Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[Zombie69]

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.

On the contrary. Anyone who has a degree in any scientific field knows that Nature is a magazine that only catters to the uninitiated with very low level articles. It's not actually a scientific journal and it's not highly respected among actual scientists.

Also, the article you talk about points to a rather useless article, because even if you can "teleport" a single particle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents you from teleporting more than that.

 

[jar2574]

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 did not claim that souls exist.

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

No thanks. If you really believed this, then a "thought experiment" that involved replicating the human brain would not convince you that this belief was wrong or right. I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove that this was or was not true through the use of scientific evidence. Moreover, I could care less whether this is your belief.

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.

The supernatural cannot be proven or disproven through a scientific discussion such as this. Replicating a brain will not prove that the supernatural does or does not exist.

You can make all sorts of scientific assertions backed up by scientific evidence, but that will not convince people who believe in souls that they do not exist.

 

[Zombie69]

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.

Wrong. Actually, because of Einstein, we now know that even at slow speeds and macroscopic levels, Newton's equations only provide an approximation. Still, because Einstein's principles only have very small efeects on those levels, the approximation is extremely close to reality. Still, it's only an approximation.

Now, in the fact of Newtonian mechanics vs relativity, this doesn't matter. However, in the case you propose, it matters a lot, because you can't get a deterministic system from non-deterministic parts. You could get an almost (or approximately) deterministic system, but that's very, very far from a deterministic one.

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.

Since i have a degree in biology, i think it fair to consider myself as a "professional scientist", if there were such a thing (scientist is not a profession).

 

[Pawel]

On the contrary. Anyone who has a degree in any scientific field knows that Nature is a magazine that only catters to the uninitiated with very low level articles. It's not actually a scientific journal and it's not highly respected among actual scientists.

Also, the article you talk about points to a rather useless article, because even if you can "teleport" a single particle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents you from teleporting more than that.

I have many published papers in, for instance, Physical Review C and Nuclear Physics A. I would trade them all for one in Nature! Maybe that doesn't make me a serious scientist, though. Actually, journals have a rating system, and this is certainly not random.

 

[jar2574]

Since i have a degree in biology, i think it fair to consider myself as a "professional scientist", if there were such a thing (scientist is not a profession).

A person can be a "professional scientist," if their occupation is in scientific fields; but not all scientists work in scientific fields as their occupation.

 

[MxxPwr]

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

AHEM! They are apes and they are not invisible because I can see them.

 

[warpus]

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.

It does. The location of an electron, for example, is defined by a probability wave. However, once we observe the electron to determine where exactly it is, the probability wave collapses to a distinct value.. and this distinct value is what is nondeterministic.

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.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but you have no evidence to back it up with. You are offering the hypothesis itself as evidence, which is circular logic.

You can make all sorts of scientific assertions backed up by scientific evidence, but that will not convince people who believe in souls that they do not exist.

People who believe in invisible monkeys will also not budge if shown evidence that they (most likely) don't. You can have faith in souls, ghosts, UFOs, invisible monkeys, the loch ness monster, God, or invisible pink unicorns.. it doesn't really matter. You are free to believe what you want, even if it's irrational and there is no evidence to support it.

However, when having a scientific discussion such as this one - faith does not come into play. You have to be able to back up your argument. Saying "Invisible monkeys exist because I have faith in them" just doesn't cut it.

Having a theological/mythological discussion about the same subject creates an entirely different playing field - if that's what you'd like to participate in - we can start a different thread dedicated to such a discussion.

If you have an argument - you better be able back it up with SOMETHING. "It's true because I believe it to be true" is just not good enough in a discussion such as this.

 

[jar2574]

However, when having a scientific discussion such as this one - faith does not come into play. You have to be able to back up your argument. Saying "Invisible monkeys exist because I have faith in them" just doesn't cut it.

Gee, I must have missed the "scientific discussion only" heading on this thread. Please note that the person who started this thread has been discussing the existence of souls.

I did not miss the scientific arguments that were offered to disprove the existence of souls though. And as you've noted, those arguments are a waste of time because they will not convince believers that souls do not exist.

Having a theological/mythological discussion about the same subject creates an entirely different playing field - if that's what you'd like to participate in - we can start a different thread dedicated to such a discussion.

As noted, the OP has been discussing souls. Perhaps if you'd like to avoid discussion about theological/mythological matters then you should avoid this thread.

If you have an argument - you better be able back it up with SOMETHING. "It's true because I believe it to be true" is just not good enough in a discussion such as this.

