Is strong AI possible?

File: 38 KB, 640x480, systemshock02..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 21:22:38 2011 No.2288296 [Reply] [Original]

Is strong AI possible?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 21:30:38 2011 No.2288350 File: 511 KB, 835x1153, HatersGonnaHateSpyro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 21:56:38 2011 No.2288463 >>2288350 Are you sure?

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 21:57:38 2011 No.2288478 >>2288463 Yes. Read about the following: Graphene Processing Ray Kurzwiel's technological singularity theory Algorithims. Not only possible. Inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 21:58:38 2011 No.2288479 He's sure.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 21:58:38 2011 No.2288485

>>2288463
If our intelligence is just a manifestation of physical causes (neurons, neurotransmitters, etc.) then it should be possible to replicate it.

I don't claim to know if consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, but it sure seems that way when you consider how damage to the brain can radically alter someone's perspective.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 21:59:38 2011 No.2288486 Yes, we are the proof. But anyone who brings up Kurzweil is a sheep-person.

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:00:38 2011 No.2288490 >>2288486 Excuse me?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:00:38 2011 No.2288494 >>2288296 >Is strong AI possible? Can you prove we're all not just a bunch of algorithms in a huge planet-sized computer running a crazy simulation? No? Then it's obviously possible!

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:00:38 2011 No.2288499

What kind of AI, Forms of AI that can learn based off of exerience and observation already exist, however AI that reflects the natural responces such as reflexes and natural development are too complex for current computers but with the development of quantum computers it will most likely become a reality as well.

So, in short yes.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:01:38 2011 No.2288506

>>2288486
(cont)
But just because strong AI is possible (we are strong AI, in everything but our origin) doesn't mean we're going to be making our own anytime soon. I doubt it will happen this century. We don't even understand single-cell protein dynamics very well yet, much less how consciousness and intelligence arise from the brain.

All attempts to create strong AI have failed *miserably*. What makes us think that AI can even run on a universal Turing machine at all? I think we're barking up the wrong tree.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:03:38 2011 No.2288513 I'd like to think so, but I'm not betting on it coming any time soon. What's that trippy as fuck book where the guy uploads his mind at the start and then falls out of a window into a pond?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:03:38 2011 No.2288516 >>2288490 Did I offend you? Kurweil is the Al Gore of AI. He's got strong opinions, but doesn't know much about what he's saying. He's almost turned it into a religion. ("The Rapture" for nerds)

Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:04:38 2011 No.2288519

>>2288506

>doubt it will happen this century
quantum computing by 2012

>We don't even understand single-cell protein dynamics very well yet

Implying this has to do with the algorithmic framework of AI

>much less how consciousness and intelligence arise from the brain.

Consciousness is the manifestation of information in the human form. It doesn't "arise" from anything.

Try again

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:05:38 2011 No.2288526 File: 8 KB, 146x160, kimiko1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] We shouldn't call human brains "natural" since everything's natural. We're AI: "accidental intelligence".

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:06:38 2011 No.2288534
File: 65 KB, 564x720, 1293725246927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If we ever create a super computer thats conscious, then its all gonna go down the sink, the computer will take over its own system and its gonna be the matrix and terminator all over again, but in reality

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:07:38 2011 No.2288544 >>2288534 Why would we program it to kill us?

Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:08:38 2011 No.2288547

>>2288516

You must be joking.

I can do nothing but assume that your inability to comprehend such vast complexity has rendered the information as "magic" in your brain, and now you just can't accept it.

One of the most prolific inventors and scientific speakers of the 21st century had better know what he is talking about.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:08:38 2011 No.2288551

>>2288519
Every single one of your statements does nothing but expose your hopeless ignorance.

>quantum computing by 2012
LOLno. Besides, quantum computers would only have theoretic speedups for certain classes of problems, which have no postulated special relationship with AI that I am aware of. Quantum computing isn't magic.

