Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[5cats]

#1 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.

#2 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.


#3 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.


#4 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.

#5 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.

#6 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.

#7 From point 3, if souls do cause intelligence, the replica has a soul.

#8 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.

#9 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.

#10 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).

Omg! Where to begin, perhaps at #1?
I've edited a bit and numbered the statements for clarity. If that isn't OK with Brighteye then I'll adapt and adjust.

#1: NO! "the same" and "Identical" are completely different! I've already demonstrated how identical things can behave differently. "Every scientist" does NOT "accept" your conclusion. Repetition does not imply correctness, this has been pointed out repeatedly by the 'no soul' camp.

#2: Intelligent and Sentient are different. Don't confuse them!

#3: this is pure conjecture on your part, however, it isn't outside what I've been proposing. You're still skirting around the issue of HOW sentience is carried in purely physical means (and that IS the basis of your arguement).

#4 Here again you confuse intelligence with sentience. A bacteria is "intelligent" (it avoids things that will kill it) but it is in no way sentient. I (5Cats) defined it precisely, and hope that others will either follow this definition or refute it.

#5 Ditto

#6 No it does not! Identical cause does NOT "require" identical effect! We are not talking about simple things like "mass" and "acceleration" here! And we are in no way "excluding" the quantum universe! There is, in fact, no way for two different objects to experience "identical" causes. It's self-explanitory!

#7 This might be true, but it is not "logical" or a "given". You can't butter both sides of the bread.

#8 No no NO! We (I) are in no way equating the "brain" with "sentience"!!! Your point is that physical things are subject ot cause and effect. Granted! But WE (I) are saying that the soul is NOT PHYSICAL. And so your point is moot.

#9 I was tempted to skip this entirely, give it is floundering in illogic, but I'll try to address it. Ok, intelligennce is not sentience, That's been covered. Cause and effect is NOT "universal" since it doesn't apply to the quantum. Period!
If they make "different decisions" then explain how they are identical! You still can't butter both sides of the bread!

#10 This fails because of the difference between intelligence and sentience. But aside from that: Why is it only possible for either or neither to have a soul? Given that we don't fully understand sentience (or intelligence for that matter) at this point, how are we to ascribe the source/cause of it purely to the physical? You may well believe that #2 is impossible, but it is just that: a belief.

Brighteye I truely hope you don't take this personally. You've contributed a great deal to this discussion, it's just that I have questions specifically about your conclusions in this particular post.

 

[Brighteye]

Omg! Where to begin, perhaps at #1?
I've edited a bit and numbered the statements for clarity. If that isn't OK with Brighteye then I'll adapt and adjust.

yep, fine. Anything for the sake of clarity.

#1: NO! "the same" and "Identical" are completely different! I've already demonstrated how identical things can behave differently. "Every scientist" does NOT "accept" your conclusion. Repetition does not imply correctness, this has been pointed out repeatedly by the 'no soul' camp.

Where did you demonstrate this, other than for quantum effects? This is the first time that anyone has denied this premiss (not conclusion), and so I repeated it because it's an important point. The essence of science is testing a theory by experiment. If you do not accept that your experimental intervention will have a given effect when done in the same situation then your experiments are pointless. Scientists, because of what they do, accept cause and effect.

#2: Intelligent and Sentient are different. Don't confuse them!

Sentience=is capable of feeling (OED). Different from intelligence=faculty of understanding. However, the only way sentience was remotely involved in my discussion was self-awareness and its effect on decision-making. Of course the two are different, but I didn't care, so I left Jar2574's definition of intelligence as including self-awareness as it was. If you disagree with Jar's definition that's fine. But it wasn't my idea.

#3: this is pure conjecture on your part, however, it isn't outside what I've been proposing. You're still skirting around the issue of HOW sentience is carried in purely physical means (and that IS the basis of your arguement).

I don't give a stuff about sentience. My focus is on intelligence. Try reading the book I have mentioned: 'A Universe of Consciousness' by Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi if you want a consistent theory of how intelligence and consciousness have a physical basis.

