Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[Pawel]

Lord Olleus,
You may want to take a look at this very serious teleportation experiment
published in Nature - one of the most respecte scientific journals. Of course, it is not quite at the 'beam me up Scotty' level, but I think non-physicists often really have a rather vague idea of where science actually stands today.

 

[joethreeblah]

Non physicists often don't have an online subscription to Nature.

 

[gotmatt]

Throughout history, any person who showed supernatural ability either asked the supernatural to do it (therefore had no supernatural powers of their own), was endowed by the supernatural with powers (same), was a half-breed (ergo not human), or was the supernatural (again; not human). But heck, God's blessed us with a body that can pick up an all-in-one tool, so why not use it?

awesome. i'm gonna use this.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Tsk! He wasn't talking to me, I was reading a book (in my dream) and God was talking to a dwarf robot who'd developed a soul.

Alright pal, just drop the gun, everything's gonna be alright, we can talk...

Now my cats, they talk to me aaaall the time... :

Yeah, me too. But you can't believe 'em. They're just liars.

I'll try to find a more complete example of Zeno's Arrow, but basically it postulates that, if at any give POINT in time, the arrow is not moving, how then can it continue motion between the different points? (Aristotle had figured time was made of indivisible "points" which bugged Zeno) There's a little more to it, but as I said, it's a paradox about the nature of time.:

You're right, there are two versions of the arrow paradox. One with time (it can't move), one with distance (it can never reach its target).

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Originally Posted by White Elk
So, since electrons are in a constant state of motion and freely interact with the electrons from other atoms.. and the fact that a change in one atom will effect all the atoms around it creating a domino effect.. I say why wouldn't it be in the realm of possibility that the human brain could possibly effect change on the atomic level?

Well, for one thing, axions are covered by a sheet that's an electric insulator. Good thing too, otherwise they couldn't carry currents properly. Also, your cranium isn't particularly conductive either! And neither is the air separating you from the object you intend to affect.
I think you seriously need to take a basic course on electromagnetism before you start making claims like these.

You're right. Taken from a strictly physical point of view it's impossible. But there are other ways to go that make it possible.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Originally Posted by NapoléonPremier
For now, it seems that uncertainty is really a central elememt of the system.

Because we can find no cause for certain microscopic events. But that doesn't mean this cause isn't there. It just means we haven't found it yet. Indeed, it would be hard to see that A affects B when we don't even know that A exists. But we will one day.

Up until recently, we've always been able to find a cause to everything that we observe; there's no reason why this should change. As far as i can see, believing in determinism has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with observation, not just in the present or in one experiment, but of everything we've ever studied in the history of science. Kind of seeing the forest from the tree. And from that observation, making the most plausible observation. Making conclusions based on observation isn't religion, indeed this is precisely how science works.

Observation : up until recently, we've always been able to find a cause to everything that we observe.
Most plausible conclusion : the universe is deterministic, and anything for which we can't find a cause now isn't actually random, but rather caused by something we haven't figured out yet.

I see your point very well. It seems to be reasonable, when in fact it's still just a philosophical/religious opinion.

Up until recently, we've always been able to find a cause to everything that we observe; there's no reason why this should change.

See ? This is where you slip from neutral scientific observation to opinion. It's absolutely possible that at a certain level (quantic) the universe would be underterministic, while at the macroscopic level it would still be deterministic. Kind of like Einstein completing Newton for different speeds, not proving it wrong. Science has always worked on ruptures and tossing away old forms of thinking. Just because up until recently (about a century already, though), science has always seemed to give a deterministic view of the universe doesn't warrant at all it's always gonna be the case. Unless you make it an almost religious belief, hidden behind "yeah but it has always been like that before". I don't mean to be insulting, but in my opinion this is resulting from an insufficiently deep grasping of quantum mechanics (but I couldn't say mine goes much deeper, it's so amazingly complicated, it's very hard to do that as a hobby...). You can maybe think about this : "professional scientists" know very well about determinism, they've always worked like that. They would be the first ones to say : "sure, we don't get it yet, but it's very likely it's still deterministic". If there is a general consensus among them that quantic systems are undeterministic, it's not just stupidity or lazyness.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

