Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[Zombie69]

Fair enough.

Sometimes I wonder why we (and I mean everybody; not just you or me) are even pondering about programming a computer to think like a human.

Maybe we should be programming a computer to problem solve like a spider, insect, or heck even other mammals; seriously. It would be a lot more practical. Maybe it would even a better opponent, since humans do get bogged down in psychological hangups that other intelligences don't have.

I think the main reason is that we have no idea how other forms of life solve problems, so we have nothing to base it on!

 

[Zombie69]

Part of Deep Blue's success comes from brute force. The articles on the site support that. Articles from many other sites do as well.

If you know what brute force means, then you know that this is not what Deep Blue used. Since you like wikipedia so much, try this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search

Or maybe you could rise to the atreas' challenge and tell us what your definition of brute force is. It certainly isn't anything like what all computer programers use.

 

[Zombie69]

I added the bold to make a small point in your otherwise excellent message #332.
Identical objects do not behave in the same identical way! Two Plutonium masses (assume tiny masses that won't explode) will deteriorate at the same rate but not at identical times! Sure over a give time span they'll emit the same amount of radiation, but the particles will be emmitted at (as far as we know) random intervals. Random or not, for sure they'll be different.

I would argue that the only reason they emit radiation at different times is because they're influenced to do so by different external factors. Placed in the exact same environment (down to the last particle), they would emit radiation at the exact same time. But then again, i don't believe in randomness.

 

[Pawel]

There are no relevant external factors in radioactive decay of Pu.

 

[Brighteye]

No one has proven that intelligence is solely the result of the physical world.

No one has proven that souls do not exist.

Under your thought experiment souls may exist outside the laws of the physical world. Those souls create human intelligence/self-awareness. The humans then affect the physical world. This is possible under your thought experiment. It did not prove that souls are irrelevant to all forms of intelligence.



No one has proven that intelligence is solely the part of the physical world, or that souls do not exist. So in your thought experiment we cannot assume that physical laws must hold. Physically identical objects could behave differently because one had a soul and one did not.

Only something supernatural could possibly have free will because everything natural follows natural laws and cannot escape them.

Everything natural follows natural laws. Both objects are natural, in that they are within the physical world. The 'interlocking cause and effect structure of the universe' means that physically identical obects behave the same. If you say that souls make these objects behave differently then a soul is a physical entity, because if it is not then physically identical objects behave differently, disobeying the law of cause and effect. If it is a physical entity we should know what it's made from, be able to measure it etc.

As I said in my original posts, you can try to justify your belief in how souls work by now denying what we know to be a law of nature: that the two identical objects will behave the same (on a larger than quantum level). If you deny what science shows to be true, you are taking a far greater step than simply enunciating a theology. You are rejecting logical conclusions, tested and evaluated by experiment, for irrational belief.

As someone said earlier, science has limited the realms of belief, because that belief has been shown to be misplaced. There is still plenty of room in our philosophy and metaphysics for religious ideas, but not in the subject of AI.

This is what other posters have been finding troublesome. We have a natural law, which the vast majority of the human race takes to be a law, and which you deny on the basis of your beliefs. We can discuss metaphysics all you like, but trying to make metaphysics/theology encroach on what is now science is a form of psychosis.

So, no-one has proven intelligence to be solely physical. But that is not necessary. In as far as it is physical, it follows physical laws. This is all that is necessary.
No-one has proven souls do not exist. That also is not necessary or possible. What is important is that as far as souls affect the physical world, the effects are part of the physical world and follow physical laws.
'All forms of intelligence'? Setting yourself up to wriggle away from the point. In my previous few posts I carefully defined intelligence (as I see it) as influencing decision-making capacity. For the definitions of intelligence that fit this description, my point holds. For others, it doesn't. That's all that matters; you can define these various forms of intelligence as in either one category or the other. I don't mind.

I would not define intelligence solely as self-awareness. But human intelligence includes the concept of self-awareness. Since your thought experiment dealt with the human brain, it was dealing with the concept of self-awareness. Your thought experiment is doomed because it dealt with the human brain and not simply two "intelligent" machines which do not have self-awareness.

