - EXPLANATION - flexibility is everything. flexibility is function of elasticity, moving parts and their degrees of freedom. flexibility is ability to change or mutate, it is therefore "evolutionary potential". flexibility provides memory storage and maximum information capacity is a function of flexibility. simultaneously, information volatility or system sensitivity is directly proportional to flexibility, as well as is resistance, resilience, adaptivity, durability, reactivity and liveliness, or potential thereof. ...but I would expect either to be able to assimilate information and use it to improve their capabilities. now you're talking - *assimilate information*, rather than lose information is evolution in contrast to devolution. it is the key distinction between "alive" and "dead". it is directly proportional to flexibility - memory - sensitivity of the system, and as pointed by Mr Skeptic evolution can be internal as well as external. "information", like programs, thoughts and memory can internally evolve too and even have child processes or replicas. If you wish to say that DNA or whatever is required to have life, go ahead and state that and we will change the definition for purposes of this discussion. the requirement for life i said is "flexibility" or "evolutionary potential". it was your definition as well, at the time. DNA is just more advanced system of spring-like behavior of ball-like masses (atoms) attached to springs (chemical bonds). Not every organism (or system) that can evolve will evolve, certain conditions must be met. yes, and i explained exactly how, where, when and why that happens, or not. again, it is a function of memory/flexibility and external dynamics or information availability. we were talking about *potential*, so it should be obvious. your mistake is that you measure potential with yes/no, instead of with percentage or float. What I am saying is that some things (a steel spring, for example) will never evolve regardless of the conditions it could feasibly be placed under. evolutionary *potential* is a probability function according to external potential as much as internal. metal spring the size of a house and weighting 740kg on earth has evolutionary potential of, say 0.00000001ep. it is a probability factor related to specific external conditions and again directly proportional to its flexibility/memory/sensitivity as definition says. but, with infinite time and space... sometime, somewhere chances and circumstances might be more favorable. only Sith deals in absolutes and boolean, Jedi should use percentages and floating point, you're not a Sith Lord, are you? what i'm saying is that your imagination is short and too literal. steel spring on this planet probably can not evolve, but on some other planet it could be more "soft", flexible and therefore have more memory available, be more sensitive and more reactive in more volatile condition with many more springs to combine with... just understand how spiral shape is very different to any other, spirals stick together, they are sensitive while in the same time durable, that's all. in chemistry molecules and atoms are mechanically modeled as spring systems. atoms as balls of mass attached to springs, where spring-like intermolecular interaction is representation of chemical bonds. abiogenesis, evolution and natural selection producing a brain as mechanical turing machine is exactly the story of springs tangling up together under external dynamics, by chance, and eventually evolving via natural selection to conscious beings. there is no real difference between molecules and metal springs, only in degrees of freedom and number of ways atoms can combine. it is *probability*, percentage, chance or "potential" guided by external input. it is a floating point number, not boolean. am i repeating myself? Edited February 7, 2009 by Vesna addendum, pics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 (edited) are you programmer or philosopher? do you want to chit-chat or discover the very essence of life, universe and everything? The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42 Edited February 7, 2009 by Mr Skeptic the other link didn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42 it's funny... it just so happens that i know the question for that answer, so as a matter of fact i can tell you that 42 might very well be the answer, not sure about decimal places thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Vesna; I am not a computer programmer but AFAIK any currently available computer and its' associated programming is done with binary code. Does this not require a yes/no answer for every operation of it? By assigning evolutionary potential as a probability, you only defer the problem to defining what equals zero probability, which i believe is where things get confused. Equating the action of a steel spring with that of a cat/human/even AI, is ok from a modelling point of view but completely obviates any need for discussion of what is "life" since even elementary particles or deceased humans could be "life". (I only moonlight as a Sith Lord when my buddy Dick C. is on vacation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 npts2020, this is computer science thread. "alive/dead", is story about brain as turing machine and just how many springs and gears it takes for you to call some *machine* conscious, emotional, intelligent... it is not about philosophy or religion, but about measurement, algorithmic computability, determinism and predictability - mechanical VS. quantum - spring VS. electron. you seem to refuse to think about it. look, by asking this question i'm pointing your false logic, you need to respond to it in order to get your thoughts in the right perspective and realize the conflict in your opinion: you do not accept one spring is alive, but you accept many springs are, why? you are kind of right, definition of life is probably the least important from non-technical point of view, because however smart or emotional we programmers manage to make AI some philosophers will never accept it as "alive". religious people will have the most trouble with it, as well as anyone else who uses prejudice instead of logic. Vesna; I am not a computer programmer but AFAIK any currently available computer and its' associated programming is done with binary code. Does this not require a yes/no answer for every operation of it? ask your calculator, it will say "no". YES/NO has two degrees of freedom, you get that with only one bit of information on/off, one/zero, left/right. the fact that is *digital* 'degree of freedom', as opposed to analog, only limits practical precision, or poses "imagination limit" in this particular case. By assigning evolutionary potential as a probability, you only defer the problem to defining what equals zero probability, which i believe is where things get confused. pardon me, you sound as if you don't read messages at all. i'm being exact, not deferring anything, where did you get such idea? you have to explain your logic and reasoning better, especially since you continuously getting mistaken about what was said. try to respond to specific statements directly, then we will be talking about the same thing and you will be able to see more easily if your reply doesn't make sense or if it doesn't relate to what was actually stated. Equating the action of a steel spring with that of a cat/human/even AI, is ok from a modelling point of view but completely obviates any need for discussion of what is "life" since even elementary particles or deceased humans could be "life". it is you who claim brain is mechanical turing machine, and it is you who calls it "alive" regardless of it being *mechanical*, explain? why do you think one spring is not alive, but many springs are? how many springs it takes before you call it alive? discussion about 'simulation of living processes', i.e. Artificial Intelligence, *is* discussion about life and about mechanics of life, in order to be able to model and measure it, can you explain what part about that is not clear to you? you think life just pops up from nowhere, from zero to hero? maybe some god comes along and makes it out of dirt? it is a gradual process from zero to little bit more + little bit more... hence the name - evolution. you think intelligence just pops up from nowhere, from zero to talking AI? you think simulating intelligence, emotions, feelings and consciousness has nothing to do with "life"? explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I think Vesna and Sione share the same IP addy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesna Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I think Vesna and Sione share the same IP addy. it took me some time to explain all this and answer all those questions, what is the reason for this personal agenda, how does it relate to discussion? this is very unappreciative of you, especially since you made very insulting false accusation. take on your conspiracy theory and personal insults somewhere else, discuss it with forum managers and while you're at it tell them about this violation of forum rules you just made. then come back and join the discussion if you think you can contribute or would like some more answers. you will not find this definition easily on the internet, when you realize that you may come back and apologize because this definition is priceless and you can not answer any of these questions without it. learn to appreciate knowledge and take personal conflicts out of public discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts