Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[Zombie69]

How do you know? How do you explain awareness then?

Dolphins are aware. How do you explain that?

To keep this simple, i'll say "a big, complex brain".

 

[Zombie69]

So you still have to answer Pascal's challenge: "there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself."

Not a tough challenge at all. Can an eye see itself? Yes, with a mirror. Then why couldn't matter know itself?

 

[warpus]

If by machine, you mean deterministic (ie we have no free will), how do you know we are machines? And what is "sentient" if not awareness? So you still have to answer Pascal's challenge: "there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself."

Machine does not imply deterministic. IMO quantum processes are amplified by our brains, giving us the illusion of free will.. but that is really beside the point.

By machine I mean just that - machines. We are biological machines, constructed by natural processes.

The process by which we achieved 'sentience' is irrelevant.

The point is this - if nature is able to construct a machine - a human, a being that believes that it is sentient (whether it actually is is beside the point), why couldn't we do the same?

Can you answer me that?

Games in philisophical gedankexperiments are beside the point.

The fact is that natural processes are able to construct a sentient machine. Ergo, we can build one too.

 

[dbergan]

Dolphins are aware. How do you explain that?

To keep this simple, i'll say "a big, complex brain".

Dolphins also probably have a soul to some degree. Dogs and beavers, too. Earthworms to a lesser degree. Plants... who knows? (Venus fly trap?) It's very hard to say, though because we have very limited communication with other plants and animals. We don't really know what it's like to be a dog, and there are certainly some deterministic aspects to their behavior: door bell rings-->wake up and start barking.

And there are some deterministic aspects to human behavior too. Most people eat food every day. But there is also something in us that chooses to eat... because some people have voluntarily starved themselves in protest, to get closer to God, or to lose weight. And some dogs have also starved themselves as a reaction to their master's death.

My position is that we are in part deterministic, but also in part free. Our brain is in part natural (we know this because natural things like beer and coffee affect it), and in part supernatural (because abstract material-less things like logic also affect it). We are a chimera. A hybrid of God and dirt.

 

[dbergan]

By machine I mean just that - machines. We are biological machines, constructed by natural processes...

The fact is that natural processes are able to construct a sentient machine. Ergo, we can build one too.

How do you know that only "natural processes" construct human beings? If indeed sentience implies the supernatural (as I suggest), then something supernatural has to be part of the construction process. I maintain (and many philosophers from all ages of history) that we are a chimera and that part of our construction is the "quickening" of the soul.

The questions are all inter-related... to say that a human's construction is purely natural means that humans are purely natural. To say that humans are purely natural means that we have no free will and that something abstract (logic) should have no bearing on our material mind.

To quote the famous early 20th-century evolutionist J. B. S. Haldane, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

 

[dbergan]

Not a tough challenge at all. Can an eye see itself? Yes, with a mirror. Then why couldn't matter know itself?

The eye, by being physical, can see other things that are physical, including its own reflection.

Awareness is not matter, so anything that is wholly material will not have any means of "sensing" (or seeing) the immaterial.

 

[Buckets]

So what if the only AI smart enough to challenge a human doesn't want to play?

 

[d80tb7]

What's the clock in the box experiment?

The clock in the box was a thought experiment proposed by Einstein in the 1930s to disprove the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle essentially states that the more accurately you measure something's position, the less accurately you may measure its momentum. Einstein proposed letting a single particle out of a box within a precise timeframe and then weighing the box beforehand and afterwards so as to measure it's energy (E=mc^2). In that way both the position and momentum of the particle could be calculated exactly. This experiment was refuted by Neils Bohr who showed that the uncertainty principle meant that this experiment could never by done (you'd need to know the precision of the clock to a higher value than Einstein's relativity results allow for one thing).

Importantly this was a purely thought based experiment and as far as I'm aware has never 'been done' as it would be totally impractical even if it didn't violate the uncertainty principle. The key point is that is quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible and that in some ways quantum mechanics does seem to leave the way open for faster than light information transfer. As of yet though, nobody has been able to demonstrate this either theoretically or experimentally.

