[QUOTE=Theater;29678014]Eudoxia, i hold you in high regards due to your excellent threads on science and technology. However, on the subject on human conciousness science must really take a back seat. What makes a human tick, why i see what i see and feel what i feel is a philosophical discussion, not one of pure science.[/QUOTE]
The idea of morals and souls, possibly quirks like racism, are kind of a collection of preferences that are created from past experiences and are rules created so that these experiences would be less likely to repeat
[QUOTE=cccritical;29678595]except if you get a corrupted file you're just completely boned, windows xp wouldn't magically turn into vista just because you kicked your hard drive
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
ha, didn't even notice this one
could you just not be assed to find any evidence of self-aware AI progress or did you just realize how dumb you sounded?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1086273-Scientists-Build-World%E2%80%99s-First-Schizophrenic-Computer[/url]
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;29677963]You either run a simulation of all the neurons and glia, complete with suffusion and details, or abstract human consciousness into rules and routines and processes and such, which you can then run in a computer.
[/QUOTE]
Finally. You were really starting to annoy me 'cos you just seemed really pompous before.
The simulation bit seems difficult but not impossible, but I really see no way how to define human consciousness into rules and routines. Thing is, it can't be done empirically, due to self-awareness. If one is completely self aware, one has the ability to change one's decision on a dime despite "reasoning", even in the absence of emotion - simply by being aware that one has that ability. Of course humans become rapidly more predictable (relatively) when they aren't aware of everything they're doing. But the more ideas one is aware of (especially the awareness of that idea, and the awareness of [I]that[/I]), the closer it becomes to true unpredictability.
that's fucking awesome but not self-awareness, and again, it was programmed to be a schizo, to be relevant to your argument you'd need to find a regular computer that eventually became schizo by itself
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;29678929]If one is completely self aware, one has the ability to change one's decision on a dime despite "reasoning", even in the absence of emotion - simply by being aware that one has that ability.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't one be lying to themselves?
[QUOTE=Sputn!k;29678991]Wouldn't one be lying to themselves?[/QUOTE]
that's besides the point
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679007]that's besides the point[/QUOTE]
how so?
[QUOTE=Sputn!k;29678991]Wouldn't one be lying to themselves?[/QUOTE]
N....o? How would that be lying to oneself?
[QUOTE=cccritical;29678955]that's fucking awesome but not self-awareness, and again, it was programmed to be a schizo, to be relevant to your argument you'd need to find a regular computer that eventually became schizo by itself[/QUOTE]
Well, it didn't become schizo by itself, you're right...
but check this out, these evolutionary robots started LYING by themselves, completely unprogrammed.
[URL]http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other[/URL]
It's still not self awareness, but it is definitely creepy and unexpected and wonderful. It shows you how powerful a tool digital evolution is (we've already started using it to optimise things like engine structures in spaceships and heartbeat monitors in pacemakers.)
how does true or false play into decision making
he even said it himself, we have the ability to decide what we want whether or not it's reasonable, I could decide to start spamming 9/11 conspiracy theory threads in GD despite knowing it wasn't a conspiracy
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;29679057]N....o? How would that be lying to oneself?[/QUOTE]
A decision is an opinion that you believe, by definition, in order to actually change decision, one would have to come up with a reason to truly believe something that changes your opinion.
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679085]how does true or false play into decision making
he even said it himself, we have the ability to decide what we want whether or not it's reasonable, I could decide to start spamming 9/11 conspiracy theory threads in GD despite knowing it wasn't a conspiracy[/QUOTE]
Because of what beliefs actually mean to an individual. You wouldnt be spamming that because you believe it, and that's what's important. Your reason for spamming, trolling lets say, would come from a desire for seeing what the effects would be (i.e. experimenting), and a computer can do that I'm sure
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29679081]Well, it didn't become schizo by itself, you're right...
but check this out, these evolutionary robots started LYING by themselves, completely unprogrammed.