>Implying this has to do with the algorithmic framework of AI
NO ONE knows how to make AI. You shouldn't even assume it's algorithmic. This has been worked on for decades by people much smarter than anyone here, with dismal failure. I think some of our basic assumptions are wrong.

>Consciousness is the manifestation of information in the human form. It doesn't "arise" from anything.
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
As for "arising", if consciousness is a direct consequence of a given class of physical patterns and phenomena, then it "arises" from those underlying patterns and interactions. That's all I'm saying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:09:38 2011 No.2288555 >>2288526 >We shouldn't call human brains "natural" since everything's natural. Then how come everyone on the TV keeps calling homos unnatural then?

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:10:38 2011 No.2288561

>>2288547
>One of the most prolific inventors and scientific speakers of the 21st century had better know what he is talking about.
He had better, but he doesn't. All he does is treat Moore's Law as an axiomatic law that governs all technological progress into the future, rather than a statistical relationship about how it's gone so far in some limited respects. He extrapolates like mad and then jumps to conclusions CONSTANTLY.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/ray_kurzweil_does_not_understa.php

Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:10:38 2011 No.2288564

>>2288544

We wouldn't. This is a common misconception.

Understand the following;

Artificial intelligence, from the get-go, would be much more powerful and efficient than human intelligence. Quantum computing will allow coding so complex that machines can access that coding, and rework and bugs itself. If we could do this with our brains, human kind would continually improve beyond the limitations of biological life.

AI is not when you program something. AI is when you give something the ability to think. To have consciousness, and to have intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:10:38 2011 No.2288565 sup <span class="math">\newcommand{\t}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}} \t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\triangle}}}}}}}[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:10:38 2011 No.2288566 >>2288519 Not the guy you were talking to, but you seem like a gigantic douchebag. Which is confirmed by your tripcode.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:11:38 2011 No.2288568 >>2288555 It's a fallacious argument. Like saying you want "chemical-free" food.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:11:38 2011 No.2288570 File: 32 KB, 255x254, 1293352651173.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] remember, all the code to create a human mind fits easily onto a DVD.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:11:38 2011 No.2288572

>>2288519
>>2288547
1) Quantum computers are going to work, but they're not going to be powerful enough for AI for a long while. Initially, they're going be used purely for code breaking, much like the early Colossus computers.
2) Ray Kurzweil is a talented CS guy. He is a bit out of his area of expertise when it comes to AI, however.

I'm still fairly optimistic about strong AI, I just like playing Devil's Advocate sometimes.

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:13:38 2011 No.2288577 >>2288566 I would rather offer solutions to incorrect information than have uneducated people accepting false information as fact. As far as my tripcode making me a "douchebag", stfu and go back to /b/

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Sun Jan 2 22:13:38 2011 No.2288579 >>2288513 http://sifter.org/~simon/AfterLife/

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:13:45 2011 No.2288576 math]\newcommand{\t}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}} \t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\triangle}}}}}}}[/math]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:14:38 2011 No.2288580 >>2288568 >It's a fallacious argument. How can it be fallacious if it's right?! >Like saying you want "chemical-free" food. Who in their right mind wants chemicals in their food?

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:14:38 2011 No.2288583

>>2288564
You're spouting the dogma of your pseudo-religion without basis in evidence. Good job.

>Artificial intelligence, from the get-go, would be much more powerful and efficient than human intelligence.
If we are one example of a class of intelligences, there are probably better ones. But there are certainly worse. And our best AI so far is about at the retarded cockroach level.

>Quantum computing will allow coding so complex that machines can access that coding, and rework and bugs itself. If we could do this with our brains, human kind would continually improve beyond the limitations of biological life.
Being based on neurochemistry doesn't mean you understand neurochemistry. Same goes for any artificial intelligences.

>AI is not when you program something. AI is when you give something the ability to think. To have consciousness, and to have intelligence.
Agreed. And it's never been done outside of human reproduction, so don't pretend you know how to do it otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:14:38 2011 No.2288586 >>2288579 Thank you.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:16:38 2011 No.2288592

>>2288577

>I would rather offer solutions to incorrect information than have uneducated people accepting false information as fact.