You claimed that two identical brains would have to act identically.
Human brains belong to self-aware creatures.
Human actions are influenced by self-awareness.
The first human brain would have been self-aware.
You claimed that the second human brain would have acted identically.
So you were claiming that souls are irrelevant to self-awareness/human intelligence.

Now it seems that you want to back off that claim and admit that the second-brain would not necessarily behave identically.

Ok, the second paragraph is right. I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm backing off this claim. Apart from quantum behaviour, which everyone believes to be random and not related to consciousness or intelligence, the two brains will function identically.

Let's dissect your argument. Intelligence includes self awareness. Intelligence is more than self-awareness. My experiment dealt with a thing that has self-awareness. Therefore my experiment concerned self awareness. Therefore my experiment is doomed.
The first three sentences are true premisses. The fourth is not necessarily true and the fifth is entirely flawed. It does not follow from any of the previous four.
How does self awareness make my point wrong?

We have two contrasting opinions. I give science priority wherever it has something to say about the world. You seem to give yor belief in souls and their functions priority.
If your beliefs have priority over logical thought and empirical evidence you resemble the Christian evangelicals (and ID proponents) and the Muslim fanatics who most people find odd (to say the least). We live in the physical world, and to deny the laws thereof and believe your own is, as I have said, a lapse in thinking.
What's that quote from Galileo: 'I cannot believe that God gave us minds capable of logical thought if he did not intend us to use them'? Something like that.

 

[Zombie69]

There are no relevant external factors in radioactive decay of Pu.

That we know of.

 

[warpus]

This is a tricky question, since what constitutes a good book very much depends on the background of the reader. In general, books that discuss the philosphical aspects rarely have much detail, while textbooks tend to focus on how things work rather than what they mean. Also, many books meant to give you an introduction to the topic cut out concepts that become important later on. A textbook that is a little older, but reasonably easy to digest and which covers a very wide range of topics is Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. by Leonard I. Schiff from 1968. It starts out with the very first ideas and takes you all the way to 2nd quantization (where particles are created and destroyed). In the beginning you get familiar with how wave functions work, and later the matrix concepts are introduced together with Dirac's bra-ket notation. Then you will see how the time evolution of a state works in both the Schrodinger and Heisenberg pictures. More modern textbooks (like Sakurai) usually put more emphasis on group theory, but I think that is not as important from a philosophical point of view.

I should have given you some background information..

I have a basic understanding of quantum physics and string/m-theory but no formal education in either field. What I know I've mostly learned from Brian Greene books, as well as 'In search of Schrodinger's Cat' by Griffin, a couple books by Hawking, plus some other authors I do not remember atm.

What I do have an extensive knowledge of is mathematics, which is why I asked you to recommend a book when you brought up Hilbert spaces. I know what they are and I can work through the math.. and I'd be VERY interested to read up on how exactly a probability wave can be viewed as a state in Hilbert space.

By 'extensive knowledge of mathematics' I mean that I've taken university-level statistics, probability, combinatorics, graph theory, calculus, linear algebra, logic, etc.

 

[jar2574]

Deep Blue applies brute force aplenty, but the "intelligence" is the old-fashioned kind.

If you know what brute force means, then you know that this is not what Deep Blue used.

??? ??? So which one is it Zombie? Does it use brute force "aplenty" or does Deep Blue not use brute force at all?

Since you like wikipedia so much, try this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search

I did not quote wikipedia. I never stated that I like wikipedia.

You did offer an earlier comment on wikipedia, however:

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

Either wikipedia is a good source to quote from or it isn't. Which one is it Zombie?

Irregardless of whether or not I had ever quoted wikipedia, it is hypocritical to argue that a source is "the least reliable source of information anywhere on the web" and then use that source a day later to back up an argument.

Or maybe you could rise to the atreas' challenge and tell us what your definition of brute force is. It certainly isn't anything like what all computer programers use.

atreas did not challenge me to define brute force.

Since your definition appears to change from day to day I doubt that computer programers use it either.

