Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[warpus]

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.

How do I know that natural processes construct human beings? Well, to begin with, evolution is an entirely natural process, and it is what shaped our DNA into what it is today. DNA, as you know (or might not know) is what contains the instructions that detail how a human being grows from a single cell into an adult.

Philosphers can philosophise all they want about the nature of reality, but in the end you've got to ask yourself this: Is there any scientific proof that the supernatural has anything to do with constructing us - human beings? There is no such evidence.

It is for this reason that I claim that it is only natural processes that construct human beings - there is no evidence to the contrary and plenty of evidence to back my statement up. If you would like to provide some evidence, go right ahead - I consider myself to be a fairly open-minded individual and would consider any evidence, even if it might support the opposite of my argument.

 

[dbergan]

Because i had no choice but to thank him!

Absurdity on absurdity...

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.

Your choice not to discuss free will is better than any proof I could offer. I'm glad you put it in langauge absolutely clear that you are choosing not to talk with me. Golden irony.

 

[whb]

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

Unfortunately this is an example of a reductionist pseudo-answer to a subjectivist question. The reductionist translates "know" as simply "having a piece of data", and feels that answers the question although it has missed the undelying point the subjectivist question was making. Similarly modern responses to "I think therefore I am" generally reduce the word "think" to the electrochemical process in the brain, which unfortunately ducks the point Descartes was making rather than answering it.

The point coming from the philosophers is that even if we can experimentally observe the changes in matter that we would predict by physical processes, our own first-person experience of existing is still not consistent with us only being a physical mechanism.

Sight is the example I usually use. We know pretty well how sight is processed in the brain, and how we go from retinal impulses to recognised objects, locations, colours, etc. But the subjective experience of sight is nothing like just "having a headful of facts about the locations and colours of objects". Descartes is perhaps better translated these days as "I have a subjective experience of being that is not measurable as a physical property, therefore I am."

Or, as the saying goes, "science can explain everyone's behaviour but your own".

 

[atreas]

Some philosophy sneaked into civ forums - nice surprise. Of course, we can go on indefinitely to find answer to question that haven't been answered before. Still, logic (and forgive the introduction of glossology into the discussion) means both "outcome", "reason", and "analogy" in its origins (plus some even more interesting meanings, like "the property of the revealed God"). So a phrase like "brains is affected by logic" and a phrase like "brain creates logic" could both be correct and both be mistaken, quite easily.

If you are interested in the bases of AI and logic, you could also discuss the famous Turing tests. In a few words, the great Turing proposed a test that would define a machine as "intelligent" ot not, and one of the key components would be to have the machine interact with a human and then have the human say whether he was interacting with a machine or not. If we take this analogy in CIV, I doubt if many have the strong belief that you couldn't create a machine that would SEEM to a human as acting humanly: CIV is too restricted a domain, and almost certainly you can manage this.

Still, logic is not the key in this equation - rationalism is the key. Computers are rational but that doesn't mean they are logical, and men are logical but that doesn't mean they are rational.

 

[Zombie69]

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.

Do you know what a standard is? Do you know where it comes from? Standards, by their very definition, are arbitrarily defined by humans, or more to the point, by their brains. Standards don't exist unless we make them. The only reason 2+2=4 is because we said so. That's a standard.

 

[dbergan]

Is there any scientific proof that the supernatural has anything to do with constructing us - human beings?

My point is that there is obvious proof that we are part supernatural ourselves. What's the evidence?

1) We have free will. We punish criminals and decorate heros. We thank friends for being helpful and Mr. Zombie made it abundantly clear that he chooses not to talk to me.

If we have free will then that means that we are some kind of entity outside of the interlocking cause-and-effect structure of the material universe. Only something supernatural could possibly have free will because everything natural follows natural laws and cannot escape them. It also means we have intelligence (which at the beginning I showed that an etymology shows to be "choose between").

2) We have awareness. An universe of only matter and energy would never know it existed... because awareness is neither matter nor energy. Awareness is something that humans and higher animals have that no other matter does. "It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply matter, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."

3) We have a standard of logic. Outside of every brain exists this standard that we all use to judge logical reasons from illogical reasons. This standard is also neither matter nor energy, but we know it exists... to deny it is the most illogical thing ever.

For these three reasons, I submit that it is impossible to say that humans are only material (or natural)... made up of matter and energy and nothing more. And because there is a part of us that is supernatural... a part that chooses, reasons, and is self-aware... then there has to be some element of our birth where this supernatural part of us is tied, injected, or quickened to the corpse.

To say that there is no scientific evidence is obvious. Science cannot study the supernatural. Science is a tool used for specific kinds of truth... empirical truths about nature. And just like you can't paint a wall with a hammer, you can't use science on questions about free will.

Saying you don't believe in free will because there is no scientific evidence for it is like saying, "This wall can't be painted, because my hammer won't do it."

