Is artificial intelligence possible ?

[Oligo 1]

Quote[/b] ]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.

Things brings to my mind a discussion I had with one of my friends, who is studying to be a doctor. He is thinking about specializing in neurology, so he has taken a lot of courses on it. We were drinking in a bar and discussing life, universe and everything.

He said to me that according to current theories, everything a human does can be easily explained as if it was purely instinctive behaviour (humans can learn new instincts), even the most complex tasks of theoretical thinking. There is no need for a concept of free will to explain the observations we can make about human behaviour. And I agree with him, since the simplest theory is quite often correct, I have seen it often enough in my research. So I say, prove it that human behaviour cannot be explained by just instinctive reactions to the input from the environment (including the randomness of the quatum world and cosmic radiation effects, etc.). Prove it that a concept like "free will" is needed to explain the observations.

Quote[/b] ]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?

What is "meaning"? Humans don't kill their young, because we have been programmed by our parents (who were programmed by their parents) not to kill the young. There is also probably a genetic instinct at play. So does losing a child have any "meaning" to a human, except the negative feedback caused by breaking the programming?

Why do we need (except for reasons of vanity) to try to draw a line between our behaviour and that of animals, when the observations again suggest that the simplest theory is correct (that there is no line, no distinction)?

Why climb ass-forward to a tree?

[//relic// 0]

That's not learning in an intelligent sense, that's simply mimicking. When a computer is able to continually expand it's code to suit it's own purposes, without limit, then true AI exists.

Up until then, any 'intelligence' exhibited by computers is not true intelligence, it is simply following predetermined patterns of behaviour determined by the programmers, however complex and wideranging that may be.

Also, I would have no qualms with killing a sentient AI being, it would make it more fun (aww cmon people it's essentially just electrons!)

[//relic// 0]

I assume it's been taken care of by experts in the formulating of theories - but what about whim and irrational behaviour?

Acting contrary to reason with no particular basis is seen in human behaviour, but would it be seen where an animal is acting purely on instinct?

[reedkiller 0]

Quote[/b] ]Also, I would have no qualms with killing a sentient AI being, it would make it more fun   (aww cmon people it's essentially just electrons!)

 

LOL LOL LOL and you are just a bunch of atoms so can I kill you? A machine CAN be self aware.

Quote[/b] ]When a computer is able to continually expand it's code to suit it's own purposes, without limit, then true AI exists.

can you continually expand your brain without limit? If not does that mean that you are not intelligent?

Quote[/b] ]Up until then, any 'intelligence' exhibited by computers is not true intelligence, it is simply following predetermined patterns of behaviour determined by the programmers, however complex and wideranging that may be.

if we put that quote in to human terms than -

Quote[/b] ]Up until then, any 'intelligence' exhibited by humans is not true intelligence, it is simply following predetermined patterns of behaviour determined by the experiences it has had, however complex and wide-ranging that may be.

as to irrational behavior - it is just the result of extreeme complexity - your brain is not magical if you copy it the copy works the same.

EDIT: Oligo - love what you just said. Just what i was trying to say thanks

[WhoCares 0]

That's pretty much what I also wanted to add to this discussion, creativity. So far, only things were discussed according to actio => reactio. I don't see, that such an AI is capable to do some kinds of art, paintings, music, poetry, a.s.o., or "Jackass"-like stuff, against common sense just for the heck of it.

[reedkiller 0]

Simulated creativity has allredy been achived. Unique works of art have been produced by computors.

all the connections and functions of neurons can allredy be simulated. Arrange them to match a brain and it will behave like one. "jackass" included.

[Oligo 1]

I assume it's been taken care of by experts in the formulating of theories - but what about whim and irrational behaviour?  

Acting contrary to reason with no particular basis is seen in human behaviour, but would it be seen where an animal is acting purely on instinct?

Human brains are not clones of each other. The are all different, some more different from each other than others. The differences are caused by both genetics and the environment the brain was surrounded with from birth to present. When you talk about acting contrary to reason, you're really talking about acting contrary to YOUR reason.

A masochist, for example, would enjoy pain, because his brain is wired that way. It would be perfectly reasonable for him to engage in activity, which causes pain. Thus every decision of an animal and human brain is produced by the reason currently at large in that brain.

Take that to a more complex level, including the purely random events on atomic level, and you have a brain which produces quite skewed solutions, but those solutions are still based on the programming of the brain. A causes B, but we cannot derive from B what A was.

[reedkiller 0]

You explain it much better than I do Oligo thanks.

Can anyone tell me how much of the brains actions are a result of atomic activity?

[Oligo 1]

Can anyone tell me how much of the brains actions are a result of atomic activity?

I think you might want to rephrase the question, since everything matter does in this universe is "atomic activity" on some level.

[reedkiller 0]

LoL ofcourse - whats more on thinking about it for a while i andserd my oawn question.

[//relic// 0]

*shrug*

I don't know enough to argue whether every response from a human can be predicted and is wholly based on genetics and experience, but in my opinion, a computer isn't truly intelligent while it is merely a program running through predetermined lines of code.

Also, I'm not going to argue philosophy. A machine is a machine, and if I want to, I'll torture the fuckin thing

[reedkiller 0]

Quote[/b] ]A machine is a machine, and if I want to, I'll torture the fuckin thing

no so long ago people would have said "A Ape is just a animal, and if I want to, I'll torture the fuckin thing"

[Oligo 1]

I don't know enough to argue whether every response from a human can be predicted and is wholly based on genetics and experience, but in my opinion, a computer isn't truly intelligent while it is merely a program running through predetermined lines of code.

Every response from a human is wholly base on genetics and experience, but cannot be predicted due to the randomness in nature (see the random number thread).