#4 Here again you confuse intelligence with sentience. A bacteria is "intelligent" (it avoids things that will kill it) but it is in no way sentient. I (5Cats) defined it precisely, and hope that others will either follow this definition or refute it.

A bacterium is not intelligent. It has no capability of understanding. You're getting muddled now.

#6 No it does not! Identical cause does NOT "require" identical effect! We are not talking about simple things like "mass" and "acceleration" here! And we are in no way "excluding" the quantum universe! There is, in fact, no way for two different objects to experience "identical" causes. It's self-explanitory!

Identical cause does require identical effect as you put it. That's what identical is.
'W. V. QUINE in Jrnl. Philos. 4 Mar. 1943 113 One of the fundamental principles governing identity is that of substitutivity-or, as it might well be called, that of indiscernibility of identicals.'
OED:Agreeing entirely in material, constitution, properties, qualities... so that any one of them may, for all purposes, or for the purposes contemplated, be substituted for any other.
I'm not making this up. If we substitute our replica or one of its identical experiences in for the original or its experiences then everything will be the same, because that's what identical is. It's the definition of the word!
The second point, that there is no way for two objects to experience identical causes, is true as far as I know. As far as I'm concerned it's not important. We're talking about whether there would be intelligence in an artificially created brain/brain imitation, not whether we can actually get this imitation to do exactly what the person does.

#7 This might be true, but it is not "logical" or a "given". You can't butter both sides of the bread.

I should have said 'from points 3 and 5'. If you allow me 3 and 5, you must accept point 6. It is a logical conclusion. Find the fault with 5, but don't pretend that this isn't a logical step from it.

#8 No no NO! We (I) are in no way equating the "brain" with "sentience"!!! Your point is that physical things are subject ot cause and effect. Granted! But WE (I) are saying that the soul is NOT PHYSICAL. And so your point is moot.

The soul is not physical. But if it has physical properties (affects the physical world by granting intelligence, which affects the physical world) then these physical properties are physical properties like any other and are subject to the law of cause and effect. therefore either a soul will be in a replica, to grant the physical properties that the soul is credited with causing, or else the soul does not cause these properties (intelligence) and is not important for a discussion about creating AI.
If the brain is not where sentience and intelligence reside, tell me how we can eliminate both by eliminating the brain, or give me an example of sentience without a brain (or brain-like object).

#9 I was tempted to skip this entirely, give it is floundering in illogic, but I'll try to address it. Ok, intelligennce is not sentience, That's been covered. Cause and effect is NOT "universal" since it doesn't apply to the quantum. Period!
If they make "different decisions" then explain how they are identical! You still can't butter both sides of the bread!

Cause and effect applies to the situation we are discussing. I used the term universal for effect. I stated quite clearly earlier on that the exception of quantum seems to me irrelevant to the point. If you disagree then say so clearly, rather than carping about how I couldn't be bothered to restate the exception again.
If they make different decisions then they can still be as intelligent as each other. I was anticipating a counter-argument, and wrote this to explain the anticipated counter, so if it's floundering in illogicality its because it didn't support my point. If you have postulated that intelligence in the brain separates us from cause and effect (the argument I was expecting), then I am entitled to carry on from this premiss by allowing two objects that are as intelligent as each other to make different decisions, because you have given them free will. If you do not make the original assumption, then my argument is unnecessary because it is only there to make my point in the case of this assumption.
Therefore I can have two sides buttered: one each on two pieces of bread.

#10 This fails because of the difference between intelligence and sentience. But aside from that: Why is it only possible for either or neither to have a soul? Given that we don't fully understand sentience (or intelligence for that matter) at this point, how are we to ascribe the source/cause of it purely to the physical? You may well believe that #2 is impossible, but it is just that: a belief.