Hopefully you'll soon rise to the challenges of (1) reading carefully and not attributing posts to people who did not make them, and (2) maintaining consistency in your statements. I won't hold my breath.

 

[warpus]

As much as I have caught up on this thread (was gone all weekend), I haven't seen that the side denying souls has proposed a decent explanation for any of these 3.

I don't deny souls. I haven't seen any proof from your end (or from anyone) that they exist, so to me they are a non-issue.

We haven't seen any evidence that invisible monkeys do not exist either.

You can't prove the non-existence of something. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming that something exists.

I have never claimed to be able to explain free will nor sentience. You claim that you can - using souls. The burden of proof lies with you (or whoever made the claim), not with anybody else.

I think the main reason is that we have no idea how other forms of life solve problems, so we have nothing to base it on!

Don't we though? All animals use a highly complex neural net to make decisions and to solve problems.

This includes spiders and humans.

I would argue that the only reason they emit radiation at different times is because they're influenced to do so by different external factors. Placed in the exact same environment (down to the last particle), they would emit radiation at the exact same time. But then again, i don't believe in randomness.

One of the fundamental ideas behind quantum physics is that such 2 atoms, placed in the exact same environment, would emit radiation at different intervals.

To question this would be to question all of modern quantum physics.

 

[Pawel]

I should have given you some background information..

I have a basic understanding of quantum physics and string/m-theory but no formal education in either field. What I know I've mostly learned from Brian Greene books, as well as 'In search of Schrodinger's Cat' by Griffin, a couple books by Hawking, plus some other authors I do not remember atm.

What I do have an extensive knowledge of is mathematics, which is why I asked you to recommend a book when you brought up Hilbert spaces. I know what they are and I can work through the math.. and I'd be VERY interested to read up on how exactly a probability wave can be viewed as a state in Hilbert space.

By 'extensive knowledge of mathematics' I mean that I've taken university-level statistics, probability, combinatorics, graph theory, calculus, linear algebra, logic, etc.

Well, then Schiff is probably a good place to start. You don't have to read each chapter in detail, you know.

 

[Zombie69]

So which one is it Zombie? Does it use brute force "aplenty" or does Deep Blue not use brute force at all?

At the very least in the programming sense of the expression "brute force", it doesn't. If you have another definition of the term, please share it with us.

It's very possible that the guy who wrote that sentence on the IBM page didn't know what a brute force algorithm is and was using another definition, or was just plain wrong. He may have been a media relation type, and not a programer.

I did not quote wikipedia. I never stated that I like wikipedia.

Someone else did in this thread. He used a wiki page on Deep Blue to "prove" that it used brute force. I must have mistaken you for him.

You did offer an earlier comment on wikipedia, however:

Either wikipedia is a good source to quote from or it isn't. Which one is it Zombie?

Irregardless of whether or not I had ever quoted wikipedia, it is hypocritical to argue that a source is "the least reliable source of information anywhere on the web" and then use that source a day later to back up an argument.

Regardless of whether or not you think "irregardless" is an actual word...

As far as i'm concerned, wikipedia is worthless. But if someone believes in it strongly enough that he thinks a quote from there is a good argument to prove a point, i felt it would be a good idea to counter him on his own playground. If nothing else, it would prove at the very least that wikipedia is self-contradictory and not to be trusted.

As it turns out, pointing out the wikipedia page on brute force is pointless with you since you're not that guy, and like me don't trust that source. So please disregard that post.

atreas did not challenge me to define brute force.

Atreas challenged everyone who thought Deep Blue used brute force to define what brute force meant.

 

[Zombie69]

One of the fundamental ideas behind quantum physics is that such 2 atoms, placed in the exact same environment, would emit radiation at different intervals.

To question this would be to question all of modern quantum physics.

Well, i do question all of modern quantum physics!