In probabilistic enviroments we don't count things the way you say. For example, when two players' comparative abilities are 60%-40% in backgammon, that doesn't show whether their current game will be won by the "better" player or the "worst one" - it just shows that if they continue to play long enough, the better player will generally win. So, in a single decision anybody (even the worst player of the world) might "easily" win the world champion, and this adds fun to many game (but, of course, chess isn't one of them).

Only in this perspective you can count better and worst in such enviroments, and hasn't much to do with the result of any specific game: you need a big sample. But the AI would have on his side a big advantage - the fact that in each civ game there are usually many moves, so even a small advantage "per move" would get big enough to become very serious.

Ok, maybe that on the long run a smart AI would overperform the humans because of more "precision". But that doesn't mean at all that in any given game the AI would be "unbeatable" like some have suggested and like it is more or less the case now with chess. I think excellent AI vs excellent human, even odds, no handicaps or "cheating", would give something close to 50-50, or maybe 60-40 for the AI like you mentioned in your example.

 

[atreas]

I think excellent AI vs excellent human, even odds, no handicaps or "cheating", would give something close to 50-50, or maybe 60-40 for the AI like you mentioned in your example.

For quick games maybe you might achieve 60-40 (due to few turns), but in a Marathon game I wouldn't bet on the player even with 80-20 odds. We humans also tend to slip, and the more opportunities (moves) we have the more probable is for a slip to happen.

 

[Brighteye]

Why? Why not just postulate that the identical object was put together in the wrong order. (i.e. the billions of nerve connections were not connected in the correct order.)

I think you're underestimating the difficulty of replicating the brain and body. The sequence of their development is as important as the matter that results from the development.

Modern technology obviously can't create the identical object you're imagining. Current concepts are inadequate. Therefore postulating that modern technology will create such an object without some concepts being rewritten would be foolish.

At the moment our understanding of how things work would lead us to conclude that identical objects will respond the same way to identical stimuli (at a larger than quantum level, anyway). If we imagine that some unknown technologies allow us to create identical objects then unless we postulate some strange theory to account for non-quantum differences we still have to assume that these objects will act the same.
The two parts of science: determinism (that identical situations will change in the same way when stimulated in the same way), and the ability to make brains, are entirely different.
If we say that determinism does not hold, even on the large scale, then we cannot use our experiments to support string theory (or any theory in any branch of science), since all interpretations are based on the principle of cause and effect.
If we build a brain that is identical with another one then how we built it does not matter, because it is now identical, and so there is no way for it to remember the order in which the parts were built.

 

[jar2574]

At the moment our understanding of how things work would lead us to conclude that identical objects will respond the same way to identical stimuli (at a larger than quantum level, anyway).

So you are arguing that the brain and its thought processes are not affected by quantum physics? Since we know so little about the brain, and are so far away from being able to replicate one, I think it would be silly to assume this. Especially since we have never "built" any living organism. We can't even build a slug or a rat.

If we build a brain that is identical with another one then how we built it does not matter, because it is now identical, and so there is no way for it to remember the order in which the parts were built.

There is no way for any brain to "remember the order it which the parts were built" in order to function. But the order in which living organisms develop does have an effect on whether things that may appear identical work.


As the fetus develops, its genes are triggered on and off at various points in development. The billions of nuerons are connected in a certain order, not just all at once. Simply globbing together the material that makes up a brain and stimulating it with nerve inputs will not ensure that the replica functions in the same manner as a real one.


My point hasn't really been to comment on the current state of science, but to say that the task of attempting to replicate a human brain and body is difficult, if not impossible. Trying to one-up genetics by making identical masses that are more identical than genetic clones seems futile to me. Maybe I'll change my mind on the day that we replicate our first slug.