I don't see what relevance the difference between sentience and intelligence has on the point you labelled as 10.
We don't have to ascribe the source as purely physical. We just have to acknowledge that as far as it has physical implications it is subject to physical laws. Thus the soul can be from outside this world, but as soon as it has physical effects these effects must follow physical laws. Therefore the soul is constrained to some extent by the physical laws as well, if it has physical effects.
If you will not accept that the soul's physical effects are governed by physical laws then you are giving the rules of the supernatural world priority over the laws of the natural one. Put this another way and you're putting subjective opinion as higher than objective knowledge. Congratulations! Solipsism, fundamentalism/cultism, psychoses and illegal drugs are now your bedfellows. Many respectable people had more than one of those four, but that's not what gets them my respect.

Brighteye I truely hope you don't take this personally. You've contributed a great deal to this discussion, it's just that I have questions specifically about your conclusions in this particular post.

Nothing personal. You're a very amiable lot. Particularly Napoleon.

 

[jar2574]

with the wife in the other room.

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..

Yes. But you are treating this premise as if it were 100% certain. It is actually a conculsion that you have made that is unsupported by the premises in your argument. You were treating the mere premise that identical things behave the same as if it was a logical truth. It is not. See below.

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.

Agreed. But just because it is a scientific law does not make it a logical certainty in your thought experiment. Let me quote from some of dbergen's work, he explains this stuff much better than me.

"There are two levels of knowledge: a) certain knowledge (a priori knowledge, which is based on universal/eternal principles and reached through reason) and b) probable knowledge (a posteriori knowledge based on temporal, physical, or historical events and reached through experience).

If something is demonstrated to be true in the realm of certain knowledge, it is and always will be true.

In the realm of probable knowledge, the best we can do is establish degrees of certainty, but never reach 100% certainty. Common descriptions in this realm are to consider things true “based on a preponderance of the evidence,” “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the highest label is to consider something a “scientific law.”
Scientific laws are not certain knowledge because they are based on experience and interpretation… "

2. A replica of a living, intelligent brain will be subject to this law.

This is actually a conclusion that you are including as a premise of your argument from which all else follows. This conclusory premise has not been proven.

This premise is not a logical truth.
This premise is not necessarily true under probable knowledge because it has not been tested. You may be 99.99999% sure that brains will act like other physical objects when replicated. But you are not absolutely sure until you test them.

Your thought experiment does not logically prove that souls are irrelevant to AI. You are mistaking a scientific law for a logical certainty.

Your thought experiment does not prove that souls do affect AI under probable knowledge because it is not an actual experiment.

My argument stands:
(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.

 

[Brighteye]

I am indeed using a scientific law as a logical certainty. This is because it is the only conclusion we can reach about the world after observing it. If I took someone on the street and asked why a car turned left, he would answer that the driver steered it left. And if I asked why another car turned left, he would say the sme thing again. And be a bit puzzled with me. If I then asked him why both cars turned left when steered left, rather than just one of them, he would say because they're both working cars.
They have the same machinery, go at the same speed, and turn the same direction. 'Identical' (for this purpose) objects respond in the same way.
If I asked him whether the next car to approach the turn would also turn left when steered left, he would say 'of course'. If he hadn't yet called the loony bin.

The point about a scientific law is that we have extracted from our observations of the world a more universal principle that can be applied to situations that we have not yet observed.
This is what I am doing. I have not observed identical brains. I am extrapolating from my observations. This principle that I am applying is accepted by everyone in everyday life; hence my example of a person on the street.
If your argument is that I cannot prove this principle, that's fair enough. I can't. But since most people's understanding of the world is based on this principle it's up to you to replace it with something else that explains how the world works.
Our understanding of how the world works is based on a number of fundamental assumptions. As Descartes showed, if we only trust logic, and not even our senses, I can only know that I exist, and nothing more.
However, just because they're assumptions doesn't mean that they are not viable premises for an argument. I see the world behaves consistently, and so I assume that it works the way I see it does. When I see an inconsistency (such as I get drunk and the world starts spinning) then I assume that it's my senses and not the world. It's an assumption, certainly, but it's the most logical assumption to make.
If you disagree with the assumption that this law applies then you are in the realms of the beneficient monkeys that some other poster suggested; I can't prove you wrong, but it's solely personal opinion. You could have a personal opinion that God does everything: that we're just consciousnesses being fed experiences continually by God. That's metaphysics.
However, I have seen a pattern in the experiences that God feeds us, and the pattern is undeniable. There's the possibility that it'll be broken, since every one of our experiences is God's whim, but it's not a possibility worth planning for.