It would be nice if you actually did that.

>As far as my tripcode making me a "douchebag", stfu and go back to /b/
You act as though /b/ is the only place that dislikes tripfags. If you're a tripfag, you're an attention whore, which no one likes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:16:38 2011 No.2288593 >>2288580 Food IS chemicals, moron. And arguing that something is good because it is "natural" is generally tautological, or makes a lot of shaky unstated assumptions. But that's off-topic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:16:38 2011 No.2288594 >>2288580 >Who in their right mind wants chemicals in their food? You are trolling me right?

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:16:38 2011 No.2288598
File: 12 KB, 436x435, 1276314213051.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

My face when quantum brain faggotry is still getting treated as scientific.
(yes there are some quantum chemical factors but there is no objective argument for higher functions having any quantum features)

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:17:38 2011 No.2288599 >>2288568 It's not fallacious.

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:19:38 2011 No.2288604 >>2288583 If the kiddies want to research, let them do it themselves. It is not my job to teach. Also, everything that I said in that post was set after the foundation of quantum computation.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:20:38 2011 No.2288606

>>2288599
Yes it is. Homosexuality occurs without human intervention. Therefore it is "natural".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

What people who use that argument are ACTUALLY saying is that "it is against the order which I consider good".

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:20:38 2011 No.2288609 >>2288604 >Also, everything that I said in that post was set after the foundation of quantum computation. What are you babbling about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:21:38 2011 No.2288614 File: 13 KB, 123x116, fabulous_prizes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2288606 God forbid there be TWO definitions for ONE word! gasp

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:22:38 2011 No.2288616 >>2288614 like, a right one and a wrong one?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:24:38 2011 No.2288623 >>2288614 Give the other "definition". It exposes the problem with the argument. Violating the law of identity (by switching definitions n the middle of an argument, as is done with the "it's unnatural" argument generally) is certainly fallacious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:25:38 2011 No.2288626 >>2288593 >>2288594 No! Chemicals is the stuff that the government and giant trans-national corporations put in the water supply and food to make people stupid! I know this! I know organic chemistry!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:26:38 2011 No.2288633 >>2288616 >Nature - being in accordance with or determined by nature Are you a social science major? It doesn't take a physics major to tell you everything is natural because nature encompasses everything. The laws of physics are NATURAL.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:27:38 2011 No.2288636 File: 7 KB, 125x134, kimiko2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2288626 >Baby's first troll.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:27:38 2011 No.2288641 >>2288626 LOL Reminds me of the crazy rainbow lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:28:38 2011 No.2288645 >>2288623 So any argument that involves a word with multiple meanings is immediately fallacious? I think not.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:30:38 2011 No.2288651

>>2288633
Then by either that definition (which is worthless because it excludes nothing), or the one that excludes things generally only available by direct human action (like bulldozers or DDT), the argument against things because they are "unnatural" is still really, really poor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:30:38 2011 No.2288652 >>2288645 That's not what he said and you know it. An argument that relies on a word and uses it in two different senses is invalid. Even if you explicitly state your two meanings, that's just sloppy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:30:38 2011 No.2288653 >>2288636 Stop using Kim for your reaction pics. It's annoying.

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:30:38 2011 No.2288655 >>2288592 If I made a mistake, correct me, don't be a tool.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:31:38 2011 No.2288656 File: 10 KB, 180x180, kimiko10.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2288653 no

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:34:38 2011 No.2288666 >>2288633 So pollution is natural?! I don't people will agree with that!?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:34:38 2011 No.2288668 >>2288645 No - just when you make an unstated "A = B" argument which is hidden by using two different definitions of the same word and pretending they are equivalent.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:35:38 2011 No.2288672 >>2288655 You've been corrected multiple times, and have failed to respond with anything but negation.