 

[Brighteye]

So you are arguing that the brain and its thought processes are not affected by quantum physics? Since we know so little about the brain, and are so far away from being able to replicate one, I think it would be silly to assume this.

I assume that quantum physics is universally applicable, or else it wouldn't be such an important theory. I was merely questioning whether the vagaries of quantum flux would actually affect something as (comparitively) large scale as neuronal transmission. Your argument could equally say 'we know that quantum physics involves probability and randomness, and it applies to everything. Therefore when I sit down my clothes might change colour'. The small-scale effects of quantum mechanics might affect brain function, but if they do it is highly unlikely that they will change more than the odd impulse here and there.

There is no way for any brain to "remember the order it which the parts were built" in order to function. But the order in which living organisms develop does have an effect on whether things that may appear identical work.

As the fetus develops, its genes are triggered on and off at various points in development. The billions of nuerons are connected in a certain order, not just all at once. Simply globbing together the material that makes up a brain and stimulating it with nerve inputs will not ensure that the replica functions in the same manner as a real one.

My point hasn't really been to comment on the current state of science, but to say that the task of attempting to replicate a human brain and body is difficult, if not impossible. Trying to one-up genetics by making identical masses that are more identical than genetic clones seems futile to me.

Your point is solely commenting on the current state of science. Your first two paragraphs are true, but entirely irrelevant. The originator of this idea (Warpus, I think) simply said that nature can make intelligence and therefore making intelligence is possible. People disagreed, and I took up the argument. From there we get here, because the ideas of souls and whether a soul is required for intelligence came up.
If we imagine that we can make an identical object; not replicate the genes and growing conditions, which is what you seem to think I mean, but actually make an identical object (which is what I said), then it ought to function in the same way. I have never commented on the practicality of this. It is just a thought experiment.

 

[jar2574]

Your argument could equally say 'we know that quantum physics involves probability and randomness, and it applies to everything. Therefore when I sit down my clothes might change colour'.

No. We understand how my clothes work. They aren't going to change color. We do not understand the degree to which quantum mechanics affect brain function, and the level of randomness involved.

I assume that quantum physics is universally applicable, or else it wouldn't be such an important theory. I was merely questioning whether the vagaries of quantum flux would actually affect something as (comparitively) large scale as neuronal transmission...The small-scale effects of quantum mechanics might affect brain function, but if they do it is highly unlikely that they will change more than the odd impulse here and there.

As you said, quantum mechanics might affect brain function. Your opinion is that it is highly unlikely that they will change more than 'the odd impule here and there.' Well, which impulse? And why wouldn't that change lead to a chain reaction? One 'odd impulse here and there' may have a large effect.

Your point is solely commenting on the current state of science. Your first two paragraphs are true, but entirely irrelevant. The originator of this idea (Warpus, I think) simply said that nature can make intelligence and therefore making intelligence is possible. People disagreed, and I took up the argument. From there we get here, because the ideas of souls and whether a soul is required for intelligence came up.
If we imagine that we can make an identical object; not replicate the genes and growing conditions, which is what you seem to think I mean, but actually make an identical object (which is what I said), then it ought to function in the same way. I have never commented on the practicality of this. It is just a thought experiment.

Your point is ... well I'm unsure ... but I won't be so presumptuous as to tell you what it is.

Your "thought experiment" is irrelevant. People cannot make a bug. They aren't about to be able to make a brain.

Good luck creating an identical brain without replicating the genes and growing conditions.

 

[Brighteye]

No. We understand how my clothes work. They aren't going to change color. We do not understand the degree to which quantum mechanics affect brain function, and the level of randomness involved.



As you said, quantum mechanics might affect brain function. Your opinion is that it is highly unlikely that they will change more than 'the odd impule here and there.' Well, which impulse? And why wouldn't that change lead to a chain reaction? One 'odd impulse here and there' may have a large effect.



