Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[5cats]

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.

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.

I did start by saying "I think" and mentioned "in my opinion". So while it isn't 'evidence' that part is not circular logic, just an opinion.

And my theory on DNA doesn't cut it?
I posit that DNA is fine for tons of physical information, (eye colour, number of teeth) but that "self-awareness" falls into the non-physical as well as the physical.
It's well and good that DNA can provide the building blocks for brain construction, but what allows the jump from 'reactive' (like bacteria) to 'sentient'? It isn't simply a matter of more computing power, like Deep Blue (hey, almost on topic here! lol!) but an ability that isn't neccessarily connected to the physical world. (other than the obvious, which is there has to be a physically living thing in the first place).
That lady in Florida who was a vegitable, I'd say her spirit had left her body, and then she was just... existing! Not sentient at all. There are lots of people in comas who don't have that much brain damage, yet they're not sentient either. & etc.
In other worlds, you can have a brain but that doesn't guarentee sentience.
And until we can either a) make brains b) detect the soul (or spirit, or life-force, or cosmic harmony) we'll just have to guess.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Yup. Yup. The Lakota/Sioux were one of the major Native tribes in the area. But right now, I think the Sudanese (blackest of the black from Africa) population in Sioux Falls exceeds the Sioux population.

-----
Thanks.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

If the soul won't enter an identical object, and this leads to discernible differences in how that object functions then we will need to rethink our basic concepts of how the world works. Given that all of modern technology is based on the current concepts they seem to be quite accurate. Therefore postulating something that requires them to be rewritten is foolish.

But that's not an identical object. What we know is that the "soul" (assuming there is one, again) enters the WHOLE BODY at a certain point during conception/gestation. An identically grown brain is not the same object as a whole body. So even with your own concepts, there's no guarantee at all.

Some things are impossible. Just as our knowledge of the world leads us to say that typing on a keyboard is possible, there are some things that are not. I brought up maths because I'm fairly sure I have heard about proofs that simply prove that something else can never be proven, whether true or not. This is an example that proves my point; all I need is one example to prove the statement 'Some things are impossible'.

In maths, it's true that we can establish that some things can never be proven within a certain finite logical system - again, that's Godel. And even more simply, one of the fundamental basis of maths and logic are axioms, which by definition cannot be proven.
But you're being sophistic, or maybe forgot what the original debate was about : not if some things are impossible in general. But if we can be absolutely certain that there are practical results that will always be impossible for science to achieve (traveling faster than light, change lead into gold etc...). And to that again, I say no, we can never be sure in advance.

I realised that he was having a laugh, but I assumed that it was just a joke rather than making a serious point, since the point is so obviously flawed. Since you take it seriously, so will I: I never suggested that doing multiple quotes was impossible. In fact, I implied that I thought it was possible. Just because I didn't have knowledge of how to do one thing does not mean that anything else that I cannot do is due to my lack of knowledge. That is incredibly stupid reasoning. I can quite easily not know how to do one thing and at the same time know that something else is impossible.

The point he was jokingly making is this : one of the huge way by which science progresses, is by trying to find ways to make possible things that were previously thought to be impossible.

That is incredibly stupid reasoning.

This coming from a guy who was wisely explaining a few posts before how logical debates can so easily turn personal... Don't worry, I'm not offended. Cause if I was, I would kind of prove I am indeed stupid. But if say nothing, then I implicitly agree I am stupid too ?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Deep Blue was a brute-force calculating machine, analyzing millions of possible chess moves in a second. You need a human brain's creativity, reasoning, logic, etc. to play a complicated game like Civ 4.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Are you joking, or are you on some seriously hard drug? If you go really believe in that kind of crap then you should go and see a specialist asap. You have obviously been brainwashed by someone and are now incapable of logical thoughts. I am not even going to start telling you why you are wrong because their is so much to say that i would double the size of this thread.

I have remained polite long enough but when someone tells me that sticking a needle in a doll can kill me that I can no longer contain myself.

If you really believe what you said then you are mad. MAD. M-A-D.

Wow, some pretty strong feelings here... I have to plead guilty, I'm afraid...
I won't of course try to "convince" you, that would be pointless. I agree that right now, this kind of knowledge cannot be grasped by "classical" scientific methods (although I don't see why we wouldn't get there in (a long) time). Right now, the only way to find these "other aspects of truth", is to just want to find them, for yourself, with an honest and open mind. Then you will. It's all there. But it cannot be "demonstrated" to you, at least not yet. If your goal is to "prove it's wrong", don't worry, you'll find a million arguments. But that doesn't matter. Because the only one really losing, or not gaining, something, will be yourself.

And as an aside, this view of the world for which you show so much contempt is shared by more than a billion persons on earth (hinduists, buddhists, etc...) for more than 5000 years, which of course proves nothing but maybe deserves a little nuance in the phrasing of your opinions...