1. The world does not exist as I think it does and my actions are pointless
2. The world does not exist as it appears to, I believe it doesn't, and my actions or lack of them are also pointless.
3. The world does exist as it appears but I think it doesn't: my lack of appropriate action is bad.
4. The world exists as it appears to, and I think that it does. My actions are correct.

Anyone who denies what appear to be scientific laws is doing either option 2 or 3. I prefer options 1 or 4.
This is my justification for making a scientific law a logical certainty. Within the way we view the world it is a logical certainty, and any other way of viewing the world is either an unnecessary addition to choosing options 1 or 4, or else choosing options 1 or 3.
So, you could say that God makes the world work the way we see it does, but you're still saying it works the way we see it does. We have only our sense data to guide us, and however flawed it may be it is better to form a view of the world using it than ignoring it. Therefore fundamental scientific laws such as cause and effect are laws, and not suggestions. They have more evidence than any other option and are therefore the best option.

I had assumed that people with whom I was debating would take these fundamental assumptions as givens. However, if you do not I can still say that they are the best assumptions to make.

 

[warpus]

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.

I had similar reservations about quantum physics when I first started reading books on the subject. Then I did some further research and discovered that a lot of physicists had the very same reservations - and so tests were set up to determine whether there are hidden variables that we currently do not have access to.. or whether certain things are truly random. The tests that were carried out indicate that some things are indeed random.

If you were an expert in the field, I might give your doubts a littlebit more weight. However, you're not.. and you're going against what the experts are saying. It's like a guy with no formal education in chemistry saying "There is no such thing as an atom".

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

So the question here is.. Do you really have free will?

the three things I presented (self-awareness, free will, and the omnipresent standard of logic) demand an explanation

Yes, they do. Immediately jumping to a supernatural conclusion because you can't provide a natural solution is not the way to go about it, though. A long time ago people didn't understand how tornados form - they were attributed to the supernatural. Volcanos, stars, the sun, the moon, floods, etc. were all attributed to the supernatural because that was the only "reasonable explanation".

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.

That isn't evidence. You haven't reasoned through your line of thought as to how you arrived at that conclusion, nor have you provided any hard data to support your statement. The burden of proof is with you, to walk us through your line of thought and to convince us that your hypothesis is correct - even if there are no competing hypotheses out there.

Example of what I mean:

Nobody is really certain how the universe started - or if it did at all. We have the Big Bang theory but that doesn't explain how the universe came into being. As far as I know there are no theories out there which outline how reality & the universe came into being.

So I'm going to come up with my own theory: A long time ago Chuck Norris farted with such force that the Universe sprang forth from his divine flatulence.

I submit this as prima facie evidence for Chuck Norris' creation of the Universe, unless someone has an alternative explanation to rebut with.

Obviously my theory is quite absurd, but it does prove a point. Your theory means nothing unless you can back it up with *something*.

 

[Brighteye]

My argument stands:
(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.

E does not follow from B.
3: Intelligence has an effect on the physical world
4: Things in the physical world are subject to physical laws
5: Effects on the physical world are, by their definition, part of the physical world
G: If B is true then because of 3, 4 and 5 souls are subject to physical laws.
Or at least, their physical effects are, and I'd hesitate to start splitting souls into components.
Basically, points 3, 4 and 5 are true and are all that is required for AI to have intelligence. We have agreed to 3 and 4, and 5 is axiomatic. You have disputed what I call a law, and my answer is in the previous post.

 

[Brighteye]

From dbergan. You asked for a reply, so here's one.

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").

We cannot be sure we have free will. It is a belief. Choosing between is not dependent on free will. We can make choices even if we'd make the same choices every time.

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."

Awareness is neither matter nor energy, but it can be an emergent property of special combinations of them. It does not have to be supernatural

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.