Maybe in your thread faith will be irrelevant and only scientific evidence will be proper. But in this thread, with the OP talking about souls, you'd better get used to people talking about their beliefs. And backing up personal beliefs with opinions (i.e. about self-awareness) is legitimate.

If you don't like the rules in this sandbox then play in another one.

 

[Zombie69]

I have many published papers in, for instance, Physical Review C and Nuclear Physics A. I would trade them all for one in Nature!

Because being less technical and not digging deep into the actual science, the methodologies and the calculations involved, Nature is easier to read for people who don't know the specialty the article is concerned with, and can therefore be read by more people. Thus having an article published there would make you more famous and it would subsequently be easier for you to be granted funds for your research. However, if i asked you which article you'd find more serious and would be more likely to base your own research on, i'm pretty sure you'd pick one from an actual scientific review publication, and not one from Nature.

 

[Pawel]

It does. The location of an electron, for example, is defined by a probability wave. However, once we observe the electron to determine where exactly it is, the probability wave collapses to a distinct value.. and this distinct value is what is nondeterministic.

It is true that while the time evolution operator is deterministic, the measurement process is not. The value you obtain in each measurement cannot be predicted, but the probability of obtaining a certain value is well defined. Without going into philosophy, you don't have to repeat the experiment very many times before the uncertainty in your measured distributions becomes very small. There is thus an element of randomness, but the behavior isn't random.

 

[Zombie69]

By your argument, throwing dice is not random because we can make a distribution of the expected results. You've got a weird definition of randomness!

 

[Pawel]

Because being less technical and not digging deep into the actual science, the methodologies and the calculations involved, Nature is easier to read for people who don't know the specialty the article is concerned with, and can therefore be read by more people. Thus having an article published there would make you more famous and it would subsequently be easier for you to be granted funds for your research. However, if i asked you which article you'd find more serious and would be more likely to base your own research on, i'm pretty sure you'd pick one from an actual scientific review publication, and not one from Nature.

Well, I just checked that the ISI impact factor of Nature for 2002 was above 30. Phys Rev C had less than three. Even Phys. Rev. Letters only had a little more than seven. Of course, even though it can only be four pages long, everyone prefers a letter. And the system is based on scientific citations, not the number of readers. But it is true that if you want to know all the details you need a longer publication or a review article.

I think this particular experiment is quite neat, though. I was actually at a talk by Zeiliger when he was preparing the Danube experiment. It was fun to see that it worked.

With regard to randomness, I think many people confuse it with arbitrariness. And there is nothing arbitrary about it.

 

[Zombie69]

And the system is based on scientific citations, not the number of readers.

In order to cite an article, you must have read it first. Makes sense, don't you think?

I would assume that articles in Nature are the most cited. It makes perfect sense since they're the most read. However, that doesn't make them the most respected!

 

[Pawel]

Well, in order to cite an article, you must actually get one published. If you're not up to date with the current publications in your field, this is not very likely. But I won't argue with you. Just try to make this argument next time you write your resume.

 

[warpus]

Maybe in your thread faith will be irrelevant and only scientific evidence will be proper. But in this thread, with the OP talking about souls, you'd better get used to people talking about their beliefs.

I have no problem with people talking about their beliefs. What I have a problem with is somebody backing up an argument with... nothing.

One of the things we're discussing is whether it'd be possible to build a machine which is sentient, correct? You're suggesting that:

"Invisible monkeys give us sentience. We would need to control invisible monkeys to be able to build a sentient machine. Oh yeah, we'll also need pink cheese. This is what I believe. There is no proof for it whatsoever, but it is my belief, so it should be a valid argument"

is a valid argument. It gets us nowhere! You can't debunk it or prove it right.

If we're going to be participating in a non-theological discussion such as this, we better be able to back up our arguments! You can't just make up wild theories and then say "This is what I believe".. yeah.. you believe it, alright.. but how do you back this statement up? Does it get us anywhere in our discussion?

Arguments without backing are worthless.

but the behavior isn't random.

Sure, the behaviour of a large number of electrons isn't random - it can be predicted with a probability wave. However, the behaviour of 1 individual electron is nondeterministic. I hope we can agree to that.

Zombie69's point about rolling dice illustrates my point beautifully.

 

[MxxPwr]

And the system is based on scientific citations, not the number of readers.

In order to cite an article, you must have read it first. Makes sense, don't you think?

I would assume that articles in Nature are the most cited. It makes perfect sense since they're the most read. However, that doesn't make them the most respected!

Well, in order to cite an article, you must actually get one published. If you're not up to date with the current publications in your field, this is not very likely. But I won't argue with you. Just try to make this argument next time you write your resume.

