• Artificial Intelligence: Is It Possible and Is It Ethical?
    204 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34880761]Says who? Just because we haven't done it yet? What in principle makes it impossible to fully describe a mind?[/QUOTE] That science can't describe experience because it is based on it, it assumes it. Experience is the final proof of scientific theories, it is not the other way around.
[QUOTE=matsta;34880715]Actually, I see no proof of you statement. [editline]26th February 2012[/editline] Science works on empiric evidence(=experience). If you want to prove something scientifically, then you must obtain evidence that justifies you claim (experience something that justifies your claim). Since conciousness is something you can only experience in yourself, that isn't scientifically verifiable at all in others.[/QUOTE] do you even know what a null hypothesis is
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34881607]do you even know what a null hypothesis is[/QUOTE] Yes, what does this have to do here?
that consciousness is entirely the result of physical processes is the simplest explanation that fits the current data, and as such it's the null hypothesis there's no evidence yet that shows any kind of cartesian duality or whatever, so we go with the null hypothesis [editline]26th February 2012[/editline] burden of proof etc
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34882203]that consciousness is entirely the result of physical processes is the simplest explanation that fits the current data, and as such it's the null hypothesis there's no evidence yet that shows any kind of cartesian duality or whatever, so we go with the null hypothesis [editline]26th February 2012[/editline] burden of proof etc[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean by physical processes. But if by that you mean physical phenomena, I'd say you god to be crazy to believe that phenomena (things as we see them) cause consciousness. Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".
[QUOTE=matsta;34882918]I don't know what you mean by physical processes. But if by that you mean physical phenomena, I'd say you god to be crazy to believe that phenomena (things as we see them) cause consciousness. Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".[/QUOTE] I think what he means by physical processes is that everything that we perceive of as a consciousness happens physically in the brain. Thoughts, emotions, reactions, decisions, memories, they're all physically located and occur in the brain in the forum of neurons and chemical reactions working together to create stimuli based on the intake of information we provide the brain with. Artificial intelligence could potentially be identical to human intelligence if we ever had the right technology to do it. I'm guessing there can be different forms of AI, for example, multiple "actions" the AI robot is physically programmed by a human to take based on certain information it intakes of its environment vs. the AI robot being able to program itself and "create" actions similar to how humans do it. So to answer the OP's question, it depends on the technology that develops the AI. If we were to create an AI that worked the same way as the human brain does, then it comes down to whether something that didn't come about by natural biological means can be given the same right as something that did?
[QUOTE=Lilyo;34884827]I think what he means by [B]physical processes[/B] is that everything that we perceive of as a consciousness [B]physically[/B] in the brain.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by that? That is what I asked. If by physical reality you mean perceptible reality, then it is a contradictory thought that the reality we perceive is responsible of our perceptions. If by physical reality you mean the reality described by physics then there is no proof that that reality is the "real one", since physics is science, and science is build upon human perceptions.
Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.
[QUOTE=matsta;34882918]I don't know what you mean by physical processes. But if by that you mean physical phenomena, I'd say you god to be crazy to believe that phenomena (things as we see them) cause consciousness. Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".[/QUOTE] [quote]In an amazing breakthrough, a multinational team of scientists led by Nobel laureate Santiago Ramón y Cajal announced that the brain is composed of a ridiculously complicated network of tiny cells connected to each other by infinitesimal threads and branches. The multinational team—which also includes the famous technician Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, and possibly Imhotep, promoted to the Egyptian god of medicine—issued this statement: "The present discovery culminates years of research indicating that the convoluted squishy thing inside our skulls is even more complicated than it looks. Thanks to Cajal's application of a new staining technique invented by Camillo Golgi, we have learned that this structure is not a continuous network like the blood vessels of the body, but is actually composed of many tiny cells, or "neurons", connected to one another by even more tiny filaments. "Other extensive evidence, beginning from Greek medical researcher Alcmaeon and continuing through Paul Broca's research on speech deficits, indicates that the brain is the seat of reason. "Nemesius, the Bishop of Emesia, has previously argued that brain tissue is too earthy to act as an intermediary between the body and soul, and so the mental faculties are located in the ventricles of the brain. However, if this is correct, there is no reason why this organ should turn out to have an immensely complicated internal composition. "Charles Babbage has independently suggested that many small mechanical devices could be collected into an 'Analytical Engine', capable of performing activities, such as arithmetic, which are widely believed to require thought. The work of Luigi Galvani and Hermann von Helmholtz suggests that the activities of neurons are electrochemical in nature, rather than mechanical pressures as previously