I strongly believe the universe to be deterministic in every aspect. I could not imagine science working otherwise. To me, the concept of randomness is only something thrown in to account for causal effects which we have no way of detecting at the present. I'm sure quantum physics will be modified to include this in due time. All that is required, after all, is an element currently unknown to us (very likely that one exists since we do find new sub-atomic particles on a somewhat regular basis) that affects the system, and the randomness can be taken out of the equation.

 

[Pawel]

Fair enough. Others have been drawn that way too. For instance, I mentioned Bohm some posts ago. There are, however, things like Bell's theorem that suggest the randomness to be a fundamental property, not just a limit of our knowledge.

 

[jar2574]

As I said in my original posts, you can try to justify your belief in how souls work by now denying what we know to be a law of nature: that the two identical objects will behave the same (on a larger than quantum level).

You argue that the objects that we have replicated so far have behaved the same. This does not mean that all objects that we will ever replicate will behave the same.

Who proved that two identical brains will behave the same? Who proved that any self-aware object will behave identically when replicated?

If you deny what science shows to be true, you are taking a far greater step than simply enunciating a theology. You are rejecting logical conclusions, tested and evaluated by experiment, for irrational belief.

Science has not shown that identical brains behave identically. Science has not shown that any identical self-aware objects behaves identically. These things have never been tested or evaluated. Your 'logical' conclusions do not necessarily follow from your thought experiment.

As someone said earlier, science has limited the realms of belief, because that belief has been shown to be misplaced. There is still plenty of room in our philosophy and metaphysics for religious ideas, but not in the subject of AI.

Human intelligence has not been replicated. That's why there is still plenty of room for the soul in a discussion about the creation of intelligence.

This is what other posters have been finding troublesome. We have a natural law, which the vast majority of the human race takes to be a law, and which you deny on the basis of your beliefs. We can discuss metaphysics all you like, but trying to make metaphysics/theology encroach on what is now science is a form of psychosis.

I never denied natural law. I rejected your conclusions because they have not been tested. And because they do not follow from your thought experiment.

So, no-one has proven intelligence to be solely physical. But that is not necessary. In as far as it is physical, it follows physical laws. This is all that is necessary.

If intelligence is derived from non-physical sources then a physically identical brain may not behave identically.

No-one has proven souls do not exist. That also is not necessary or possible. What is important is that as far as souls affect the physical world, the effects are part of the physical world and follow physical laws.

Souls could be necessary for awareness and human intelligence because (a) they may exist, and (b) intelligence may sometimes come from non-phsyical sources.

'All forms of intelligence'? Setting yourself up to wriggle away from the point. In my previous few posts I carefully defined intelligence (as I see it) as influencing decision-making capacity. For the definitions of intelligence that fit this description, my point holds. For others, it doesn't. That's all that matters; you can define these various forms of intelligence as in either one category or the other. I don't mind..

I am not the one wriggling away from the point. You're the one that started out with the claim "souls are irrelevant to intelligence" before modifying "intelligence" to be less broad.

Regardless, your claim is still incorrect.
You claimed that souls were irrelevant to intelligence as you defined it.
If they are relevant to a form of intelligence as you defined it then your statement is incorrect.
If souls imbue brains with human intelligence then they influence decision-making capacity; therefore they are not always irrelevant to all forms of intelligence as you define it.

Ok, the second paragraph is right. I don't know what gave you the idea that I'm backing off this claim. Apart from quantum behaviour, which everyone believes to be random and not related to consciousness or intelligence, the two brains will function identically.

Let's dissect your argument. Intelligence includes self awareness. Intelligence is more than self-awareness. My experiment dealt with a thing that has self-awareness. Therefore my experiment concerned self awareness. Therefore my experiment is doomed.
The first three sentences are true premisses. The fourth is not necessarily true and the fifth is entirely flawed. It does not follow from any of the previous four.
How does self awareness make my point wrong?

You had said, "The only possible answer that saves your argument is to define intelligence as self-awareness or some other quality that may well not be necessary for decision making, and therefore with an influence on the world."

Self-awareness may not be be "necessary" for decision making, but it affects intelligence in cases where the decision maker is self-aware.

Self-awareness is part of your definition of intelligence because self-awareness influences decision-making.