Your point is ... well I'm unsure ... but I won't be so presumptuous as to tell you what it is.

Your "thought experiment" is irrelevant. People cannot make a bug. They aren't about to be able to make a brain.

Good luck creating an identical brain without replicating the genes and growing conditions.

We know that the brain works due to neuronal impulses and diffusing factors. I think that quantum physics postulates random fluctuations at the quark and photon level (correct me if I'm wrong). Are quarks that exist for a picosecond capable of disrupting the brownian motion of a neurotransmitter? Obviously they will, but how much? A quark is considerably smaller than a molecule of neurotransmitter. Many molecules of transmitter are required to cause a signal, and either many are released or few. I doubt that it would have any significant effect. Don't start talking about Ca sparks and their relevance to emergent brain properties. I'm not in the mood.
My point is that if we create something that ought to be intelligent then it will be imbued with a soul by whatever process gives you one, if souls exist and affect the world at all.
People have been claiming that there is some supernatural process that makes us intelligent. It's not supernatural; it's called a brain. If we can make something brain-like (and in my thought experiment, to avoid quibbles, I imagined something identical to a functioning brain already in existence), then it will be intelligent. There is no Godly key to humanity which means that a human brain is somehow more intelligent than an identical brain which wasn't born in/as a human.
Is that clear enough?
If you try to argue with me about something you're not actually saying anything relevant about, then I am not presumptuous at all in telling you that your writing is irrelevant.
And, yet again, I will repeat that this is a thought experiment. I am not intending to make a brain, a bug or a human. I am not a Raelian. I do not intend to replicate genes or growing conditions. The whole point of a thought experiment is that you don't have to be able to do it; it simply illustrates a point.

 

[jar2574]

My point is that if we create something that ought to be intelligent then it will be imbued with a soul by whatever process gives you one, if souls exist and affect the world at all.

Nope. Your real point is that souls don't exist. But you're not arguing it in a very effective manner. You're trying to use science to discredit the belief in souls. That won't work.

If souls do exist then they don't operate under your scientific laws. Just because you make an object that you think "ought to be intelligent," does not mean that a soul "should" or "will" enter the object.

The very conception of souls is incompatible with the notion that they "will" enter into an object just because it is identical to the brain. People who believe in souls don't think they only exist within the brain.

There is no Godly key to humanity which means that a human brain is somehow more intelligent than an identical brain which wasn't born in/as a human.

Ah, here is your real point.

And science has certainly limited the domain of God through its discoveries.

But unfortunately this claim is still untestible because we cannot create an identical brain. Even more unfortunately for your "thought experiment", even if we could create one, an identical brain would not need to contain a soul for people's belief in souls to remain intact.

If you try to argue with me about something you're not actually saying anything relevant about, then I am not presumptuous at all in telling you that your writing is irrelevant.

The irony here is that my "irrelevant" paragraphs were merely responding to your statement that: "If we build a brain that is identical with another one then how we built it does not matter, because it is now identical, and so there is no way for it to remember the order in which the parts were built."

My statements were only meant as responses to correct your illogical point of view. Obviously, no brain remembers how it was put together. It's unfortunate that you failed to find my comments relevant within that context. I'm not going to argue that they are relevant to the overall discussion, because they were only meant as responses to a sentence that was illogical and really quite silly.

And, yet again, I will repeat that this is a thought experiment. I am not intending to make a brain, a bug or a human. I am not a Raelian. I do not intend to replicate genes or growing conditions. The whole point of a thought experiment is that you don't have to be able to do it; it simply illustrates a point.

Your point that souls don't exist will not be proven in a thought experiment about identical brains. I should have cut to the heart of the matter earlier and shown how your "thought experiment" couldn't prove the existence of souls one way or the other. My apologies.

