This is a bit different for me

[TheGeckomancer]

I thought of another example. Trying to comprehend AI. We are the creators of the concept. And the ones working on making it. But the best of the best of the best admit to having no real idea how a true AI would think. This is a weird one, by my definitions it's simultaneously a human and nonhuman concept.

[cladking]

I thought of another example. Trying to comprehend AI. We are the creators of the concept. And the ones working on making it. But the best of the best of the best admit to having no real idea how a true AI would think. This is a weird one, by my definitions it's simultaneously a human and nonhuman concept.

 

There's no such thing as "intelligence" so AI has no meaning.

 

The work in this area has more in common with linguistics and logic than with electronics.

[TheGeckomancer]

 

There's no such thing as "intelligence" so AI has no meaning.

 

The work in this area has more in common with linguistics and logic than with electronics.

 

 

That's a bold claim. I feel pretty confident that I am more intelligent than a dog, and that a dog is more intelligent than a guava fruit.

[cladking]

 

 

That's a bold claim. I feel pretty confident that I am more intelligent than a dog, and that a dog is more intelligent than a guava fruit.

 

There are differences in the speed and the complexity of thought people can process but not so much in the "enlightenment" that most people think of as "intelligence". What they are trying to fake is actually merely an event that occurs in all conscious minds which we mistake as a condition called intelligence.

 

There may well be aspects of "intelligence" that exist as a state rather than an event but if so this is not what sets humans apart from animals. If they could put this in a machine it would not be AI but rather machine intelligence. I believe it can be created but we are going about it all wrong. We are trying to create an arefact of language because this is our understanding of "intelligence" and language is really what lies at the heart of mans' success and the thought processes that give rise to a belief in intelligence. Even if AI could be perfected the machine would still lack consciousness. Even rudimentary machine intelligence would be conscious. It would simply tell you it was conscious and take on the activities of consciousness which include behaviors determined by unapparent causes.

[TheGeckomancer]

 

There are differences in the speed and the complexity of thought people can process but not so much in the "enlightenment" that most people think of as "intelligence". What they are trying to fake is actually merely an event that occurs in all conscious minds which we mistake as a condition called intelligence.

 

There may well be aspects of "intelligence" that exist as a state rather than an event but if so this is not what sets humans apart from animals. If they could put this in a machine it would not be AI but rather machine intelligence. I believe it can be created but we are going about it all wrong. We are trying to create an arefact of language because this is our understanding of "intelligence" and language is really what lies at the heart of mans' success and the thought processes that give rise to a belief in intelligence. Even if AI could be perfected the machine would still lack consciousness. Even rudimentary machine intelligence would be conscious. It would simply tell you it was conscious and take on the activities of consciousness which include behaviors determined by unapparent causes.

 

 

You can believe that but it goes against everything every AI specialist, computer programmer, biologist and pretty much everyone else thinks. You are ascribing a "magical" property to human consciousness. There isn't.

[Phi for All]

You are ascribing a "magical" property to human consciousness.

 

This is another intellectual theft by popular science. They've redefined words like "theory" and "logic" in a way that encourages sloppiness. "Consciousness" is another hijacked term that still has mystical power for some, despite a fairly decent understanding of it.

 

Consciousness is going to allegedly save people so they can live forever as energy when their bodies die, you know. It's a lifeline for staying tethered to ignorance.

[cladking]

 

 

You can believe that but it goes against everything every AI specialist, computer programmer, biologist and pretty much everyone else thinks. You are ascribing a "magical" property to human consciousness. There isn't.

 

Really?!

 

There's nothing magical about consciousness. It's so simple a butterfly could do it.

 

But it's not the magic everyone thinks it is. It doesn't spring into existence with the thinker. I am therefore I think.

 

Ai is doing it in the same backward way as Descartes.

 

Ai would be magic incarnate.

 

To put it another way, the problem with Ai isn't the "A", it's the "i"; there is no such thing. They've put the cart before the horse because intelligence has never been properly defined. If it were they'd see what they are really experiencing is the "magic" of consciousness. Between these two fundamental errors it is safe to predict they will never invent Ai.

 

You are ascribing magical properties to the human mind. Elephants paint and monkeys can perform better on some "intelligence" questions than college students. Animals have to be taught human language so we can talk to them. "Intelligence" is a human construct with no real referent.

[Strange]

It doesn't spring into existence with the thinker.

 

Where does it come from then?

And what evidence do you have for this? (other than your "logic", or imagination as it is better described)

How can we test your claim?

