Is artificial intelligence possible ?

[Guest]

Yes, random with a bound. Like for instance you can have random numbers between 0 and 10. It's bounded because there are no numbers below 0 or above 10. But it is still random.

In quantum mechanics you have random distributions. You know for instance that an electron is within an area with a certainty, but you don't know where in that area it is.

And you can't ever actually know. It's called the Observer Effect.....the act of observing (and in particular measuring something) actually changes it. Best example is trying to measure the temperature of a glass of hot water. You put in a thermometer and presto...the temp of the thermometer actually changes (however slightly) the temp of the water it is trying to measure. So you can't ever measure something 100% accurately.....the trick is to get a fine a guess as possible.

[reedkiller 0]

Even without the Observer Effect there is too much interferance to make accurate mesurements. - Trying to mesure gravity is a right bastard

[Oligo 1]

Its interesting, i sure at some late stage foetuses do gain some limited awareness (some people even claim to remember it) but i felt if i asked if killing babies was murder surely almost everyone would say yes. Does killing a baby have meaning? Certainly you're extinguishing a great potential. A baby could become anything, but in the days weeks or months after birth is a baby an individual?

But killing babies only has meaning for humans, solely because we have an instinct to avoid slaying our young (a good survival strategy, yes?). Killing and eating a human baby has no meaning to a lion, for example, nor does killing lion cubs have any meaning to male lions.

So you see, in order for some act to be "wrong", the entity who performs the act has to have an inbuilt instinct not to do it. But what if it is a human who is a psychopath, totally lacking any restrictions a normal human has? Is it still murder, since it wasn't murder in the case of a lion, which similarly has no inbuilt restrictions against killing human babies?

In the end, there is no such thing as good and evil. All you have are the totally arbitrary rules (arbitrary because they cannot be justified logically) that you must follow. If you don't, your peers will kill or imprison you. The funny part is that the rules originated from the need to survive, not from some esoteric good/evil.

[bn880 5]

And you can't ever actually know. It's called the Observer Effect.....the act of observing (and in particular measuring something) actually changes it. Best example is trying to measure the temperature of a glass of hot water. You put in a thermometer and presto...the temp of the thermometer actually changes (however slightly) the temp of the water it is trying to measure. So you can't ever measure something 100% accurately.....the trick is to get a fine a guess as possible.

Hehhe, well, it's random to us because we have no means of predicting it. Nothing is truly random in a literal sense, it is seemingly random. For examply you can not predict the exact position of any water molecule in a weather system for even 10 seconds, but this doesn't make the whole weather pattern random, just very complex.

[Guest]

The behaviour of particles on the quantum level is really random. Not complex, but random.

[reedkiller 0]

how the hell can you prove it is random as opposed to infinatly complex!!!!?

[bn880 5]

The behaviour of particles on the quantum level is really random. Not complex, but random.

I don't believe that for a second.

What can you do, I'm a non believer. A great sinner.

[Guest]

how the hell can you prove it is random as opposed to infinatly complex!!!!?

Because it has a physical reality behind it. The wave/particle duality is the cause of the randomness. An electron for instance is both a particle and a wave at the same time. It is "smeared out" over space as a probability denisty.

Quote[/b] ]I don't believe that for a second.

That's ironic since the man you have in your avatar is the one who laid the foundation to it with his explanation of the photo-electric effect

Quote[/b] ]What can you do, I'm a non believer. A great sinner.

Well, you believe in aliens anal-probing hillbillies if I recall correctly. We all belive in something. Me in physics that has been proven over and over again for a century.

Btw, that computer that you have in front of you would not work if Schrödinger's equation was wrong. You have the proof right in front of you

[bn880 5]

I have not looked into Einstein and his views on Quantum theories until now, but here is something not so ironic:

Quote[/b] ]Einstein suspected that a still more fundamental theory underlies quantum mechanics (just as quantum mechanics underlies the older 'classical mechanics' of Isaac Newton). He invoked 'hidden variables' - quantities that do away with things like quantum uncertainty, but which cannot be measured directly. Bohr disagreed, arguing instead that we simply have to resign ourselves to the fact that quantum theory is counterintuitive.

It is my gutt feeling about randomness, and certainly I can't put an equation out to disprove Quantum theories, but I don't believe the chaotic theories.

I'm not saying I believe in us coming from "anal probing aliens", I believe they exist, but whether our past has anything to do with them I would like to find out for sure.