[URL]http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/evolving-robots-learn-lie-hide-resources-each-other[/URL]
It's still not self awareness, but it is definitely creepy and unexpected and wonderful. It shows you how powerful a tool digital evolution is (we've already started using it to optimise things like engine structures in spaceships and heartbeat monitors in pacemakers.)[/QUOTE]
that is fucking awesome
while I do realize they can do small-scale stuff like that I'm saying no computer will, completely and totally by itself, come up to the level of complexity and divinity of the human mind. Those robots developed the way they did for efficiency, right? Robots would never get lazy, never just stop giving a fuck or shrug off their duties to have fun. Robots would never own a cat or open a zoo. There's something about the human mind a robot just couldn't copy, I'm trying to think of the word but I might not be able to without the help of Google translate.
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sputn!k;29679095]A decision is an opinion that you believe, by definition, in order to actually change decision, one would have to come up with a reason to truly believe something that changes your opinion.
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
Because of what beliefs actually mean to an individual. You wouldnt be spamming that because you believe it, and that's what's important. Your reason for spamming, trolling lets say, would come from a desire for seeing what the effects would be (i.e. experimenting), and a computer can do that I'm sure[/QUOTE]
I'm going to let you find the massive contradiction in your statement between your reply to jgcx's post and your reply to mine before I argue it with you
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
how's that for experimenting
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679188]I'm going to let you find the massive contradiction in your statement between your reply to jgcx's post and your reply to mine before I argue it with you
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
how's that for experimenting[/QUOTE]
My reply to jgcx's post was in the event that you changed your opinion, my reply to yours was in the event you did something that you know is false, so you aren't lying to yourself, just to others
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
Love your threads, eudoxia <3
[QUOTE=cccritical;29678595]except if you get a corrupted file you're just completely boned, windows xp wouldn't magically turn into vista just because you kicked your hard drive[/QUOTE]
Your analogy is severely flawwed. your OS does not reproduce itself, your computer does not divide. And one miswritten/read bit or byte does not change your OS. By running such a simulation as I mentioned you are letting chance come up with the best design possible.
you said "in order to change a decision you actually have to believe in your new decision," then literally 4 lines down you said "oh you can just change your decision easy as that if you're just experimenting"
anyways, back on track
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;29679365]Your analogy is severely flawwed. your OS does not reproduce itself, your computer does not divide. And one miswritten/read bit or byte does not change your OS. By running such a simulation as I mentioned you are letting chance come up with the best design possible.[/QUOTE]
you said that, if you let a simulation "mutate" (aka get corrupted) on its own for a long time, it'd develop into a virtual being
now you're saying that you know that computers work completely differently than humans
which is it
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679368]you said "in order to change a decision you actually have to believe in your new decision," then literally 4 lines down you said "oh you can just change your decision easy as that if you're just experimenting"[/QUOTE]
No, your decision doesn't reflect what you actually believe if you're experimenting; one doesn't have a strong belief over experiments, that's why it's called an experiment
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679368]you said "in order to change a decision you actually have to believe in your new decision," then literally 4 lines down you said "oh you can just change your decision easy as that if you're just experimenting"
anyways, back on track
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
you said that, if you let a simulation "mutate" (aka get corrupted) on its own for a long time, it'd develop into a virtual being
now you're saying that you know that computers work completely differently than humans
which is it[/QUOTE]
You completely mis understand me.
Say you have a physics simulation where each atoms behavour is perfectly reproduced.
You define some starting conditions, what atoms are there, their position, velocity and state.
You then let the simulation run, chemical reactions will occur if atoms colide with sufficient energy, eventualy the right combination of reactions will occur to produce a very basic form of life.
I'm not talking about fragmented and corrupted files somehow executing and gaining sentience, thats just plain dumb.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679188]that is fucking awesome
while I do realize they can do small-scale stuff like that I'm saying no computer will, completely and totally by itself, come up to the level of complexity and divinity of the human mind. Those robots developed the way they did for efficiency, right? Robots would never get lazy, never just stop giving a fuck or shrug off their duties to have fun. Robots would never own a cat or open a zoo. There's something about the human mind a robot just couldn't copy, I'm trying to think of the word but I might not be able to without the help of Google translate.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, thanks for seeing our point of view.