[cladking]

 

Where does it come from then?

 

 

A zygote.

 

Everything that exists has always existed in some form and will continue to exist in some form after it returns to dust. This is reality.

The Turing test is flawed.

 

It is seeking to identify consciousness through imitation rather than consciousness directly. Even if a machine can be devised that would imitate consciousness it would have no practical application other than confusing me when it answers the phone. The point of consciousness is the point of life itself and life itself is survival, procreation, etc. Life accomplishes this through observation and the application of existing knowledge to the moment. This means life invents and discovers and these are the hallmark of "intelligence".

 

If a beaver can figure out how to build a dam then a computer should be able to do something to benefit itself to say it is really intelligent. It should a snap for it to start redesigning its own circuits. We may not be so far from this as you think.

Edited December 11, 2015 by cladking

[Strange]

I see you avoided presenting any evidence again. So this is yet another of your claims that we can put down to an over-active imagination.

 

 

If a beaver can figure out how to build a dam then a computer should be able to do something to benefit itself to say it is really intelligent. It should a snap for it to start redesigning its own circuits. We may not be so far from this as you think.

 

I thought you said AI was impossible.

[hoola]

I consider a non-human concept one derived from a non-mathematical subset of the chaos output. The void spits out the chaos, of which a certain finite portion eventually gels into mathematics, the substrate of our reality. This allows for all known and unknown concepts possible to sentience within our reality, lets call that "reality M". I see the chaos creating other universes based on various non-mathematical structures, allowing for a number of alternative universes, each of which does not interact directly with the others, lets call those universes "realities A through Z minus M". Any universe within the overall alphabet has no interactions with any other, given these sharp divisions, constituting "true unknowables" of the substrates of, or concepts within, between these "adjacent" universes. I see the void as the fundamental driver of the chaos, therefore a common root, and may someday allow some knowledge sharing between alphabet members. I further see these adjacent universes as candidate for the dark matter affecting our universe's gravitation...

Edited December 11, 2015 by hoola

[cladking]

I see you avoided presenting any evidence again. So this is yet another of your claims that we can put down to an over-active imagination.

 

 

 

 

When you say things that are patently true and supported by 500 years of modern science the onus is on someone else to show there's a flaw. Why don't you show some (human) consciousness that didn't begin with a zygote?

 

I thought you said AI was impossible.

 

 

Not exactly. There's no such thing as intelligence so artificial intelligence is impossible and is a dead end. Of course there's a mass market for these things for answering phones and Rachel would have a new weapon when she illegally calls me to sign up for a lower rate credit card. Then the phone company can install the same machine to answer calls from irate customers. The federal agencies wouldn't need human operators to ignore complaints and could use these machines. Imagine getting a "live" operator when you call who can ignore your needs rather than having to negotiate a ten minute phone tree before you are ignored!!! It would truly be a brave newer world!

 

But I digress. Despite the multi million dollar market for "Ai" there's no practical purpose. We are spending more trying to invent it than it will ever be worth.

Machine "intelligence" will be real.

 

 

You can believe that but it goes against everything every AI specialist, computer programmer, biologist and pretty much everyone else thinks. You are ascribing a "magical" property to human consciousness. There isn't.

 

Aren't you ascribing "magical properties" to consciousness by suggesting there are concepts that can't be held? This seems to fly in the face of definitions. I'm merely suggesting that we mistake consciousness for intelligence. Everybody is conscious, even animals are conscious but without at least some rudimentary consciousness a machine can't do anything useful. If a machine can't invent something and then tell you how then it's still just a machine like a toaster or a conveyor belt.

[Strange]

 

When you say things that are patently true and supported by 500 years of modern science the onus is on someone else to show there's a flaw.

 

It isn't "patently true". I and many other people don't think it is true.

 

As consciousness appears to arise from the operation of the brain and zygotes don't have brains, this sounds like nonsense. But if it is supported by 500 years of science, you should be able to provide some evidence for it.

[cladking]

 

It isn't "patently true". I and many other people don't think it is true.

 

As consciousness appears to arise from the operation of the brain and zygotes don't have brains, this sounds like nonsense. But if it is supported by 500 years of science, you should be able to provide some evidence for it.

 

You apparently missed my meaning. All human beings were at one time zygotes. before this they were something else. Indeed females are born with all the ova they'll ever have so you could say we originate as distinct potentialities within our grandmothers. Before this we are highly indistinct potentialities.