believed. Nonetheless, we think an analogy with Babbage's 'Analytical Engine' suggests that a vastly complicated network of neurons could similarly exhibit thoughtful properties. "We have found an enormously complicated material system located where the mind should be. The implications are shocking, and must be squarely faced. We believe that the present research offers strong experimental evidence that Benedictus Spinoza was correct, and René Descartes wrong: Mind and body are of one substance. "In combination with the work of Charles Darwin showing how such a complicated organ could, in principle, have arisen as the result of processes not themselves intelligent, the bulk of scientific evidence now seems to indicate that intelligence is ontologically non-fundamental and has an extended origin in time. This strongly weighs against theories which assign mental entities an ontologically fundamental or causally primal status, including all religions ever invented. "Much work remains to be done on discovering the specific identities between electrochemical interactions between neurons, and thoughts. Nonetheless, we believe our discovery offers the promise, though not yet the realization, of a full scientific account of thought. The problem may now be declared, if not solved, then solvable." We regret that Cajal and most of the other researchers involved on the Project are no longer available for comment.[/quote] [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] as for it being verifiable, I'm really not sure how you can say that with a straight face when proposing any alternative like mind-body duality or souls or anything other than that which arises just from fundamental particle interactions if it comes from something outside physics then it is [I]necessarily[/I] nonverifiable, not to mention ridiculously unlikely. please present me with the gigantic amount of evidence you need to even promote such an idea to be worth considering given its astronomical prior unlikeliness. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] when you have multiple hypotheses that [I]all predict the same data[/I], you go with the [I]mathematically simplest[/I] one - namely the one that doesn't propose dualist voodoo
[QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;34890597]Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.[/QUOTE] Michio Kaku is just a Popular Science speech guy. All he does is repeat what others say. [del]He also has an awful habit of saying "I think that" and then just stating an established opinion of scientific community as if it's ripped straight from wiki. He didn't invent anything.[/del]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34896124][editline]27th February 2012[/editline] as for it being verifiable, I'm really not sure how you can say that with a straight face when proposing any alternative like mind-body duality or souls or anything other than that which arises just from fundamental particle interactions if it comes from something outside physics then it is [I]necessarily[/I] nonverifiable, not to mention ridiculously unlikely. please present me with the gigantic amount of evidence you need to even promote such an idea to be worth considering given its astronomical prior unlikeliness. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] when you have multiple hypotheses that [I]all predict the same data[/I], you go with the [I]mathematically simplest[/I] one - namely the one that doesn't propose dualist voodoo[/QUOTE] I am not proposing anything. I am saying that investigations regarding the origin of consciousness cannot be scientific, ergo, you can't prove scientifically any proposition regarding the origin of conciousness.
[QUOTE=Nikita;34896806]"I think that" and then just stating an established opinion of scientific community as if it's ripped straight from wiki.[/QUOTE] Um, no. A lot of what Michio Kaku says on TV shows and what not are bordering on fringe science. (He's a string theorist so that's to be expected) [QUOTE=Nikita;34896806]He didn't invent anything.[/QUOTE] He's one of the co-creators of string field theory.
It is my firm belief that if a technology can be used fo greater benefit mankind, then we should. I personally would gladly swap out my own heart for a superior synthetic alternative. Empasis on superior, not as in anything synthetic is superior but if this perticular one was. On the same note, if an artificial intellegence construct could be used to benefit mankind and improve quality of life. Then, by virtue of "we sodding well built it so we can do what we want with it" we should. If making an ai do something that you would not make a person do, to help save human lives, then i believe we should. In my opinioun, an ai is something thzt is capable of problem solving and desicion making on a human, or near human level. Perhaps we could make one someday, but not for a while yet.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34900132]Um, no. A lot of what Michio Kaku says on TV shows and what not are bordering on fringe science. (He's a string theorist so that's to be expected) He's one of the co-creators of string field theory.[/QUOTE] just because he's a co-creator of string theory doesn't mean that he knows everything about anything. he does on go tv quite often and talks about... anything science related, not just stuff in his field
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;34900516]just because he's a co-creator of string theory doesn't mean that he knows everything about anything. he does on go tv quite often and talks about... anything science related, not just stuff in his field[/QUOTE] That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in my post
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34900714]That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in my post[/QUOTE] [quote]A lot of what Michio Kaku says on TV shows and what not are bordering on fringe science. (He's a string theorist so that's to be expected)[/quote] I'd wager more than 50% of the stuff he talks about on popular TV isn't on string theory or things he's really familiar with, he's just kind of a narrator / host now.