 

[Olleus]

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.

Taking the example of the kid riding his bike. If that particular chain of events only happens once then it will soon be 'erased' in the brain. However if every time he rides his bike his mum falls sick then i wouldn't be suprised if he got scared of bikes. Every time he rides his bike he moves, their is (almost) no exeption to that so that connection gets wired in his brain, so the next time he wants to move he might use his bike.

The reason that my logic and your logic is the same is that we both live in the same world and are subjected to the same kind of phenomenons, and because our DNA is very similar our brain will be affected in exactly the same way, by these experiences. Also it is intresting to note that Western logic is based mostly on on the Platonic ideals of True and False, while Far Eastern logic does not recognise this divide, which is simbolised by ying and yang.

On another note there has recently been developed new kinds of logics which are a lot less intuitive. One of these is, i think, called S5 module logic and is based on the principle that if their is a possiblity of some proposition being true then it must be true. I don't understand this my self but read it somewhere respectable.

 

[dbergan]

Do you know what a standard is? Do you know where it comes from? Standards, by their very definition, are arbitrarily defined by humans, or more to the point, by their brains. Standards don't exist unless we make them. The only reason 2+2=4 is because we said so. That's a standard.

There is a difference between a discovery and an invention. Archimedes is a good example of both. He invented the Archimedes Screw which allows one to pull water uphill. And he discovered the equations that describe the surface area and volume of a sphere.

He didn't invent the equation for the volume of a sphere... the equation was always there. He was just the guy that could find it. In other words, the mathematical standard was always there... it just took a genius to reveal it to the rest of us. It wasn't something arbitrary that he just asserted for all the rest of us to parrot. The fact that we can double-check his work and independently verify its truth means that the standard is something universal and eternal. It's not like we have to just brainwash the equation into our head... which would be the case if all standards are arbitrary as you suggest.

 

[Alcatraz]

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.

Forgive him... he has no choice but to resort to tactics like these.

 

[Zombie69]

There is a difference between a discovery and an invention. Archimedes is a good example of both. He invented the Archimedes Screw which allows one to pull water uphill. And he discovered the equations that describe the surface area and volume of a sphere.

He didn't invent the equation for the volume of a sphere... the equation was always there. He was just the guy that could find it. In other words, the mathematical standard was always there... it just took a genius to reveal it to the rest of us. It wasn't something arbitrary that he just asserted for all the rest of us to parrot. The fact that we can double-check his work and independently verify its truth means that the standard is something universal and eternal. It's not like we have to just brainwash the equation into our head... which would be the case if all standards are arbitrary as you suggest.

I know the difference between a discovery and an invention. However there is also a difference between an absolute fact and a standard, one which you don't seem to grasp.

The volume of a sphere is not a standard. It's a mathematical fact that we can't get around. 2+1=3 is a standard. The only reason that 2+1=3 is because humans decided this would be the case. We could have just as easily said that 2+1=5 and everything else in math would have followed accordingly.

 

[Zombie69]

1) We have free will. We punish criminals and decorate heros. We thank friends for being helpful and Mr. Zombie made it abundantly clear that he chooses not to talk to me.

Just because you have the illusion of free will, doesn't mean that you actually have it.

You seem to believe in a god. Is your god omniscient? If so, then by definition he knows everything. This means that if tomorrow you're going to pick whole bread instead of white bread, your god would have known that in advance. Similiarly if facing the bread you were to say "oh yeah, well i'm going to choose white bread just to spite him", then he would have known you'd do that to. Since everything you will ever do could have been predicted, just like tides can be predicted, then in fact you have no free will, even though it seems to you like you actually chose your bread.

This is a gross simplification of absolute determinism, and nothing besides parts of quantum physics (which i believe will be proven wrong in the future when we have better information on how the universe works) has ever proven this not to be the case.

In fact, most of science is based on the very premise that the universe is deterministic.

 

[Olleus]

is mathematics discovered or invented?

maybe one of the greatnest debates of history. Numbers are obviously invented, but what about maths itself? It might seem obvious that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 and always has but was it really discovered?

 

[dbergan]

Also it is intresting to note that Western logic is based mostly on on the Platonic ideals of True and False, while Far Eastern logic does not recognise this divide, which is simbolised by ying and yang.

Actually, Taosm suggests exactly what I have been talking about... that there is a "way" (standard) of the universe that we are supposed to walk in and not step outside of. That it is only by the Tao that things can be understood.

Thanks to Civ 4 we all know about Taoism.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

All this stuff about "awareness" (more accurately, self awareness) is moot.

There is one fact in this universe that has never been shown to be false and is presumed to exist everywhere:

Everything will follow the path of least resistance.

That includes the electrons circulating in your computer.

That includes the charged ion poised to be jump a gap between neuron and dendrite within your brain.

That includes the civ4 software which, at least for me, has many paths that lead to general protection faults.