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Sun Jan 2 22:38:38 2011 No.2288681 >>2288672 I fail to see any point in this thread in which I was corrected. People have disagreed with me, but that's not the same thing.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:41:38 2011 No.2288685

>>2288652
>An argument that relies on a word and uses it in two different senses is invalid.
What post used it two ways? If (>>2288526) is the post you are referring to then you are missing the point. NATURAL is an arbitrary distinction humans create to differentiate what they create and what they don't create, but a beaver damn is just as "unnatural" as a hydroelectric damn. Kimiko Ross's perspective is far from anthropocentric and that is what the quote is communicating. Humans are nothing more than clumps of matter like any other clump.

A queen ant may create hundreds of sterile drones to do her bidding. Are they artificial intelligences? If not then why would the one consider the drones we create to do our bidding be called AI?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:42:38 2011 No.2288686 >>2288645 But "natural" doesn't mean "what I consider acceptable". A better word would be normal, or "right". Misusing the word natural just to sound like your argument isn't from religion is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:42:38 2011 No.2288688 >>2288681 Here you go. Try these again, for starters. >>2288561 >>2288572 >>2288583

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:43:38 2011 No.2288690 This thread sure is about artificial intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:44:38 2011 No.2288691 >>2288686 Have you guys ever heard of NATURAL SCIENCE!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:44:38 2011 No.2288693 >>2288685 I love you you used two definition of "natural" in your post - one that excludes results of human efforts, and another that excludes the results of all animals efforts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:45:38 2011 No.2288697 >>2288690 It could be if you helped. Anyway, I think that we've been doing this all wrong by trying to fit intelligence into a framework of binary logic. I just wish I knew what to do instead.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:48:38 2011 No.2288700 >>2288693 If you had read my post you would see that if that was the post you are referring to then you are missing the point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:49:38 2011 No.2288703 Fan boy, chillax, you will fail at life after the singularity as much as you do now; quantum brain fag, go back to /x/ you crypto majikfag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:50:38 2011 No.2288705 >>2288700 I suppose you're right. It's hard to expect the right level of argument, especially on /sci/. It vacillates between deep, stupid, and insane troll logic constantly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:55:38 2011 No.2288713 >>2288705 >[/sci/ logic] vacillates between deep, stupid, and insane troll logic constantly. Truer words have never been spoken.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:57:38 2011 No.2288715 Wow, people in this thread suck at thinking. farnsworth-~_want_on_planet_anymore.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:58:38 2011 No.2288717 >It vacillates between stupid and insane troll logic constantly. fixed.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 22:59:38 2011 No.2288724

>>2288485
>If our intelligence is just a manifestation of physical causes

If, if, if...

> then it should be possible to replicate it.

Even if it isn't, thousands of people of average or below average intelligence manage to cause new intelligent minds to come into being ever day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:01:38 2011 No.2288729 File: 60 KB, 350x200, face7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2288724 >If >dualism >DUALISM! FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:02:38 2011 No.2288731 >>2288729 Dualism is really, really hard to disprove. But at any rate, we'll get to the bottom of it. We may just have to expand the borders of the "natural" universe to do it. Like we've always done.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:03:38 2011 No.2288734 >>2288729 I'm not actually a dualist. It is, however, a much better explanation than materialism or physicalism, both of which are clearly wrong.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:04:38 2011 No.2288736

>>2288731
So if mind-body duality is fairly right, then the "soul" will become just another bit of the "physical" pattern of your body, I expect. We're postulating strange new things at a record pace these days, because our observations don't make sense otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:04:38 2011 No.2288739 >>2288731 get your ass back to /x/. shoo.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:06:38 2011 No.2288743 File: 28 KB, 481x419, 1279392865406.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2288734