My argument is:
(1) No one has proven that souls do not exist.
(2) No one has proven that intelligence is solely the product of the physical world.

(A) Intelligence includes self-awareness.
(B) Because of (1) and (2), souls could be the cause of self-awareness / human intelligence.
(C) Your experiment dealt with a thing that had self-awareness.
(D) Your experiment claimed that a physical replica of the thing would act identically, but did not claim that the physical replica would have a soul.
(E) Because of (B), the physical replica might not necessarily act identically.

We have two contrasting opinions. I give science priority wherever it has something to say about the world. You seem to give yor belief in souls and their functions priority.

You made claims based upon beliefs about how identical brains should operate. No scientific experiments have proven your beliefs to be correct.

I never claimed that souls existed. All my comments about souls were made within the context of your thought experiment, not within the context of a belief system.

If your beliefs have priority over logical thought and empirical evidence you resemble the Christian evangelicals (and ID proponents) and the Muslim fanatics who most people find odd (to say the least).

Agreed. Your belief that the soul does not exist must be clouding your logic, because your thought experiment does not prove what you believe it proves.

We live in the physical world, and to deny the laws thereof and believe your own is, as I have said, a lapse in thinking.

Agreed. I never denied the laws of the physical world. It has not been proven that the physical world creates self-awarenss, which is a form of intelligence as you define it.

What's that quote from Galileo: 'I cannot believe that God gave us minds capable of logical thought if he did not intend us to use them'? Something like that.

Agreed.

 

[jar2574]

OK all:

I've really enjoyed the thread. I enjoyed the dialogue with warpus and brighteye and Zombie. I thought 5cats and dbergen had some great posts too.

But my wife will kill me if I keep posting here. It's taking too much time out of my day.

I'll check in a couple days to see where it's gone, and maybe respond at that point. But for the moment I've got to get back to 'real life.'

 

[dbergan]

Re: The three pieces of evidence I presented in favor of human souls... (post 358)

I don't deny souls. I haven't seen any proof from your end (or from anyone) that they exist, so to me they are a non-issue.

We haven't seen any evidence that invisible monkeys do not exist either.

You can't prove the non-existence of something. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming that something exists.

I have never claimed to be able to explain free will nor sentience. You claim that you can - using souls. The burden of proof lies with you (or whoever made the claim), not with anybody else.

I do agree with your point that you cannot prove the non-existence of something. But the three things I presented (self-awareness, free will, and the omnipresent standard of logic) demand an explanation. The only reasonable explanation (that I know of) is that human beings are in part supernatural... which is another way of saying that we do have souls.

I am cautious in using the word "proof" but I do submit these 3 things as prima facie evidence for the existence of souls, unless someone has an alternative explanation to rebut with. But I hope that I get a better response than "I can't give a better explanation of your evidence, but that doesn't mean you're right." That sounds like the reasoning of a flat-earther...

 

[Zombie69]

Self awarness can be explained simply by the complexity of the brain. Dolphins are self-aware while cats aren't. This has been demonstrated by experiments. Nothing special about it.

I don't believe in free will. We only believe we have free will.

Your "omnipresent standard of logic", at least the way you present it, has nothing to do with humans at all. Any other intelligent life form in the universe would need to use the same standard (maybe phrased differently, but the same nevertheless). Just like they would arrive at the same conclusions about atoms, the forces governing the universe, etc. (again, maybe phrased differently but still the same).

 

[5cats]

Self awarness can be explained simply by the complexity of the brain. Dolphins are self-aware while cats aren't. This has been demonstrated by experiments. Nothing special about it.

I don't believe in free will. We only believe we have free will.