This is your worst point. Standards are artificial creations of our minds. They are universal simply because that is how we define them. You are on incredibly shaky ground here. Just because we conceive of an idea does not make it part of the physical world. Logic is an abstract noun. Go read Plato's ideas about ideas, and then read Russell for a thorough debunking.

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."

The first two I have not proven wrong; I have merely said that they are not certain. For as long as it remains possible that free will exists and awareness is a supernatural phenomenon your conclusion that we have souls that give us these properties remains possible. However, it is perfectly possible to suggest (and be consistent) that humans are only material creatures.
Saying that free will exists is like saying that this wall can be painted even though I only have a hammer. Sure, maybe it can, but if all you have and have ever known is a hammer, which can't paint, then you just don't know.

 

[jar2574]

I am indeed using a scientific law as a logical certainty.

And that is why you are not logically correct. A scientific law is not a logical certainty.

Scientific laws change as our experiences and observations change. Logical certainties never change.

You should not treat scientific laws as logical certainties. If you do so, then you are behaving illogically. But should you choose to behave illogically then so be it.

The point about a scientific law is that we have extracted from our observations of the world a more universal principle that can be applied to situations that we have not yet observed.

And you may use scientific laws as the basis for scientific experiments. But you were not proposing a scientific experiment. You were proposing a thought experiment with a logical conclusion. The conclusion you proposed may follow from scientific laws (though it has not been tested an proven scientifically). But it is not a logical certainty.

This is what I am doing. I have not observed identical brains. I am extrapolating from my observations.

Yes. You are hypothesizing.

This principle that I am applying is accepted by everyone in everyday life; hence my example of a person on the street.
If your argument is that I cannot prove this principle, that's fair enough. I can't. But since most people's understanding of the world is based on this principle it's up to you to replace it with something else that explains how the world works.

Your logic here sounds like the logic used by some to convince others that souls exist. I am shocked that you offered the statement. Just change a few words and notice what you sound like:

The principle that souls exist is accepted by a large majority; hence my example of a person on the street.
If your argument is that I cannot prove this principle, that's fair enough. I can't.
But since most people's understanding of the world is based upon the existence of souls, it's up to you to replace it with something else that explains how the world works.

Our understanding of how the world works is based on a number of fundamental assumptions.

You did not simply assume how the world works. You proposed a hypothesis about how the world WILL work. Your hypothesis has not been proven correct by scientific experiment. And it does not logically follow from your thought experiment.

As Descartes showed, if we only trust logic, and not even our senses, I can only know that I exist, and nothing more.

You misunderstand Descartes. His statement that "I think, therefore I am," is only the beginning. He attempts to show other things based logically on that.

If you disagree with the assumption that this law applies then you are in the realms of the beneficient monkeys that some other poster suggested; I can't prove you wrong, but it's solely personal opinion.

If you think that a scientific law is a logical certainty then it is solely your personal opinion. And it is incorrect.

I never said what I thought the result of an actual experiment involving two brains would be. I may very well agree with your hypothesis that they would act the same. But I am not going to make the mistake of claiming that they MUST act the same, either due to logical certainty or scientific law. We may be 99.99% sure that they would act the same. But we are not 100% certain.

This is my justification for making a scientific law a logical certainty.

Your justification is interesting. But as you point out, it's just based on personal experience / preference. It's based on your personal beliefs. And your personal beliefs are irrelevant in a thought experiment, or a scientific experiment.

Scientific laws change based on experiences. The earth is not the center of the solar system. Bacteria do not spontaneously generate. You said, "[scientific laws] have more evidence than any other option and are therefore the best option." And that's true if you're conducting a scientific experiment. But we aren't doing that here. We're engaged in a thought exercise.

Logical certainties never change, they are always true. If you want to continue an attempt to combine the two then so be it. But such an attempt is illogical.

I had assumed that people with whom I was debating would take these fundamental assumptions as givens. However, if you do not I can still say that they are the best assumptions to make.

I had assumed that the person I was debating was logical. The idea that scientific laws = logical certainty is absurd and illogical.