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:09:38 2011 No.2288756 >>2288739 By postulating that there are unknown phenomena that will require us to expand our models of the universe? Son, that is the HEART of science.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:12:38 2011 No.2288766 >>2288731 So is the proposition that an intangible, drunk leprechaun watches you get undressed every night. An infinite number of propositions are "hard to disprove". That in no way bestows the proposition with validity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:13:38 2011 No.2288770 File: 10 KB, 215x120, kimiko8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2288734

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:15:38 2011 No.2288771 why are you guys arguing shit like "intelligence" or "consciousness" which are both clearly physical phenomena you should be arguing about the nature of "qualia" instead

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:15:38 2011 No.2288772

>>2288766
Sure. But we'll see what happens when brain simulation projects get well underway. Barring major ideological barriers, we could do that this century.

If faithful neuron-level brain simulation (a huge project) doesn't produce intelligence, then we'd have to turn to something like dualism and start looking for it. But that's a stretch, and we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:17:38 2011 No.2288775 >>2288770 Don't be scared. Questioning assumptions is easy once you get going.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:18:38 2011 No.2288779 I'd hate to be a network engineer designing a human brain using computers.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:18:41 2011 No.2288777 [DELETED]

>>2288756
Science looks for new theories when there is inconsistent test data with the current theory. Transcranial Direct Current stimulation can make someone MORE FUCKING CAUTIOUS:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/short/27/23/6212

How can you look at the manipulation of the brain through trauma, electrical stimulation and drugs and not conclude that it houses our memories, decision making processes, sensory processing, internal thoughs, etc.? And if that is your conclusion, then claiming a chase for "consciousness" is scientific is ridiculous, as we have no evidence to support that consciousness isn't all of the elements of the brain combined into one thinking unit.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:19:38 2011 No.2288783

>>2288756
Science looks for new theories when there is inconsistent test data with the current theory. Transcranial Direct Current stimulation can make someone MORE FUCKING CAUTIOUS:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/short/27/23/6212

How can you look at the manipulation of the brain through trauma, electrical stimulation and drugs and not conclude that it houses our memories, decision making processes, sensory processing, internal thoughs, etc.? And if that is your conclusion, then claiming a chase for "consciousness" is scientific is ridiculous, as we have no evidence to support that consciousness isn't all of the elements of the brain combined into one thinking unit.>>2288756

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:20:38 2011 No.2288787 >>2288771 >physical What exactly is it you think that word means?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:20:38 2011 No.2288788 >>2288775 and yet you refuse to question your own.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:22:38 2011 No.2288792 >>2288788 Your brain can't be working too well if it gives you conclusions as wrong as that one.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:23:38 2011 No.2288795

>>2288783
>claiming a chase for "consciousness" is scientific is ridiculous, as we have no evidence to support that consciousness isn't all of the elements of the brain combined into one thinking unit.
I'm merely stating the hypothetical future experiment and results that would force us to discard the current model. Nothing more. It's not a warranted investigation at the moment. Protein interaction networks, for instance, are far more worthy of study.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:25:38 2011 No.2288802 >>2288792 "wrong" is too strong a word, if I can interject. "Unjustified" might be better.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:27:38 2011 No.2288805 >>2288792 defaults to insults when critical observations are made, yeah you are really representing your case well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:27:38 2011 No.2288807 >>2288795 Ohshit, thought you were one of the dualists. It's was like 4 posts in a row, or so I thought. Completely unwarranted rants this decade: 1 Maybe I'll beat my record of 71 last decade inside 4 months.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:29:38 2011 No.2288810

>>2288802
Oh, I suspect there is a justification or rationalization behind that statement somewhere, even if he didn't deign to post it. But the conclusion is still wrong.

>>2288805
You haven't given criticism, just insults. Are you under the impression that that represents *your* case well?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:46:38 2011 No.2288848 >>2288772 Humanity can't even model a few hundred molecular interactions, let alone trillions. Dualism is at its heart absurd.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:47:38 2011 No.2288855 >>2288848 Why is dualism at it's heart absurd?

