Artificial Intelligence?

[slvr_phoenix]

I still think that the spirit is what the brain does.

Which is perfectly acceptable. As I said, some believe that the 'something more' simply doesn't exist. (Or perhaps better said, that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts.)

Einstein says matter and energy are two states of the same stuff, so you can't have energy coming from nowhere. I believe Einstein before religion and philosophy.

This part didn't make any sense to me. Energy has no mass and is therefore not matter. Matter has mass. Energy and matter can share many similar properties. It is highly likely that the two are interconnected. Destruction of matter results in freed energy. Accumulation of energy can result in matter. You cannot 'destroy' one without creating the other. So yes, they are very likely to be "two states of the same stuff".

What I do not understand is how you view this theoretical law of our universe as being relevant to proving that a construct of energy cannot interact with a construct of matter. Even assuming that Einstein is right (which is quite possible as he was a brilliant man, but no more absolute than any other scientific theory offered by anyone else) that still does not make it impossible or even improbable. In fact, it doesn't lend any credability to the possibility one way or the other.

Further, where does your view of "energy coming from nowhere" fit into any of this? Where did you get this concept as being an integral part of religion or philosophy?

I think that "something more" is a result of our amazingly advanced brains' automatically mapping out the rest of our lives to maximize survival of our genes on a subconscious level (everybody dies, so it's more important to pass on the code than for the body to survive, hence we have altruistic behaviour towards family members, with whom we share the most genes). I think this subconscious "auto-mapping" that our brains do for us is what people talk about when they say that they are acting with "God's will" or going on a "gut" feeling. There are many future paths and our brains explore all of them as far as they can whether we want them to or not.

This is also entirely possible. I have to ask though, if this 'something more' is <i>just</i> our brains having mapped out numerous possabilities and the best course of action to take in advance of our needing this information then the deeper question remans of how did our brains 'learn' about things which we have never come into contact with yet?

For example a newborn baby would have no data about things like cars, tv, electrical sockets, knives, etc. to map out scenarios about. So either this information had to come from somewhere outside of that specific individual's life or else any time we encounter something new we cannot have a 'gut' feeling about how to respond to it, no?

This is what science (and me) has to say about it and interestingly enough it is also a mixture of the two groups.

So far what you've described really is just there being no 'something more' because our brains are more than enough, so it really isn't either of the two groups and it definately is not a mixture of the two groups. And that is what mainstream science does lean heavily towards, that there is nothing more to the universe than simply us (Earth's life forms) and it (our mundane universe).

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

It always makes me laugh, we talk about making machines that can think like a human mind, when we already have billions of them and they're pretty easy to make.

Right. We worry about the destructive nature of AIs seeing humans as inferior and yet us humans can't even go a day without <i>someone</i> on this planet killing someone else.

It's all so silly really. What's the point? If we really wanted an 'intelligent' computer we could just work on putting a human brain in a jar of an oxygen and nutrient rich liquid, give the brain a cybernetic hookup to a PC, and call it an AI.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

how can a computer enjoy chess? just because the software says "enjoy this" to the computer, what makes it feel the enjoyment? not possible that way

Why not? Quantify 'enjoyment' and then explain to me why it cannot effectively be reproduced in a synthetic environment.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

I agree that AI can exist without emotions but if true AI can be produced then surely emotions aren't hard to emulate. What is an emotion but a chemical reaction to certain stimuli or memories?

Exactly. At the physical level emotions are just chemical reactions to stimuli. That's <i>definately</i> reproducable on the physical level or else a large portion of our chemists would be out of a job. **ROFL** Unfortunately as PCs are electro-mechanical in nature a chemical system is meaningless to them without hardware designed to interact with chemicals.

However, at an equational level, which software <i>can</i> utilize, emotions are just quantifications of the sum of all positive and negative past outcomes in relation to scenarios defined by the cumulation of variables representing objects, people, places, etc. This is highly reproducible in software without a need for specialized hardware.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[confoundicator]

So far what you've described really is just there being no 'something more'

LOL, I got so caught up trying to rationally refute the views of your groups 1 and 2 that it didn't occur to me that I was just arguing that there is nothing more.

Further, where does your view of "energy coming from nowhere" fit into any of this? Where did you get this concept as being an integral part of religion or philosophy?

Again I was using trying to use Einstein to refute the "something more" folks. Energy has to have a source. If the energy that makes up thought patterns has its source in the brain then when the brain stops the mind stops. There are many religions and some philosophies that support the belief that the mind (or soul or spirit or whatever) can exist outside of the body.

I realize I've painted myself into a corner here, trying to use science to explain something that science can't explain (yet). Oh well, it was fun anyway. 😎

<font color=blue>Build a foolproof system and they'll build a better fool.</font color=blue>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

LOL, I got so caught up trying to rationally refute the views of your groups 1 and 2 that it didn't occur to me that I was just arguing that there is nothing more.

Ah, such is life. Perhaps I am partly to blame for that though, since I did not enumerate the non-more point of view and therefore perhaps it was not as evident or seemed less validated?

Again I was using trying to use Einstein to refute the "something more" folks. Energy has to have a source. If the energy that makes up thought patterns has its source in the brain then when the brain stops the mind stops. There are many religions and some philosophies that support the belief that the mind (or soul or spirit or whatever) can exist outside of the body.

Ah, but most of these religions and philosophies are based around the belief that our human body is only a partial representation of our being as a whole. In other words, we're not <i>just</i> a flesh-and-blood human, but also an energy-based life form which existed before our body of matter and therefore will exist beyond the confines of that body when it dies.

Think of it this way: A 'soul' is a living entity made up entirely of energy and having no matter. This being of pure energy could not interact efficiently with a universe comprised heavily of matter. So a second body is created, this body being based on matter.

Now, since matter is still hard for energy to work with directly, an intermediary layer is needed for the energy to work with the material. This layer is primarily our electro-chemical nervous system which includes the brain. Utilizing this, the energy life form is capable of running the physical body with minimal effort.

Thus no energy or matter is created from nothing, nor is it destroyed into nothing. The balance of energy/matter is maintained.

I'm not saying that this is or isn't the case. Obviously it is to each of us to determine our own beliefs. I am just explaining how their view <i>is</i> scientifically explainable.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>

 

[shadus]

Any science sufficiently advance is indestinguishable from magic.

We are understanding more and more each day, I really just wish that there were less limitations on the study of humans themselves.

Shadus

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Any science sufficiently advance is indestinguishable from magic.

All too true. Anyone from the dark ages would look at how we use our technology and tremble. Given enough time technology itself will even reach a point where it's use is as much magic as magic itself is to us.

We can take that even further by pointing out that some fields of scientific research such as quantum physics have already uncovered strong evidence that magic itself has a scientific basis. What if magic itself became a future field of science with just as much of a scientific basis as chemistry, geology, or biology?

We are understanding more and more each day, I really just wish that there were less limitations on the study of humans themselves.

Yeah. People tend to not like it when you cut them open ... for some odd reason. 😉 Personally I wish that there were less limitations on the openness of the minds of the mainstream scientists.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>