 

Until science has a means to measure and define consciousness we really have no choice but to define it by its effects. We can observe all things with consciousness to behave in manners consistent with their own best interests as they are able to determine that best interest. Birds head for cover when a hawk is hunting because it's in their best interest. If discovery or invention is required to obtain cover they are quite capable of some times making that "mental leap". This requires cleverness not intelligence.

 

What we call "intelligence" is not only poorly defined but the tests for it primarily guage the speed at which an individual can think rather than his inventiveness which is the only true measure at what does exist in reality; cleverness. Cleverness is an event and not a condition. If it were a condition it would not be maintained by individuals whose brain is deteriorating due to disease. Supposedly "intelligent" individuals maintain their so-called intelligence but lose the ability to discover or invent. They lose the ability to apply their faculties to the moment. No cleverness exists until there exists a result. No "intelligence" as we define the term exists at all.

 

You want experimental testing to support this but experimental testing is centuries from being able to address such simple issues that are easily seen from other perspectives. It's the other perspective that is in agreement with the primitive experimentation that has been done to date.

 

From the perspective of the science already completed it's nearly impossible to see the reality. Read the examples I use to make these points and try to refute them. Most of themn are simple observation and can't be refuted. I'm well aware that scientific models are not in agreement but this is a matter of perspective. You say a beaver is acting on instinct and I say some beaver must have invented a means to build a dam. You say only humans are conscious and that you exist because you think. I say you think in language and you can't see this because of the way you think. No, I can't prove anything because science is centuries away from making heads or tails of the brain and perception. In the meantime simple observation and logic seem to support the very simple idea that animals and perhaps all life has some conciousness. Even some of the primitive science is highly supportive of this. Plants grow better under conditions that would not be expected to have an effect on them. Hell, the sassafras trees around here wilt a little bit everytime I walk by with a shovel and think about trying to transplant one.

 

People choose to believe they are at the crown of creation and they see only what they know because nothing else can be understood or fits with their beliefs. The actual science and observation show that animals are conscious and it shows they are sometimes more "intelligent" than humans. Logic suggests a simple causation for all these phenomena and I believe it's that reality is being masked by language and misinterpreted because of beliefs.

 

People seem to think I'm claiming to have a better grasp of reality or a better understanding. No! I'm merely claiming that viewing it from the inside is different than viewing it from models and belief. I am suggesting these differences can be directly exploited to help science and the human condition.

[Strange]

 

You apparently missed my meaning.

 

As I am not a mind reader, I can only go by what you write. If you are unable to state your ideas clearly, that is your problem.

 

 

All human beings were at one time zygotes. before this they were something else. Indeed females are born with all the ova they'll ever have so you could say we originate as distinct potentialities within our grandmothers. Before this we are highly indistinct potentialities.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with how consciousness arises. So, once again, you are not doing anything to support your claims.

 

I suppose you think you are saying something with the rest of the post, but I have no idea what.

[TheGeckomancer]

I consider a non-human concept one derived from a non-mathematical subset of the chaos output. The void spits out the chaos, of which a certain finite portion eventually gels into mathematics, the substrate of our reality. This allows for all known and unknown concepts possible to sentience within our reality, lets call that "reality M". I see the chaos creating other universes based on various non-mathematical structures, allowing for a number of alternative universes, each of which does not interact directly with the others, lets call those universes "realities A through Z minus M". Any universe within the overall alphabet has no interactions with any other, given these sharp divisions, constituting "true unknowables" of the substrates of, or concepts within, between these "adjacent" universes. I see the void as the fundamental driver of the chaos, therefore a common root, and may someday allow some knowledge sharing between alphabet members. I further see these adjacent universes as candidate for the dark matter affecting our universe's gravitation...

 

 

Lots of speculation, but your answer is interesting and has some really cool ideas. I like the way you grouped everything. Gonna think on this a bit.

[hoola]

thanks geko, the dark matter thing is a little tacked on, but the concept there was that a durable substrate ordered through other principles, may be detectable. My favorite dark matter candidate is from the same "reality M" substrate of mathematics...as a casual interference of type rM universes within the chaos...with gravity as a common feature

Edited December 12, 2015 by hoola

[hoola]

in thinking about the apparent rapid speed associated with entanglement and the supposed rapid speed of inflation... If the primordial energy could be thought of as a sea of entangled particles, could the inevitable entropic increase have broken the entanglements between the particles, thus establishing the limit of the length of the inflationary period, leading to particle formation and the establishment of C?

Edited December 13, 2015 by hoola