[Guest]

The hidden variables theory has failed big time. Yes, Einstein did not like the implications of his discovery. He made that famous statement "God does not play dice". He did however accept it in the end. Probabilistic quantum mechaincs was in the core of the Unified Field Theory he was working on most of his life.

As I said, the transistors in your computer wouldn't work if the statistical approach to QM was wrong. They're specifically designed to use that feature of QM.

And since you're reading this message it's obvious that it works.

I feel a bit like sitting in an airborn airplane trying to convince a sceptic that indeed airplanes can fly ;)

[bn880 5]

What? He didn't accept anything like that as far as I can see, he could not find another solution, that's not the same as accepting the wrong one.

Really? Transistors work because of the chaotic part of a Quantum theory? What does the randomness part of a Quantum theory have to do with discovering a transistor.

And stop making stupid jokes, even if what you have been taught is based on incomplete theories.

[bn880 5]

I think you are talking about the ability to make reasonable approximations of complex systems, not the reality of the systems themselves.

[Guest]

What?  He didn't accept anything like that as far as I can see, he could not find another solution, that's not the same as accepting the wrong one.

Sure as hell he did. The basic of his unified field theory is quantum gravity based on the Schrödinger equation which gives the probability denisty of the energy states of a system.

Quote[/b] ]Really? Transistors work because of the chaotic part of a Quantum theory? What does the randomness part of a Quantum theory have to do with discovering a transistor.

*bangs head against desk* Not chaotic. Random! Chaos has nothing to do with it. Chaos is complexity theory not random.

Transistors switch operating mode (from insulating to conductive) by raising the Fermi levels in the semiconductor which means raising the probability density for the electrons and holes for higher energy states. Break-through diodes use for instance the random nature of the electrones.

Quote[/b] ]I think you are talking about the ability to make reasonable approximations of complex systems, not the reality of the systems themselves.

No, I'm not.

This is elementary physics. It's so sad how people are prone to think that things they don't understand don't exist.

This is a very basic physical reality. Denying it because you "have a gut feeling" is just silly. Read a book about it instead and learn.

[bn880 5]

Well anyway, if you want to believe anything is really random, you must accept that you can not understand why it happens. Merry future to anyone trying to create a unified set of physical laws based on the idea that anything is random.

I don't care, I'm not nearly as mathematically gifted as Einstein so I can't spend years on this and actually get anywhere.

For me it is total bullshit, nothing can be truly random, even at the lowest level.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

denoir

Moderatus Maximus

Group: Moderator

Posts: 7473

holy sh... you could have written the 4th book of Lord of the rings instead of hanging around in this forum

[reedkiller 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because it has a physical reality behind it. The wave/particle duality is the cause of the randomness. An electron for instance is both a particle and a wave at the same time. It is "smeared out" over space as a probability denisty.

exscuse my ignorance you are indead right. I've just spent the last few hours reading up and getting to grips with it.

Quote[/b] ]I feel a bit like sitting in an airborn airplane trying to  convince a sceptic that indeed airplanes can fly ;)

lol - the worst kind of ignorance is stubbon ignorance.

to add more to the airplane quote - all of the "big bang" theorys rely on randomness

[Guest]

Well anyway, if you want to believe anything is really random, you must accept that you can not understand why it happens.

Not at all. Random does not mean that we don't understand it. It's just an evolution from the dark age deterministic physics. Just as we had to accept that time is not an absolute we also had to accept that everything is not deterministic.

Modern physics often defies the laws we see in our ordinary world. If it makes you feel any bettery, you are certainly not alone in your reluctance to these concepts. They do require that you susped your perceptions of "how the world works" since these are not the things that you see in our everyday world.

Quantum Mechanics is full of weird stuff. Take the tunelling effect as an example. In our regular macroscopic world, you throw a ball against a wall and it bounces right back. In the quantum world on the other hand it would from time to time pass right through it. Electrons display such behaviour and we use it in just about every electronic component you could think of. That's because the electron actuall exists everywhere (thanks to its wave-nature). The highest probability of finding it is centered around a limited area where the probability density is the highest. Still it can for one brief moment be on the other side of the universe (although the probability for that is very small, it falls of exponentially with the distance in most cases).

We fully understand how this process works. There is nothing magic about it, it's just different.

You have to go beyond the concepts that you take for granted and accept that the quantum world is different and that common sense means nothing.

[bn880 5]

Denoir, I can't find any information saying Einstein accepted the fact that any randomness described in any theory is correct. It is such an absurd thought to accept something is truly random, especially for someone who says he trusts in science. Randomness is not scientific, it's submission to not understanding if anything.