Heh, heh. You mean all my letters on 'Ether Exists' published in the Penthouse Forums wouldn't look good on my resume?

 

[jar2574]

I have no problem with people talking about their beliefs. What I have a problem with is somebody backing up an argument with... nothing.

People backed up their beliefs with personal experience. This is legitimate even though it isn't scientific.

One of the things we're discussing is whether it'd be possible to build a machine which is sentient, correct? You're suggesting that:

"Invisible monkeys give us sentience. We would need to control invisible monkeys to be able to build a sentient machine. Oh yeah, we'll also need pink cheese. This is what I believe. There is no proof for it whatsoever, but it is my belief, so it should be a valid argument"

is a valid argument. It gets us nowhere! You can't debunk it or prove it right.

Absolutely not. I never suggested that souls make us intelligent. I never suggested that the argument 'souls = intelligence' was a valid scientific argument either.

Here is the basic structure of this confusing thread as I see it.

You: "we can create intelligence"
Others: "we can't create intelligence because souls are needed"
You: "souls aren't needed, because of X"
Me: "X will not convince Others or other believers that souls do not exist."
You: "Are you saying that the Others raised a valid argument?"
Me: "Nope, I'm saying that X will not convince Others that they are wrong."

I argued that the "thought experiment" which tried to disprove the existence of the invisible monkeys/souls was not going to convince people who believed in monkeys/souls that they do not exist. The "thought experiment" was worthless if its goal was to convince people that monkeys/souls do not exist.

If we're going to be participating in a non-theological discussion such as this, we better be able to back up our arguments! You can't just make up wild theories and then say "This is what I believe".. yeah.. you believe it, alright.. but how do you back this statement up? Does it get us anywhere in our discussion?

As noted earlier, this thread was never defined as a "non-theological discussion."

Regardless, I don't think anyone was "making up wild theories." Backing up personal beliefs with personal experience and opinion is legitimate. Since it's not a scientific laboratory, those statements can be made, and other people may find them useful. You and I may not. But that doesn't mean that you or I should suddenly declare this a "non-theological discussion" and ask that nothing without scientific evidence be presented.

Arguments without backing are worthless.

Very true. But the type of backing necessary depends upon the argument being made.

It is just as unproductive for a non-believer to challenge a believer to prove the existence of a soul through scientific evidence as it is for a believer to challenge a non-believer to disprove the existence of a soul through scientific evidence.

 

[Zombie69]

Well, in order to cite an article, you must actually get one published. If you're not up to date with the current publications in your field, this is not very likely. But I won't argue with you. Just try to make this argument next time you write your resume.

Let me make myself clear : publishing an article in Nature is impressive; the article itself however is not impressive, and articles in other publications are much more impressive because they're much more detailed and provide much more information about the methodology and the calculations involved.

 

[warpus]

jar2574

I just don't think that theological arguments belong in a thread like this, unless it's something said in passing, or unless everyone agrees that it is to be an entirely theological discussion.

I mean, we're discussing the plausibility of constructing a sentient machine. Sure, if humans have souls, this endavour might be an impossible one, and that is a point worth mentioning. However, to state that we do indeed have souls, without providing any links to any studies showing that we might - or any sort of evidence.. in other words - no backing at all.. is pointless.

Somebody could very well wander into this thread and say "You can't construct sentient machines - Zeus would send a plague from the heavens if you tried". Sure, this fellow might believe this to be the truth, but unless he can back it up with some hard data - his statement is pointless - pointless in the sense that it does not contribute anything worthwhile to the thread.

Much in the same way that somebody saying "You can't construct sentient machines because you'd need souls for that - and souls can't be created by humans" isn't contributing to the thread, unless data is provided to back his/her statement up. Sure, he might be right about the souls.. But walk me through your argument.. How do you know we have souls? If we do have them, why wouldn't we be able to create them? You know, a logical breakdown of the thought process that lead this person to arrive at the conclusion that was presented.

It's very easy to wander into a thread and say "You're wrong, I'm right", but unless you can back your argument up.. why even bother saying anything at all?

We can all start screaming "I believe this!" and "I believe that!" without backing anything up at all... but where does that get us? Nowhere.

Alright, it's late, I'm going home.

 

[jar2574]

jar2574
I just don't think that theological arguments belong in a thread like this, unless it's something said in passing, or unless everyone agrees that it is to be an entirely theological discussion.

Fair enough. I see where you're coming from. Other people think non-scientific debate can be valuable. So I wouldn't propose that we limit debate to the degree you'd like.