You ended up finding my comments about the difficulty of creating an identical human brain irrelevant. But at first you responded to them. And you responded in ways that made it seem as though you did not appreciate the complexity of the human brain and the enourmous task that would go into replicating it. I'm sorry for that brief diversion, and will try to remain focused on this "thought experiment" that you have proposed instead of the difficulties involved in creating an actual experiment resembling it.

 

[5cats]

Your point that souls don't exist will not be proven in a thought experiment about identical brains. I should have cut to the heart of the matter earlier and shown how your "thought experiment" couldn't prove the existence of souls one way or the other. My apologies.

... I'm sorry for that brief diversion, and will try to remain focused on this "thought experiment" that you have proposed instead of the difficulties involved in creating an actual experiment resembling it.

Ah, I'm glad this was sorted out. "Thought Experiments" (I can't recall the German word for it) are very useful in singling out one factor of a problem. Even if all the other factors are impossible, we 'allow' them to be possible for the moment.

So if we were able to grow a human brain from scratch, would it have a soul?
I think... not. There's more to souls than the mere physical 'vessel' to contain it.
Also, we'd need to give our brain some sensory in-put and out-put in order for it to learn enough to communicate with it. Otherwise it'd just sit there like a gross blob of Jello... eeeew!
So even if we made one, and taught it stuff, it would still be soul-less, IMHO.

 

[warpus]

Most plausible conclusion : the universe is deterministic, and anything for which we can't find a cause now isn't actually random, but rather caused by something we haven't figured out yet.

Most physicists (ie. 99%) would disagree with you... ESPECIALLY quantum physicists.

This question has bugged many over the years, which is why plenty of experiments have been done to determine whether it's purely random, or if we're just missing something. The experiments that have been done imply that random quantum fluctuations are just that - purely random.

 

[warpus]

Nope. Your real point is that souls don't exist. But you're not arguing it in a very effective manner. You're trying to use science to discredit the belief in souls. That won't work.

If souls do exist then they don't operate under your scientific laws. Just because you make an object that you think "ought to be intelligent," does not mean that a soul "should" or "will" enter the object.

The very conception of souls is incompatible with the notion that they "will" enter into an object just because it is identical to the brain. People who believe in souls don't think they only exist within the brain.

There is no evidence at all there such a thing as a soul exists. The idea of a soul will be superstition, until somebody can provide such evidence.

I believe that invisible monkeys give humans intelligence. Prove that I'm wrong.

You can make all sorts of assertions about what gives humans intelligence: it's a soul, it's a god, it's an invisible monkey, it's a UFO. But the fact remains that the only proof there is is that nature is able to construct us, using natural laws entirely, and we end up with sentience. The supernatural does not enter into a scientific discussion such as this, unless you have evidence for it.

 

[Pawel]

You can argue about the 'true' nature of things, but quantum physics isn't really random. It deals with well defined probabilities, and this includes vacuum fluctuations.

 

[5cats]

There is no evidence at all there such a thing as a soul exists. The idea of a soul will be superstition, until somebody can provide such evidence.

Well, that's true enough.
I think a soul exists in all sentient (self-aware) creatures. So bacteria don't have souls, nor fruit flys (I think) but a cat? For sure
To paraphrase Mark Twain "If they don't allow my cat in Heaven I'm not going"
Anyhow a soul is the thing that allows us to be self-aware. The fact that we are self-aware (at least my cat is ) is all the evidence I can offer. It does pre-suppose a lot of things... which gives the idea 'baggage' & complicates the issue.
It's my opinion that even multiple strands of DNA (with billions of switches, and 4 variables! not just 2 like computers!) can't contain enough information to allow self-awareness to exist. We all come from a single egg & sperm (with half-DNA in each) and get some DNA from the mother in the first little time (until 8 cells, which is 3 divisions) and IMO that's not enough to explain sentience.

 

[atreas]

I believe that invisible monkeys give humans intelligence. Prove that I'm wrong.

On the other hand, we can prove than any sentence that begins with the words "I believe" isn't asking for a proof either way.