And it's "God does not play dice with the universe."

And there are many interpretations of the Quantum theory...

Are we talking about a bad interpretation of the uncertainty priciple then? "A particularly important discovery of the quantum theory is the uncertainty principle, enunciated by Heisenberg in 1927, which places an absolute theoretical limit on the accuracy of certain measurements; as a result, the assumption by earlier scientists that the physical state of a system could be measured exactly and used to predict future states had to be abandoned."

EDIT: Hmmm, well ok, I will keep my mind open as usual, but this strikes me as out in left field.

EDIT2: Right about now you make me want to study Physics after I am done Comp Eng, but I can't afford it so please stop making this interesting.

[Guest]

It goes like this:

1)Quantum nature of energy - Einstein's photoelectric effect

2)Wave/Particle duality - de Broglie theory, empirical measurements confirm (i.e particles create interference waves etc)

3)Heisenberg's uncertainty principle Mathematicaly deduced from 1) and 2)

4)Schrödinger's equation Mathematically deduced from 1,2,3

If you accept 1) and 2) you have no choice but accepting 3) and 4) as a consequence unless you want to dispute the mathematics. Schrödinger's equation expresses the probability density for a particle in a energy state.

Where is the root of the randomness? Very simply on the edge between the continuous wave nature and the discreete particle nature. The gap between the quantum states etc.

So if you want to dispute the randomness you have to either reject the idea of energy quantums (i.e say that Einstein's photo electric effect is a sham), reject the idea of Wave/Particle duality (and find another explanation why electrons behave like waves) or attack the math (most difficult since there is really no strange math used).

Edit: Perhaps we should continue this discussion in the "random" thread, since this one is supposed to be about AI.

[bn880 5]

Ok thanks for the info.

EDIT: No need to continue this, I don't have various resources to prove which one of these is wrong. And I don't see anything that makes Einstein see a random effect anywhere. Predict the random part and you've got the real deal.

[reedkiller 0]

I dont mind the ignorent at all, but the stubbon are madening.

Getting back to topic - If a AI was created that could improve its self than AI could could rapidly become very, very intelligent. Are there any dangers in AI getting out of hand or will humans allways controal them strictly? Is it morral to controal a higher intelligence? If a higher intelligence is created should we trust it with big decisions more than we trust humans?

[bn880 5]

I dont mind the ignorent at all, but the stubbon are madening.

It is ignorant and stubborn. And I'm the latter. Tough for you is it not?

[Renagade 0]

I dont mind the ignorent at all, but the stubbon are madening.

Getting back to topic - If a AI was created that could improve its self than AI could could rapidly become very, very intelligent. Are there any dangers in AI getting out of hand or will humans allways controal them strictly? Is it morral to controal a higher intelligence? If a higher intelligence is created should we trust it with big decisions more than we trust humans?

We should either keep a cap on it or it may become the borg :0 unless the humn race i about t o die out then what the hell just build loads of bots

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

reedkiller-  

Quote[/b] ]"The meta-reason for the brain making the cat do this is to make it more likely for the cat to reproduce. Because a brain that has no "free will" (i.e it does not make random/wrong decisions) and is totally aligned to reproduction (and the parameters needed for reproduction i.e survival, health, social standing) would have a huge evolutionary advantage and so this is the only brain type that evolution allows."

I do not accept that my cat has no free will. I tend to think it has greatly limited free will (in the sense of 'free will' to which i have referred). Non-human animals can sometimes act in ways that are self destructive and apparently very harmful to their genetic inheritance as you concede. It appears other animals can make faulty 'decisions' too (or at least exhibit behavioural signs that might indicate such). Evolution after all is an ongoing process . Perhaps use of the word 'free' is deceptive ,what does it mean?

Is the appearance of freedom simply a result of the 'bounded randomness' that Denoir refers to? If this were the case then freedom would be endowed upon the will itself but not upon the personality who claims ownership of the will. Personal freedom would not exist as something that could or could not be possesed in exercising some higher mental faculty. Freedom would exist as an impersonal phenomenon and affect the brain to a greater or lesser extent as a result of quantum fluctuations. Everything else relating to 'will' would be genetic or external in origin. But then perhaps there is indeed the personal mental faculty of 'freedom of will' existing as a filterer and interpreter of this randomness at the sub-executive level.

We can observe our heads (brains)from the outside at a subatomic level but that has not and will not for the forseeable future give us a true or full understanding of the inside(minds). We live in a theoretical space inside our heads that science has yet proved incapable of probing.