As long as a physicist isn't talking about some very specific area of research like aging phenomena or some shit, and they pretty much never are on those shows, they can be expected to know what they're talking about.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34902653]As long as a physicist isn't talking about some very specific area of research like aging phenomena or some shit, and they pretty much never are on those shows, they can be expected to know what they're talking about.[/QUOTE] Ad verecundiam fallacy
[QUOTE=matsta;34903339]Ad verecundiam fallacy[/QUOTE] Did you just try to jump into the discussion without reading because that's not an appeal to authority [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] In fact the whole beginning point of the argument was me basically saying Michio Kaku talks out his ass a lot
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34903417]Did you just try to jump into the discussion without reading because that's not an appeal to authority [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] In fact the whole beginning point of the argument was me basically saying Michio Kaku talks out his ass a lot[/QUOTE] He does. Most of the things he says are not on his area of expertise. If youclaim that those things might be true because he is a string theorist then you are falling in the ad verecundiam fallacy.
[QUOTE=matsta;34903534]He does. Most of the things he says are not on his area of expertise.[/QUOTE] Again: read. Unless he is talking about very specific areas of research, which he generally is not, he is almost certain to be infinitely more educated on topics relating to physics than the layperson is. [QUOTE=matsta;34903534]If youclaim that those things might be true because he is a string theorist then you are falling in the ad verecundiam fallacy.[/QUOTE] I didn't claim that at all. I claimed a lot of what he says is bullshit or likely to be bullshit, but that it's not because it he's overreaching his area of expertise. It's just because he's a little nuts. Also, nowhere did I claim nor would I claim that something is true because an authority said it, that would be dumb. But it is perfectly reasonable to claim that something is more likely true if many authorities claim it is or could be than if just about all authorities agree it is not. That is an inductive argument. There's nothing wrong with talking about probabilities like that. Did you just take a rhetoric 101 class and you're trying to stretch your argumentative muscles or something because you really have a lot to learn, no offense.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34903651]Again: read. Unless he is talking about very specific areas of research, which he generally is not, he is almost certain to be infinitely more educated on topics relating to physics than the layperson is. I didn't claim that at all. I claimed a lot of what he says is bullshit or likely to be bullshit, but that it's not because it he's overreaching his area of expertise. It's just because he's a little nuts. Also, [B]nowhere did I claim nor would I claim that something is true because an authority said it[/B], that would be dumb. But it is perfectly reasonable to claim that something is more likely true if many authorities claim it is or could be than if just about all authorities agree it is not. That is an inductive argument. There's nothing wrong with talking about probabilities like that. Did you just take a rhetoric 101 class and you're trying to stretch your argumentative muscles or something because you really have a lot to learn, no offense.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1][B]As long as a physicist isn't talking about some very specific area of research[/B] like aging phenomena or some shit, and they pretty much never are on those shows, [B]they can be expected to know what they're talking about.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes. Obviously I meant if they're discussing physics. Do I really have to point that out?
And actually the post regarding to what Michio Kaku said wasn't about physics. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;34890597]Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.[/QUOTE]
And yet I never actually referred to that post.
And yet is it straight evidence that he overreaches his area of expertise. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] And yes, you have to point that out.
But that's still not relevant to anything I was ever talking about so I don't know why you're still bringing it up. I was responding to the claim that he regurgitates popular opinions, which is patently untrue, and I was restricting my discussion to his claims about physics. Are you going to continue telling me what I've been talking about or can we drop this mostly off-topic argument now?
alright
If you could make a useful concious AI you could just program it to enjoy whatever it was we needed it to do as well. That's how animals work right now, so it's not hard to do as well or better(kind of like how healthy eating doesn't match up perfectly with what tastes good. Bad design right there.)
[QUOTE=graah;34991664]If you could make a useful concious AI you could just program it to enjoy whatever it was we needed it to do as well. That's how animals work right now, so it's not hard to do as well or better(kind of like how healthy eating doesn't match up perfectly with what tastes good. Bad design right there.)[/QUOTE] the problem is to properly specify what it is "we want it to do" this isn't trivial.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.