Secondly, I don't see why it couldn't. Your use of the word "divinity" is interesting. What's so divine about the human mind? It's just enormously complex and runs on chaotic processes that we can't properly predict at the moment (notice I said chaotic, not stochastic). Complexity is what gives it its awesome power, but in the end it's still all just a massive, well-organised bundle of neurons and ganglia (dunno if I used the right terminology there, I'm not big into biology).
I can't find anything at the moment, but I remember watching some video about digital evolution, where constructs in a computer simulation were given digital "genes" and the ability to move their limbs, and were selected for evolutionarily by their ability to walk a certain distance.
The first generation just flopped around hilariously on the floor. They kept selecting ones that seemed more successful and "breeding" them and selecting again. By the tenth generation, a PERFECT bipedal walking motion had just appeared. It was actually amazing, I wish I could find the video.
The incredible thing is [I]we don't know how it arose[/I]. I'm almost certain that consciousness is the same thing, an emergent behaviour of a chaotic system, but we can't prove it yet.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679188]Those robots developed the way they did for efficiency, right? Robots would never get lazy, never just stop giving a fuck or shrug off their duties to have fun. Robots would never own a cat or open a zoo.[/QUOTE]
Robots would never get lazy because they cannot feel the expenditure of energy, like humans. If they were aware of the energy they use, they would try to spend it without having it run out, so they would take breaks in that consideration.
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;29679467]You completely mis understand me.
Say you have a physics simulation where each atoms behavour is perfectly reproduced.
You define some starting conditions, what atoms are there, their position, velocity and state.
You then let the simulation run, chemical reactions will occur if atoms colide with sufficient energy, eventualy the right combination of reactions will occur to produce a very basic form of life.
I'm not talking about fragmented and corrupted files somehow executing and gaining sentience, thats just plain dumb.[/QUOTE]
alright, you're getting there, but now don't you forget that each chemical reaction would have to be coded into that program, it wouldn't just intrinsically know that hydrogen is incredibly volatile all by itself. Take the game Doodle God for instance, it's not like the creator just slapped the four starting elements in there and the rest of the game just made itself. Or how about the powder game? It's not like the guy that made it only gave each powder properties and the game itself figured out how those properties would react with others magically.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA[/media]
This isn't the same video, but it is cool.
Actually, it's more hilarious than anything else. Look at that fucker waggle its fat ass to victory!
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679648]alright, you're getting there, but now don't you forget that each chemical reaction would have to be coded into that program, it wouldn't just intrinsically know that hydrogen is incredibly volatile all by itself. Take the game Doodle God for instance, it's not like the creator just slapped the four starting elements in there and the rest of the game just made itself. Or how about the powder game? It's not like the guy that made it only gave each powder properties and the game itself figured out how those properties would react with others magically.[/QUOTE]
Intrinsic properties exist in the real world; combustion only needs a literal spark
actually i think i misread
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679648]alright, you're getting there, but now don't you forget that each chemical reaction would have to be coded into that program, it wouldn't just intrinsically know that hydrogen is incredibly volatile all by itself. Take the game Doodle God for instance, it's not like the creator just slapped the four starting elements in there and the rest of the game just made itself. Or how about the powder game? It's not like the guy that made it only gave each powder properties and the game itself figured out how those properties would react with others magically.[/QUOTE]
The games that you're talking about have artificially imposed order to the extreme. If you never have anything that can be chaotic in your system, then no emergent behaviours can arise.
And there ARE computer programs that have opportunities for emergent behaviours. See : that video I just posted.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29679521]Firstly, thanks for seeing our point of view.
Secondly, I don't see why it couldn't. Your use of the word "divinity" is interesting. What's so divine about the human mind? It's just enormously complex and runs on chaotic processes that we can't properly predict at the moment (notice I said chaotic, not stochastic). Complexity is what gives it its awesome power, but in the end it's still all just a massive, well-organised bundle of neurons and ganglia (dunno if I used the right terminology there, I'm not big into biology).