What if freedom, as it appears to ,as well as existing at a quantum level, exists or can exist in the human mind at an overarching theoretical level as an abstract concept that through consciousness we can choose to let impinge, which it does physically on the brain, thus impacting thoughts and decisions by letting random choices be made between alternatives (presumably at the smallest level utilising quantum mechanical fluctuations).

Are we though free to choose? Perhaps we are as free as we know ourselves to be. Perhaps the sincere belief or existence of the idea that we are free to think and choose can set into motion events causing the mind to cede control of a thought or choice we are considering to random mechanisms? I do not have unusual knowledge of brain functions so perhaps not though.

Do we fully and totally understand even a single thought from an objective scientific perspective? I believe not. How then can we hope to understand a whole head full of such thoughts and how they interact with one another from that same perspective? As of now we cannot. So perhaps we are free. Its a nice thought anyway.

Whatever the case i am not convinced that quantum theory has tied up the many loose ends of our understanding of

the phenomenon of human existence (and apparent freedom) in all the splendour of its perplexingly perplexed state.

--------------------------

Oligo-

Quote[/b] ]"But killing babies only has meaning for humans, solely because we have an instinct to avoid slaying our young (a good survival strategy, yes?). Killing and eating a human baby has no meaning to a lion, for example, nor does killing lion cubs have any meaning to male lions."

I think you will be hard pressed to find anything that has meaning to a lion. If it doesnt kill its own species or young (though many animals do it ) might it not be because of some smells and other signals that it has been genetically programmed to respond to by desisting from killing (at the least and perhaps engaging in other behaviour)? Does anything have 'meaning' to a lion including the death of its own offspring?

Oligo-

Quote[/b] ]"So you see, in order for some act to be "wrong", the entity who performs the act has to have an inbuilt instinct not to do it. But what if it is a human who is a psychopath, totally lacking any restrictions a normal human has? Is it still murder, since it wasn't murder in the case of a lion, which similarly has no inbuilt restrictions against killing human babies?"

It is obviously much more complicated for a human. A psychopath is aware of what they doing even if they do not see it as 'wrong'. What is a lion aware of?

Why do humans sometimes refrain from killing small animals or insects? I could step on an ant but i do not. Is that still my 'instinct' at work? Perhaps .Certainly i dont gain much in evolutionary terms whether or not the ant dies. What about thoughts of stealing, is it considered right or wrong simply due to the strength of 'instinct' of are there wider enviromental factors?

What about war crimes commited by perfectly sane people? How much of their decision making is instinct and how much enviromentally derived?

There are many other examples and the 'nature/nurture' debate is far from resolved.

Psychopaths have a mental malfuntion. My personal

judgement would depend on the precise nature of the malfunction.

Oligo-

Quote[/b] ]"In the end, there is no such thing as good and evil. All you have are the totally arbitrary rules (arbitrary because they cannot be justified logically) that you must follow. If you don't, your peers will kill or imprison you. The funny part is that the rules originated from the need to survive, not from some esoteric good/evil. .

"there is no such thing as good and evil"

"All you have are the totally arbitrary rules (arbitrary because they cannot be justified logically)"

"the rules originated from the need to survive, not from some esoteric good/evil."

Each of these is more of a value judgement than a statement of fact. It may be what you believe but how can you possibly prove it at all conclusively?

(BTW i mostly agree with you)

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

reedkiller- "Are there any dangers in AI getting out of hand or will humans allways controal them strictly? Is it morral to controal a higher intelligence?

I have no doubt that humans will grow careless over time and AI if they ever become a reality will become ingrained into human society until it is almost forgotten we ever went without them.

"If a higher intelligence is created should we trust it with big decisions more than we trust humans?"

If you mean higher simply as in 'intelligent' then there is only limited reason to do so . But if you mean higher as in 'higher than humans' then we should by virtue of the fact that it is a higher intelligence and will thus by definition make more intelligent decisions. One major problem comes in working out whether it really is 'better' than us and doesnt have some essential but unseen malfunction at the 'heart' of it that may manifest itself in the future (although how it could be worse than humans is beyond me). Another problem is that people so often disagree on what the most intelligent course of action is, such that one mans intelligent decision is another mans stupid folly. This begs the question of whether we would know a higher intelligence if we saw it.

And what if little human foibles like morals and ideals are discarded for whatever reason by higher intelligences? Presumably we must make our own beliefs the basis of the AIs beliefs to avoid such conflicts of interest.