Sorry Zombie:
#1 I've stated that the complexity in the sentient creature isn't accountable by the "brain" so it's an opinion you're promoting, not a "fact" Simply? HA!
#2 Cats are mucho smarter than dolphins. While dolphins may resemble human intelligence, cats are in fact smarter. Simply compare smilodon with ANY dolphin ancestor.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/carnivora/sabretooth.html
And consider this:

It is a Fact: there are 3 things ALL humans are afraid of (ie that evoke the 'startle' reaction) spiders, snakes and 'big cats'. NOT dolphins.
Consider also that Smilodons had Prides, like lions. They were social animals, much like humans were.
Consider that the largest Dog is about 50 kilos. The largest Cat was about 450 Kilos. Size = brains. But NOT in the ocean!
Now:
consider that "We only believe we have free will" is in and of itself an admission that Free Will DOES EXIST.
Sorry Zombie, your 'logic' falls apart in a spectacular fashion.
(ps, don't denigrate cats while I'm around... )

Bonus:

To me, the concept of randomness is only something thrown in to account for causal effects which we have no way of detecting at the present. I'm sure quantum physics will be modified to include this in due time..

Sorry! But speculating about what the laws of physics will incorporate "in due time" is pure rubbish! RIGHT NOW (and the all caps is well justified) the LAWS of physics state that Plutonium will detereoriate in a random fashion.
Let us try to keep the conversation focused on what's real, and not "what you're sure will be" someday... because you'll look really stupid "someday" when it's 'proven' that molecular detereroration is truely random.

 

[Brighteye]

You argue that the objects that we have replicated so far have behaved the same. This does not mean that all objects that we will ever replicate will behave the same.

Who proved that two identical brains will behave the same? Who proved that any self-aware object will behave identically when replicated?

See later

Science has not shown that identical brains behave identically. Science has not shown that any identical self-aware objects behaves identically. These things have never been tested or evaluated. Your 'logical' conclusions do not necessarily follow from your thought experiment.

Same point as before, so see later again

Human intelligence has not been replicated. That's why there is still plenty of room for the soul in a discussion about the creation of intelligence.

Yes, I never said that the soul was not important in intelligence. I said that if it is it will be automatically imbued into any intelligence that we create, and therefore is not relevant to a discussion about AI.

I never denied natural law. I rejected your conclusions because they have not been tested. And because they do not follow from your thought experiment.

My 'conclusion' about identical things behaving the same is actually a premiss. It's a premiss that every scientist accepts and almost every human in everyday life also accepts. It's why when you turn the steering wheel to the left you expect the car to turn left too. Forces have always worked so that the machinery in the car turns those wheels.

If intelligence is derived from non-physical sources then a physically identical brain may not behave identically.

You believe in some sort of supernatural gift that makes humans intelligent but something identically constructed not intelligent. I'll save my argument for the end, when I've covered everything you've said.

Souls could be necessary for awareness and human intelligence because (a) they may exist, and (b) intelligence may sometimes come from non-phsyical sources.

Indeed. Souls could be. But my point was that if they are then they will be in anything that has the necessary functioning structures for intelligence.

I am not the one wriggling away from the point. You're the one that started out with the claim "souls are irrelevant to intelligence" before modifying "intelligence" to be less broad.

I defined intelligence in case our disagreement was due to poor definition. I didn't define it precisely, but only tried to clarify that we both thought that intelligence had an effect on decision-making, because that's all that is necessary for my point.
I may have phrased my original point like that (I can't remember), but as I have now said many times, my point is that they are irrelevant to creating intelligence because either they have no effect on intelligence or they will be present in every situation that requires them.

Regardless, your claim is still incorrect.
You claimed that souls were irrelevant to intelligence as you defined it.
If they are relevant to a form of intelligence as you defined it then your statement is incorrect.
If souls imbue brains with human intelligence then they influence decision-making capacity; therefore they are not always irrelevant to all forms of intelligence as you define it.

If souls imbue brains with intelligence they are not irrelevant to intelligence. You don't need any further argument to prove that point.
If I reword your last sentence, your argument is:
If souls affect decision-making capacity then they are relevant to decision-making capacity.
True, but not exactly a stunning insight. If you think that this answers my point then see my answer to the previous quotation.

You had said, "The only possible answer that saves your argument is to define intelligence as self-awareness or some other quality that may well not be necessary for decision making, and therefore with an influence on the world."