 

[Zombie69]

Deep Blue was a brute-force calculating machine, analyzing millions of possible chess moves in a second. You need a human brain's creativity, reasoning, logic, etc. to play a complicated game like Civ 4.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to speak up. Deep Blue was not brute force. Deep Blue had databases of openings, end games and a pletora of games played by Grand Masters, including Kasparov himself.

Computer chess programs are often amazingly creative, finding solutions nobody else would have thought of. And they always use reasoning and logic.

 

[Zombie69]

NapoléonPremier, i agree with Lord Olleus that you're a crackpot and should be interned.

As for buddism and hinduism, well there are also about 6 billion people who believe in some form of god, and that doesn't make the concept any less ridiculous.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to speak up. Deep Blue was not brute force. Deep Blue had databases of openings, end games and a pletora of games played by Grand Masters, including Kasparov himself.

Computer chess programs are often amazingly creative, finding solutions nobody else would have thought of. And they always use reasoning and logic.

So that would make it good at playing Civ 4? Or that it would match the intellect of a human being?
Better shut up if you're going to speak like that.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.

Then the Civ AI should be imbued with a soul, since it was created as "something that ought to be intelligent"...

 

[jar2574]

I don't think you're crazy NapoléonPremier, despite what our resident psyciatrists would say. Seems they would be locking up most of mankind.

Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going towards placing perfectly reasonable people in the nut house for holding beliefs that cannot be proven scientifically.

I do like your humor though, so keep up the good work.

 

[vanityfair]

Pretty interesting discussion here. On a game forum!

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

You can't have it both ways. You are asking for scientific evidence of phenomena that science can not explain or define in the first place. By definition, any discussion of such things as 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' will be supernatural, as there is currently no scientific basis for these notions. Our only evidence for existence of 'consciousness' is the fact that we are conscious (or in other words, it's what we 'believe'). It may get us nowhere, but right now it's all we got!

That is not to say that some discovery in the future might lead us to a deep understanding of such things. However, wether such an understanding is possible at all is one of the most profound questions of our existence and I don't think we can resolve it here!

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to speak up. Deep Blue was not brute force. Deep Blue had databases of openings, end games and a pletora of games played by Grand Masters, including Kasparov himself.

Computer chess programs are often amazingly creative, finding solutions nobody else would have thought of. And they always use reasoning and logic.

Sorry Zombie but I have to disagree with you here. From wiki:

The system derives its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It is a massively parallel, 30-node, RS/6000, SP-based computer system enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program is written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of evaluating 200,000,000 positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer, although this did not take into account Deep Blue's special-purpose hardware for chess.

While computers do find creative moves, they do so by brute force methods.

 

[jar2574]

You can't have it both ways. You are asking for scientific evidence of phenomena that science can not explain or define in the first place. By definition, any discussion of such things as 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' will be supernatural, as there is currently no scientific basis for these notions. Our only evidence for existence of 'consciousness' is the fact that we are conscious (or in other words, it's what we 'believe'). It may get us nowhere, but right now it's all we got!

Damn! I wish I would have said this about 10 posts ago. That is a far more succinct way of saying what I was grasping for.

 

[jar2574]

NapoléonPremier, i agree with Lord Olleus that you're a crackpot and should be interned.

Oh gee Zombie, lighten up a bit. You sound like the Grand Inquisitor.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but now the whole thing is just completely arbitrary : if we don't consider how this hypothetical brain replica might be built (which would influence the entry/non entry of a "soul"), and since we don't define in the slightest way what a "soul" could consist of and what would be the nature of its interaction with the physical universe, then this "gedankexperiment" (that's the German word, jawohl !) turns into a game of "I believe" or "I don't believe", bringing us virtually no insight at all.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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

They don't ?!?

 

[joethreeblah]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but now the whole thing is just completely arbitrary : if we don't consider how this hypothetical brain replica might be built (which would influence the entry/non entry of a "soul"), and since we don't define in the slightest way what a "soul" could consist of and what would be the nature of its interaction with the physical universe, then this "gedankexperiment" (that's the German word, jawohl !) turns into a game of "I believe" or "I don't believe", bringing us virtually no insight at all.

Maybe the game AI's would begin to have discussions about whether it would be possible to make us smarter or not.

 

[MxxPwr]

Maybe the game AI's would begin to have discussions about whether it would be possible to make us smarter or not.

I had an epiphany a few years ago when it came to pinning down the X-Factor of human intelligence.

I was watching some science show on PBS. It had Alan Alda as the host, so I'm thinking it was Scientific American. Anyway, the article in one episode was about the problem solving ability of the wolf spider (a jumper). The puzzle was this. They put prey (a fly; if I remember right) on one platform and the spider on a separate platform too far away for the spider to jump to. It wants to get to the prey, so it first climbs down the platform and is faced with 3 metal rods that criss-cross over each other. Only one rod goes to the platform with the prey. The other two are dead ends. Just about everytime, the spider properly evaluates the situation and choses the correct rod and gets to the prey. A beautiful example of animal intelligence. From an arachnid no less. Evaluation; problem solving; everything you would want from a computer AI; honestly.