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:50:38 2011 No.2288873

Our best bet for true AI is taking things in a different direction Instead of trying to build one from scratch, we can hit the problem from another angle and create a "lazily formed AI".

The trick comes down to being able to create artificial non-biological brain cells that can interact with normal human brain cells. From there, it's just a matter of integration. The natural plasticity of the human brain should be able to incorporate these "fake" brain cells and, over time, transfer more and more function to them as biological brain cells die. Eventually, all you've got left is the artificial brain.

It reduces the problem to "create a functional model of a human brain cell that can interact with its biological counterpart. By no means easy, but at least it's a clear goal and should be well within possibility. We just need advances in neuroscience.

Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:53:38 2011 No.2288886

>>2288855
Where in the gradual evolution of the human mind did magic come into the mix?

The assumption that the human mind is beyond scientific inquiry is no difference than goddidit. Everything must be assumed to be within the realm of science else science will fall short of the limit of knowledge.

My assumption is useful, yours is not. Plus your position is by definition unprovable because it requires science to not work for studying how the human mind works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 2 23:55:38 2011 No.2288888 probably, we have a model already, ourselves. a fast enough machine could emulate a human brain, with the same amount of neurons. though there are undoubtedly other ways to model intelligence, they will probably come later with greater understanding.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:01:38 2011 No.2288907 >>2288886 Wow. OMFG, wow. Well, I guess that's what I get for assuming that there is reasoning behind assertions on /sci/. Thanks for nine fatal errors in a single post, dude. That was... instructive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:02:38 2011 No.2288912 >>2288907 Wow. OMFG, wow. Well, I guess that's what I get for assuming that there is reasoning behind assertions on /sci/. Thanks for nine fatal errors in a single post, dude. That was... instructive.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:11:38 2011 No.2288937 >>2288907 Your post amounts to "lol, ur stupid"... ironic.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:18:38 2011 No.2288955

>>2288937
I'm sorry, but your response to a simple question was so incredibly awful that there's really nothing else I can say. I had hoped to elicit some kind of interesting thought process behind that statement, but... in light of the response I really don't think there was any thought behind it at all. And frankly the response was so completely psychotic that I'm not even going to try to evoke any. I'm giving up on you. Well done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:19:38 2011 No.2288960 Human intelligence is possible, ergo artificial intelligence matching a human is possible. Computers can already perform many tasks better than any human could. Ergo strong A.I. is possible.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:26:38 2011 No.2288983

>>2288955
I'm not that anon, but...

dualism mostly arises from the ignorance of cognitive science and what it has explained.

it's ok, most of the public is not up to date on the literature, and the media does nothing to erase the idea that we don't understand the relationships between brains and minds. People are happy thinking science hasn't kicked god out of that gap yet, and really there's not much reason to disabuse the morons.

Among those that read a bit of biology every now and then you'll find mostly reductionists, materialists, and... (big surprise) atheists. This is because biology in general and cognitive neuroscience in particular has already closed a great many philosophical gaps that you and others simply aren't aware of.

I'm not much interested in educating you, just pointing out a bit of what you clearly don't know.
Read up, catch up, make up your own mind. You will see why dualism doesn't need to be countered, workers are as we speak demonstrating that the "mind" is just a bit less than a brain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:33:38 2011 No.2289006 >>2288983 Thank you at least for trying to come up with something better. But I am glad that you're not interested in trying to "educate" me, and in return I will refrain from trying to "educate" you.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:34:38 2011 No.2289008

>>2288955
Instead of you posting eleven more times with nothing but "Your post is an awful, shitty, horrible, maggot ridden, crappy..." I'll start over.

Science is inherently the study of the natural. Dualism is the claim that the mind is not natural, that it exists independent of natural laws. It amounts to consciousness being some ethereal cloud existing outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. If science could create natural laws to describe the properties of the human mind then dualism would be out the window. Dualism assumes there can be no explanation for why the human mind does what it does.

Such an assumption is OBVIOUSLY useless and cannot be supported evidentially because of its aforementioned, inherent disregard for scientific inquiry.