As an aside, tachyons by definition are particles that travel faster than light. Reletivity does not preclude their existence as all it says is that nothing can *accelerate* to the speed of light. This means that if particles were created at the start of the universe already teravelling at the speed of light, they could continue to do so. Needless to say, nobody has detected such particles although many have tried.

sorry about all physics stuff but I'm good at physics and rubbish at CIV so it's one of the few times I get to post things i know about on this forum

 

[Zombie69]

My position is that we are in part deterministic, but also in part free. Our brain is in part natural (we know this because natural things like beer and coffee affect it), and in part supernatural (because abstract material-less things like logic also affect it). We are a chimera. A hybrid of God and dirt.

No we're not. We're not free, and we're not supernatural. Just because you want us to be doesn't make us so. Oh, and god doesn't exist.

By the way, logic doesn't affect the brain. The brain creates logic.

 

[Zombie69]

The eye, by being physical, can see other things that are physical, including its own reflection.

Awareness is not matter, so anything that is wholly material will not have any means of "sensing" (or seeing) the immaterial.

How do you explain that material things produce energy, a non-material thing? I'm sorry, but your view of the universe being divided between matter and non-matter is seriously crooked and plain wrong. And you can't prove any of the stuff you claim because it's all based on faith.

 

[Zombie69]

sorry about all physics stuff but I'm good at physics and rubbish at CIV so it's one of the few times I get to post things i know about on this forum

No, thank you. That was interesting!

 

[member66170]

Contrary to popular belief their is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents things moving faster than light. The theory is only applicable to objects which travel inside the 4 dimensional universe. As soon as you break the fabric of space-time the laws of physics dissapear and you can move faster than light or even travel in time (the two being very closely linked). As quantum theory says the space-time breaks down on a tiny scale there is nothing preventing particles to escape space-time and reappear somewhere else at some other time.
Also if an object has no mass (like a photon) it can travel at the speed of light (like a photon).

You know that civ is a truely great game where people discuss particle physics in its forums.

 

[dbergan]

Just because you want us to be doesn't make us so.

I think you're the one throwing out arbitrary statements without any rationale. ("No we're not. We're not free, and we're not supernatural." "Oh, and god doesn't exist.")

If we aren't free, why did you thank d80tb7 for his physics explanation? He had no choice but to explain it.

By the way, logic doesn't affect the brain. The brain creates logic.

When planning your day, do you use logic? Do you ask yourself if it is going to be cold outside before you decide to wear a jacket? If you do, then logic affected you.

If the brain creates logic, than the person who says "I do not want to go for a walk today because lizards are reptiles" is just as logical as the person who says "I do not want to go for a walk today because it is raining." Both people have brains and nothing (from your point of view) says that one brain's logic is any better or worse than the others.

Ironically, the conclusion is that the idea "the brain creates logic" is the most illogical thought there is.

 

[dbergan]

How do you explain that material things produce energy, a non-material thing?

My explanation is simply to recite Einstein's equation. Matter and energy are equivalent.

But awareness, logic, and information are neither matter nor energy. They can't be measured in grams or joules. They are something else that we cannot deny exist, but also realize they exist outside the realm of matter and energy.

The multiplication tables exist... and they are neither matter nor energy.

I'm sorry, but your view of the universe being divided between matter and non-matter is seriously crooked and plain wrong. And you can't prove any of the stuff you claim because it's all based on faith.

Great response. When in each post I put forth reasons for my statements, the best you can counter with is unsupported statements like "oh, and God doesn't exist" and then tell me that MY arguments are the unsupported ones based only on faith. I've decided that in your case you are right, logic doesn't affect your brain.

 

[member66170]

the brain creates logic and then uses it to make desicons.