Self-awareness may not be be "necessary" for decision making, but it affects intelligence in cases where the decision maker is self-aware.

Self-awareness is part of your definition of intelligence because self-awareness influences decision-making.

Fair enough. We agree that self-awareness influences decision-making. I was just raising the possibility that you didn't.

My argument is:
(1) No one has proven that souls do not exist.
(2) No one has proven that intelligence is solely the product of the physical world.

(A) Intelligence includes self-awareness.
(B) Because of (1) and (2), souls could be the cause of self-awareness / human intelligence.
(C) Your experiment dealt with a thing that had self-awareness.
(D) Your experiment claimed that a physical replica of the thing would act identically, but did not claim that the physical replica would have a soul.
(E) Because of (B), the physical replica might not necessarily act identically.

1. A fundamental law of science and the physical world (on a larger than quantum scale) is cause and effect. Specifically for this argument, this includes the idea that an identical cause will have an identical effect.
2. A replica of a living, intelligent brain will be subject to this law.
3. (your point (B))
4. Intelligence influences decision-making, which is an effect in the physical world.
5. In as far as intelligence influences decision-making, the replica will be as intelligent as the original (from points 1 and 4)
6. From point 3, if souls do cause intelligence, the replica has a soul.
7. If souls do not cause intelligence, they are irrelevant to the debate about AI.
8. From point 6, if souls do cause intelligence, they are irrelevant to the debate about AI, because an AI will have one automatically.

You made claims based upon beliefs about how identical brains should operate. No scientific experiments have proven your beliefs to be correct.

indeed. Scientific experiments use point 1 as a premiss, not a conclusion. It is a fundamental part of our understanding of this world.

I never claimed that souls existed. All my comments about souls were made within the context of your thought experiment, not within the context of a belief system.

Fair enough. I misunderstood your comments. I would be surprised if you didn't believe that souls existed though.


To finish, one could argue that this property of intelligence is the only way that anything is free from the law of cause and effect. You might say this if you believed in free will. Thus you could make part of your definition of intelligence that it is not subject to my argument.
So, I would advance another argument.
If intelligence sets you apart from cause and effect, why is intelligence itself separate from cause and effect? If a brain (a physical object) causes intelligence in the physical world, why should a similar object not cause intelligence, and free itself from the world? If intelligence is due to souls, this replica will contain a soul.
If you set intelligence as free from the law of cause and effect, it's an arbitrary standard for which I can see no rational basis. Given that at the moment we believe the law to be universal, if you advance this proposition the onus is on you to justify it.
Not only this, but although this argument may mean that they will make different decisions, it still hasn't completely covered intelligence, which also involves the ability to evaluate things. With the same physical construction their ability cannot be different unless souls have physical properties. If they do, then our physical replica will include those properties.

To reiterate, my thought experiment gave rise to three situations:
1. Both the replica and brain have souls.
2. Only one has a soul
3. Neither has a soul
I still believe that option 2 is impossible, and I have explained why at great length. Given that option 2 is impossible, the concept of a soul is not important for AI, because whether it has one or not it will be the same as we are, and therefore intelligent (since we apply the term 'intelligent' to ourselves).

 

[5cats]

Aside:

While I do truely respect Zombie, Napoleon, Jar, warpus, Pawel and every single person who has posted in this thread, I simply CANNOT stad idly by and listen to someone saying: "This has been demonstrated by experiments. Nothing special about it."
And
"Dolphins are self-aware while cats aren't."
If you admit that some creatures ARE self aware, and others NOT, then you are in fact agreeing with me! Period! Squirm all you like, you're "on the hook" and about to be "reeled in" !!!
I don't point this out just to pick on Zombie, or anyone else. I simply ask that we all try to remain internally consistant.
>>Think before you type
>>Follow your 'logic' to its conclusion
>>Don't be afraid of "being wrong"
There are no "wrong" answers, but there are some stupid ones...

This is, in My Humble Opinion (IMHO) the coolest and most fun thread in the forum! I sincerely congradulate all involved in the wonderful dialogue that has been conducted.
Just my 0.02$$ But heart felt