Science assumes everything has a natural explanation. This assumption is fundamental to science. If it weren't a part of science then Newton wouldn't have bothered to figure out why the Earth orbits the Sun, and beyond Newton no one would have bothered to figure out why the solar system is stable. Both were previously explained with goddidit, which is why I compared dualism to goddidit. They both assume the supernatural instead of assuming natural explanation and cut the legs right out from under discovery.

inb4urstupid

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:44:38 2011 No.2289042 File: 264 KB, 686x1004, atfirst_then_serioused_schwartzenegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] True AI will be here around 2050, so we have a while until it's ready. >mfw this thread serious derailed from the original topic

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:45:38 2011 No.2289045 >>2289008 Much less non-sequitur than before; thanks for that. But it's still riddled with errors, and is just a bad answer to the question. But that's ok, at least I have a better picture of your actual answer now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:46:38 2011 No.2289050 >>2289042 >>mfw this thread serious derailed from the original topic Yeah, that's so uncommon here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:47:38 2011 No.2289057 >>2289045 Your response is full of errors.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:48:38 2011 No.2289060 >>2289042 It didn't derail. determining the nature of our intelligence is necessary for deciding whether or not it's possible to duplicate it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:50:38 2011 No.2289069 >>2289060 Why would it be physically impossible to clone a brain?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:50:38 2011 No.2289072

>>2289060
Of course it's possible you dickwagon. If it weren't possible in the first place, we wouldn't be here. Think about it.

Machines aren't much different than our neuro anatomy. If we can't reproduce it in a different way than our brains process the information, then we can just copy how our brains process information and such. We can literally replace every part of the brain with a machine counterpart, there is nothing in the brain that is too complex where this proves impossible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:51:38 2011 No.2289074 >>2289008 That pattern is so tiresome... "goddidit" "no" "why?" "... i seriously have to explain why?" x1^50

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:55:38 2011 No.2289092 >>2289074 You don't have to post a single thing. I know every argument you think will work and I know what kind of person you are for thinking they will. You don't need to post a single thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 00:58:38 2011 No.2289111 >>2289092 Who do you think you are replying to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:03:38 2011 No.2289127 >>2289111 I am replying to you.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:04:38 2011 No.2289129

>>2289074
Well, that wasn't the pattern. I just asked for a reason why one anon said dualism was "at its heart absurd". And I got one. It's a really bad one, wrong in almost every way, but I got it, and there's no continual back-and-forth about it now. Unless you necro it again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:05:38 2011 No.2289134 >>2289127 Cute. What I meant was, did you believe you were responding to the anon who said dualism was absurd, the anon who asked why dualism was absurd, or someone else?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:06:38 2011 No.2289138 >>2289111 If you didn't realize what my post was doing then you are probably beyond salvation. I was mocking the way you post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:08:38 2011 No.2289146 >>2289138 No, I got that. It was quite obvious by the way you did it so badly.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:14:38 2011 No.2289168
File: 56 KB, 417x425, alkaiser.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2289129
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop being so goddamn passive aggressive you giant blubbering baby.

At least exhibit some of that classical 4chan viciousness and just be outright aggressive. It's much more entertaining.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:15:38 2011 No.2289170 >>2289146 If it was obvious then I didn't do it badly. I think you think I'm a more malicious than I actually am.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:19:38 2011 No.2289178 I think this thread is three posters, each arguing with the other two simultaneously... Yo dawg. I heard you like arguments, so we put an argument in your argument so you can troll while you troll.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:23:38 2011 No.2289189

>>2289168
Your entertainment is not particularly important to me.

>>2289170
It was badly done because it was a caricature of your misperception of the content of my posts rather than the actual content of my posts. I haven't given any thought to the question of how malicious you may be.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:29:38 2011 No.2289205

>>2289189
Well then the fault is yours for not making your points clear nor understanding what I am saying. Though I can't be sure of what the hell you think my argument is because you refuse to give a meaningful response. It's always back to "ur argument is flawed cuz I said so".