I can't find anything at the moment, but I remember watching some video about digital evolution, where constructs in a computer simulation were given digital "genes" and the ability to move their limbs, and were selected for evolutionarily by their ability to walk a certain distance.
The first generation just flopped around hilariously on the floor. They kept selecting ones that seemed more successful and "breeding" them and selecting again. By the tenth generation, a PERFECT bipedal walking motion had just appeared. It was actually amazing, I wish I could find the video.
The incredible thing is [I]we don't know how it arose[/I]. I'm almost certain that consciousness is the same thing, an emergent behaviour of a chaotic system, but we can't prove it yet.[/QUOTE]
I'm using divinity in place of that word I can't remember. I'm absolutely exhausted and I'm arguing two different things in two different threads, so bear with me if I'm not making sense. I'm trying to say that there's a little something beyond how well we can throw a punch or what our eye color is, the human mind does things that we still don't understand, and can just completely randomly create things; thoughts and art and ideas and lifestyles. A robot couldn't paint truly abstract art no matter what evolutionary generation it is, and a robot wouldn't decide that it would rather be a hermit instead of a big-city [del]boy[/del] borg.
I have to be somewhere in about 15 minutes so I'll be gone for a little while, not jumping ship. Also, thank you for being surprisingly nice, arguments on Facepunch usually just devolve into "no fuck you!" so I'm usually hostile right from the start.
Found that video. Skip to 3.09
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1x-7ZLKhjw[/media]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;29679695][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXzcPNsqGA[/media]
This isn't the same video, but it is cool.
Actually, it's more hilarious than anything else. Look at that fucker waggle its fat ass to victory![/QUOTE]
wow, they got penguinz0 to narrate it and everything
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679814]I'm using divinity in place of that word I can't remember. I'm absolutely exhausted and I'm arguing two different things in two different threads, so bear with me if I'm not making sense. I'm trying to say that there's a little something beyond how well we can throw a punch or what our eye color is, the human mind does things that we still don't understand, and can just completely randomly create things; thoughts and art and ideas and lifestyles. A robot couldn't paint truly abstract art no matter what evolutionary generation it is, and a robot wouldn't decide that it would rather be a hermit instead of a big-city [del]boy[/del] borg.
I have to be somewhere in about 15 minutes so I'll be gone for a little while, not jumping ship. Also, thank you for being surprisingly nice, arguments on Facepunch usually just devolve into "no fuck you!" so I'm usually hostile right from the start.[/QUOTE]
You're welcome dude, you too. Hopefully you can watch these videos when you get back, they're extremely insightful. Essentially I think our complex behaviours such as philosophy and personal lifestyle choices are the emergent results of evolution - keep in mind that we're talking about BILLIONS of years of evolution with the richness of the physical world as our system, not ten generations in a relatively crude computer program.
Oops, it's perfect in twenty generations, not ten, sorry.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679648]alright, you're getting there, but now don't you forget that each chemical reaction would have to be coded into that program, it wouldn't just intrinsically know that hydrogen is incredibly volatile all by itself. Take the game Doodle God for instance, it's not like the creator just slapped the four starting elements in there and the rest of the game just made itself. Or how about the powder game? It's not like the guy that made it only gave each powder properties and the game itself figured out how those properties would react with others magically.[/QUOTE]
Reality has these starting conditions, so should the simulation.
[QUOTE=cccritical;29679814]A robot couldn't paint truly abstract art no matter what evolutionary generation it is, and a robot wouldn't decide that it would rather be a hermit instead of a big-city boy.
[/QUOTE]Who says they couldn't? You?
death is a great evil? fuck that death is a part of life, it's great.
i would never want to have eternal life, i'd rather die before life gets fucking boring
[editline]7th May 2011[/editline]
anyone afraid of death is a wuss puss
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