Logic is a method of taking a lot of very small steps to get to an answer. All of these steps use an unarguable (is it a word?) argument for moving on the the next step. The brain creates the principles of logic and then uses it to come to a logical desison. In your argument the first man does not use logic as their is no reason to not go out side because of crocodiles. However the chain of logic for the second man goes something like this.
IF i go for a walk > i will go out side > water is falling out side > some of it might hit me > if it does i will get wet > and i will get cold > i dont like being cold > so i will not do the opposite of the original hypothesis
I challenge you to write something similar for the first man.

 

[dbergan]

I challenge you to write something similar for the first man.

I can't. That's my point. The first guy's "logic" is illogical. But what do we use to say that he is illogical? Some abstract standard that none of us can see, but all of us use. We judge logical from illogical by whether or not a particular person's reasons confrom to this standard of logic.

If I had my logic and you had your logic, then I could say your step-by-step process might be logical for you, but I'm staying inside because lizards are reptiles. If there is no abstract standard to appeal to, then I could say that this is logical and you have NO grounds for saying otherwise: "lizards are reptiles-->the moon comes out at night-->I like Pop Tarts-->I hope my girlfriend isn't cheating on me-->I will not go for a walk"

To make logic subjective is to destroy it altogether.

 

[whb]

the brain creates logic and then uses it to make desicons.

Biologically, most of the processes going on in the brain do not look very much like logic at all. Which is one of the reasons why students struggle so much trying to learn how to do formal mathematical proofs.

Humans use very arguable and informal methods in their decision making, often based much more on experience than axioms and inference. Watch an episode of Deal Or No Deal, and you will see people changing their tactics as to how they pick a number of a random box based on whether choosing birthdays gave a good result or a bad one last time.

 

[member66170]

The logic which comes from the second man can be explained in two ways. Firstly: what comes just after a point has some connection to it
Secondly: that something is good or bad.
I suppose that you would know ask "Why is this a connection and not this?" That is all to do with the neural paths in our brain. If two ideas are linked in concept then the connections in our brain between these two neurons (or rather groups of neurons) will be a lot bigger. Therefor you can say that the brain creates a logic by having strong connections between ideas that our similar. Now you might say that it is God who has made it so that our brain recognises these two concpets as being similar but i would say that it is a cause of evolution. And their is absolutely no need for an Evolution vs. Creatism debate here.

 

[dbergan]

The logic which comes from the second man can be explained in two ways. Firstly: what comes just after a point has some connection to it
Secondly: that something is good or bad.
I suppose that you would know ask "Why is this a connection and not this?" That is all to do with the neural paths in our brain. If two ideas are linked in concept then the connections in our brain between these two neurons (or rather groups of neurons) will be a lot bigger. Therefor you can say that the brain creates a logic by having strong connections between ideas that our similar.

This isn't getting us any closer to an answer, though. whb's point that most people use experience to make future decisions is probably right. And you're probably right that it makes a neural connection. (Using my birthday as a lotto number won me $100 last week, let's use it again. Or, every time I forget my umbrella it starts raining, so I always bring my umbrella. Or, if I kick and scream in the store Mom will buy the toy I want, so I'll kick and scream every time.)

But as whb said, this isn't logical. This only explains the reason why horoscopes and palm readers are still in business.

To say that a certain mode of thinking establishes a neural connection, still doesn't make that mode of thinking logical. I rode my bike around the block and Mom got sick... that could establish a neural connection. But there is still an abstract standard that we use to tell the child that his reasoning isn't logical... no matter how engrained the neural connection is. This standard exists outside of our brains, such that your brain (in whatever city you live in) and my brain (in Sioux Falls, SD) can access the same standard and use it to judge logical reasoning from illogical reasoning.

Now you might say that it is God who has made it so that our brain recognises these two concpets as being similar but i would say that it is a cause of evolution. And their is absolutely no need for an Evolution vs. Creatism debate here.

Absolutely not interested in that. Just trying to figure out what we know and why we know it.

 

[Zombie69]

If we aren't free, why did you thank d80tb7 for his physics explanation? He had no choice but to explain it.

Because i had no choice but to thank him!

I refuse to seriously discuss the matter with you because it's obvious that you are beyond saving and this would just be a waste of time.