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:40:38 2011 No.2289248

>>2289205
Oh I think I understand what you're saying now, I just think you're wrong. And I haven't tried to make any of my own opinions on the question of dualism clear because I'm not planning on debating it with you. But my opinions on the question of dualism are irrelevant to the question of whether >>2289092 is a decent characterization of my posts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:45:38 2011 No.2289269 >>2289248 Seems like a decent characterization of your posts. It claims another poster is objectively wrong, it provides no argument, and is drenched in an air of superiority.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:46:38 2011 No.2289271 File: 58 KB, 448x400, 141.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:46:38 2011 No.2289274 Can the people in here arguing about dualism be banned? It's far worse than the tripfagging that goes on on other boards.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 01:56:38 2011 No.2289315

>>2289269
I really don't understand how you people think. The central point of the mocking post was in effect saying that I thought I knew all the responses the other anon might give. That's a bit silly since if that were my actual belief I would never have asked for an explanation in the first place, nor been able to obtain a better picture of that anon's actual answer. If you perceive behavior that implies a lack of knowledge about someone else's thoughts being well characterized by jokes about having knowledge of someone else's thoughts, then... I just really don't understand how you think.

Also, the mocking post doesn't claim the other poster is objectively wrong.

The air of superiority, okay, I can see that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:01:38 2011 No.2289336 why would we want strong AI ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:03:38 2011 No.2289342 >>2289336 realistic sexbots?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:07:38 2011 No.2289355

>>2289315
>gets told what part of his posts is being mocked
>The central point of the mocking post was in effect saying that I thought I knew all the responses the other anon might give.
>Goes on to tell what the other poster meant.
You really will never learn, will you?

>Also, the mocking post doesn't claim the other poster is objectively wrong
And yet you do without giving an argument. The mocking post was more subtle. It simply implied the mocked was wrong while you outright state it... without reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:08:38 2011 No.2289361 >>2289336 Faster porn searches.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:11:38 2011 No.2289369 >>2289336 A cleverbot that I can have productive sex talk with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:11:38 2011 No.2289371 >>2289336 we can test it (if needed, torture / etc) in ways that would be immoral if it was a human being.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:12:38 2011 No.2289374 >>2289336 A computer intelligent enough to have a vagina for me to have sex with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:12:38 2011 No.2289376 >>2289355 >You really will never learn, will you? I keep hoping - is my problem - that I will find clear, reasonable thought here. You are indeed helping me to learn that I won't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:13:38 2011 No.2289379 >>2289374 If it had a vagina then it would be a woman. If it were a woman it wouldn't be intelligent. If it weren't intelligent it wouldn't be a strong AI. Boys, I think we just found the final step beyond the technological singularity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:14:38 2011 No.2289383 >>2289371 How is it more morally/ethically acceptable to torture a thinking non-human machine?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:16:38 2011 No.2289392 >>2289383 because morals dont exist and they're based on our biological evolutionary instincts to preserve our race to some extent. we dont have any inherent reason to attribute morality to machine AI

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:17:38 2011 No.2289397

>>2289376
Again with the "ur stupid" posts. I'll give this to you, you pulled off the greatest degree of smugness with the least intellectual posts I have ever seen.

I'll now let you go on your way and find someone else to show off your deficiencies to.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:18:38 2011 No.2289404 ...in that case for purely selfish purposes AI will be unreachable.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 02:26:38 2011 No.2289422

>>2289397
If you want something better next time, you need to appear as a person who is capable of reasoning. As it is you've done nothing but support my prejudice that you weren't worth the effort of explaining or debating. You got exactly the responses you deserved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:38:38 2011 No.2290850 File: 176 KB, 500x394, redredundance.deviantart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mastering modification of the human intellect seems a logical first step to me. After all it is often preferable to reverse engineer than build from scratch.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math