That includes Gary Kasparov, whos path of least resistance lead him to leave the F.I.D.E., to futily try to start his own championship title.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Their lack of emotion, wrath and predjudice is the only thing stopping the computers regressing to human levels. When they get that they will become just like us - starting wars and destroying the envirnment. The only difference is they will only take an 8th of a second.

 

[5cats]

Spooky Actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooky_action_at_a_distance now called Quantum Entanglement, apparently...

Essentially, information cannot travel faster than light, since all information is in a medium. (see Marshall Mcluhan, a Canadian) Einstein predicted the non-locality and recent experiments have proven it.
Simply put: two electrons are sent out in opposite directions. Each is 50% spin-up OR 50% spin-down. BUT if one is up, the other has to be down (or it would be detectable) So if you subsequently pass electron A through a field which makes it spin-up, the other electron will ALWAYS be spin-down. Not 50% of the time. Therefore, somehow electron A and B are able to communicate the information of what spin to be, dispite each moving at the speed of light in opposite directions. (see Collapsing Field Theory, or whatever its called) Also see Schrodinger's Cat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat ) an experiment which I hope has NEVER been conducted! Non-locality experiments have been done several times, each time 100% as Einstein predicted.

DustMonkey has never been married, lol! Wives follow the path of Most Resistance

Your choice not to discuss free will is better than any proof I could offer. I'm glad you put it in langauge absolutely clear that you are choosing not to talk with me. Golden irony.

I had to laugh when I read this! Thanks dbergan!
Basically if we DO have free will then we do. If we DON'T and everything is pre-determined, so who cares? See: Rush, Freewill, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit...Stage_Left
Also, look at my signature!!!

...there is no evidence to the contrary and plenty of evidence to back my statement up. If you would like to provide some evidence, go right ahead...

Okie warpus: I knew the exact moment my father died. My Mother knew the exact moment her father died. Coincidence? I think not, since I didn't go around thinking someone was dead 1000s of times, only to get one time right. Unprovable? Of course, but it's proof for me, and it defies reasonable deterministic explaination. There is more to life than the physical.

no need for an Evolution vs. Creatism debate here

Lord Olleus is right, but personally I don't see why God couldn't create the Big Bang, plus all the evolution that followed. What is science's explaination for the "bang"? Oh, it just happened. Hummm, sounds like faith to me. Lol!

Lookit, down there! My Sig!

 

[d80tb7]

Spooky Actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooky_action_at_a_distance now called Quantum Entanglement, apparently...

Essentially, information cannot travel faster than light, since all information is in a medium. (see Marshall Mcluhan, a Canadian) Einstein predicted the non-locality and recent experiments have proven it.
Simply put: two electrons are sent out in opposite directions. Each is 50% spin-up OR 50% spin-down. BUT if one is up, the other has to be down (or it would be detectable) So if you subsequently pass electron A through a field which makes it spin-up, the other electron will ALWAYS be spin-down. Not 50% of the time. Therefore, somehow electron A and B are able to communicate the information of what spin to be, dispite each moving at the speed of light in opposite directions. (see Collapsing Field Theory, or whatever its called)

ok, we're getting to the limits of my knowledge here, but I'm fairly sure this isn't quite correct. The two electrons sent in opposite directions are 50% spin up and 50% spin down, however I don't think you can simply pass one through a field that makes it spin up. What happens is that a measurement is performed on the electron and to determine its state. 50% of the time you will read it as spin up and 50% as spin down, but you cannot control which. Importantly as soon as you measure electron A's state, electron B will instantaneously move into the opposite state no matter how far it is away.
You can't send information in this way though because the spin of the electron you measure is completely random, therefore Einstein's causality is not broken.

 

[Olleus]

I think that the electrons have unknown spin while they are moving. But as soon as you measure the spin of one electron the second electron gains the opposite spin.

Also does anyone know how fast pure energy travels? I have thought up a system of sending information instantly. Build a huge newtons cradle which would look like this
|||||\
0000 0
As soon as the branch on the left hits the next branch this happens:
/|||||
0 0000
Now if you where to build a huge one of these then information would be sent instantly.
Would this work?

 

[d80tb7]

I think that the electrons have unknown spin while they are moving. But as soon as you measure the spin of one electron the second electron gains the opposite spin.

Also does anyone know how fast pure energy travels? I have thought up a system of sending information instantly. Build a huge newtons cradle which would look like this
|||||\
0000 0
As soon as the branch on the left hits the next branch this happens:
/|||||
0 0000
Now if you where to build a huge one of these then information would be sent instantly.
Would this work?

Unfortunately it would not. The energy is transferred by compressing the bonds between the atoms of the material making up the Newton's cradle. This bond compression occurs at some speed under that of light, hence no super luminal energy transfer.

 

[Olleus]

What if the balls of the cradle where infintely hard so that they would not get compressed when hitting each other?