So, I asked myself, what truly is the difference between humans and animals. There is something, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

And that's when it came to me.

Start with the same situation: two platforms; a human on one; and a target platform too far away to jump to. Now say to him, 'Okay, the other platform is too far away for you to jump to. You must find another way to get to the other platform. Start!'

What would happen? The human would say, 'I can make that jump.' And would probably hurt himself trying to jump to the other platform. Heh, heh, I could just imagine the frustration of the scientist doing the study as subject after subject disregarded the warning (and the broken bodies below) and still thought: I can make that jump.

That's it. That's the difference. You see it everywhere. Nothing is impossible. Nothing is unprovable. We can do anything; we just need time.

So, there you have it. Apparently, to be intelligent like us; sentient like us; an animal (or computer), would have to be arrogant, crazy and self-deluded to the point where it thinks it can do anything.

Funny ain't it?

 

[Zombie69]

So that would make it good at playing Civ 4? Or that it would match the intellect of a human being?
Better shut up if you're going to speak like that.

No and no, but i never implied either. Some computers could, but not Deep Blue.

Better read carefully before you tell people to shut up.

 

[Zombie69]

Sorry Zombie but I have to disagree with you here. From wiki:

You need to stop trusting wikipedia, the least reliable source of information anywhere on the web.

 

[warpus]

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.

It can be valuable, yes. If souls really exist then building a sentient machine might be impossible - and in this respect I'm glad that they were brought up. It is an important point to make. However, in the end, we've got to ask ourselves if there really is any evidence that souls exist - and there isn't. So when somebody says "X, because Y", Y better have some backing.. as in, evidence, hard data, etc. If it's just something pulled out of thin air with no backing at all, then X becomes meaningless and doesn't add to the discussion.

Bringing up theological ideas such as souls is not the problem. The problem is using unsubstantiated claims to back up other claims.. such as - "You can't build a sentient machine since souls exist". Alright, but do they exist? Where is the evidence that they do?

I did start by saying "I think" and mentioned "in my opinion". So while it isn't 'evidence' that part is not circular logic, just an opinion.

It's an opinion based on circular logic. "I think X because of Y because of X". But that point is moot.. I respect your opinion and all, but it would be nice if you showed us how you reached that conclusion - especially since there isn't any evidence to back up what you're saying.

I can easily say "it's impossible for humans to fly to mars and live there". That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. But if I'm unable to explain how I reached that conclusion, my point won't be taken very seriously.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better not to speak up. Deep Blue was not brute force. Deep Blue had databases of openings, end games and a pletora of games played by Grand Masters, including Kasparov himself.

Computer chess programs are often amazingly creative, finding solutions nobody else would have thought of. And they always use reasoning and logic.

You're the one who doesn't understand how Deep Blue works.

The system derives its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It is a massively parallel, 30-node, RS/6000, SP-based computer system enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program is written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of evaluating 200,000,000 positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version.

By definition, any discussion of such things as 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' will be supernatural, as there is currently no scientific basis for these notions.

There has been a lot of scientific work done in the areas of intelligence and consciousness. There are no clear answers, sure, but we do have some ideas about these things.. And they do not involve the supernatural in any way!

Bringing the supernatural into play whenever you're stuck and can't fully explain a problem, is a cop-out. Thousands of years ago people didn't understand what stars were - they couldn't explain them, so they attributed them to various Gods. Volcanos? Oh, those were sent by Gods to punish us. Floods? Same thing. How did humans get here? Gods built us! Why are we intelligent? Zeus said so.

Cop-out.

So, I asked myself, what truly is the difference between humans and animals.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but.. we are animals

As for the difference between us and the other animals, I think you're sort of right. IMO, we're able to look at a situation and reason about it. We're also able to take 2 distinct concepts and merge them into an entirely new concept - I don't think any other animal can do this.

All in all there are various degrees of intelligence - and we just happen to be at the top of the pile - as far as life on this planet is concerned anyway.

You need to stop trusting wikipedia, the least reliable source of information anywhere on the web.

No offense, but I'd rather trust wikipedia than you.

You're totally wrong about Deep Blue not using a brute force approach. It does!

This goes back to what I was talking about before - anybody can make a wild claim without backing it up. "Deep Blue doesn't use brute force!". But unless you can back this statement up you're not adding anything of significance to the discussion. If you could find some hard data showing that Deep Blue does not use a brute force algorithm as the basis for its chess-playing mastery, then this conversation would turn into something 10x times as interesting! But until you can do that, nobody's going to take what you say on your faith alone. (Unless they believe the exact same thing, of course)