I agree that your assumptions [scientific laws] are generally the best ones to make about the world around us, when we are interacting with it. If I was going to do a scientific experiment I would use them. They are not givens, however. They are not 100% certainties. And so therefore I don't agree that they lead to the conclusion that you're are claiming results from your thought experiment.

 

[jar2574]

E does not follow from B.
3: Intelligence has an effect on the physical world
4: Things in the physical world are subject to physical laws
5: Effects on the physical world are, by their definition, part of the physical world
G: If B is true then because of 3, 4 and 5 souls are subject to physical laws.
Or at least, their physical effects are, and I'd hesitate to start splitting souls into components.
Basically, points 3, 4 and 5 are true and are all that is required for AI to have intelligence. We have agreed to 3 and 4, and 5 is axiomatic. You have disputed what I call a law, and my answer is in the previous post.

E follows logically from B.
B. Souls could be the cause of self-awareness / intelligence (as opposed to the cause arising from things in the physical world.)
E. Since souls could be the cause of (at least some) self-awareness / intelligence, a physically identical brain may not behave identically.(because it might lack a soul)

Regarding your premises 3-5:
You fail to distinguish between "effects" and "things" in the physical world. 3-5 could all be true, and yet something could have an effect on the physical world, without being a "thing" in the physical world subject to the laws of the physical world. That something could be a soul.

To simplify:
3. Intelligence = effect.
4. Things = subject to laws.
5. Effects = part of physical world.
This does not make effects = things, so it does not make intelligence = things, so it does not make intelligence = subject to laws.

 

[Zombie69]

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.

Spiders, snakes and felines can kill you. When's the last time you saw a killer dolphin? This has nothing to do with intelligence. Remember that historically, humans aren't just predators, they're also prey.

I never said dolphins were smarter, i said they were self-aware. When placed in front of a mirror, they recognize that they see an image of themselves. This requires self-awareness. Cats, on the other hand, think they see another cat and become aggressive towards the reflection. Thus they're not self-aware.

Of course, i could have said that dolphins are more intelligent, and this also would have been true. But this is not what i said.

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.

Just because a cat thinks it sees a competitor in the mirror doesn't make it so. Just because it seems to us that we have free will doesn't make it so. In fact, everytime we make a choice, that "choice" was really predetermined and not a choice at all.

 

[MxxPwr]

... 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

I'm afraid I must respectfully decline to be fenced in by logic

But seriously, I'm not smart enough for lengthy and complete thoughts. My wisdom comes in snippets that The good Lord is gracious enough to give me.

So, if I have a thought on something, I'll just post it and let the chips fall where they may. If I see faulty logic in someone that agrees with me (or doesn't) then I'll post on it. If I see an avenue that could be used to strengthen an argument of either side, I'll post.

That's just the way I am: a sophist.

 

[Zombie69]

That's just the way I am: a sophist.

You mean, you deliberately use erroneous logic to try and lead people into false conclusions? At least, that's what i've always been taught that sophist means.

 

[5cats]

I never said dolphins were smarter, i said they were self-aware. When placed in front of a mirror, they recognize that they see an image of themselves. This requires self-awareness. Cats, on the other hand, think they see another cat and become aggressive towards the reflection. Thus they're not self-aware.

Just because it seems to us that we have free will doesn't make it so. In fact, everytime we make a choice, that "choice" was really predetermined and not a choice at all.

You don't have cats, do you?
When tiny kittens first see their own reflection, they don't know what it is. Whenever a kitten is unsure of something that's new, it'll puff up, hiss and act all fierce. This is hysterically funny!
However, after seeing a mirror a few times, it'll stop reacting that way. Older cats look at a mirror with complete understanding.

Well exactly! Furthermore- if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice. You may chose some phantom fear or kindness that can kill. I will chose the path that's clear, I will chose free will. (Rush)

 

[MxxPwr]

You mean, you deliberately use erroneous logic to try and lead people into false conclusions? At least, that's what i've always been taught that sophist means.

:::Acting insulted; but just acting:::

If you mean that one should be able to equally argue opposing sides of a subject (depending on who's paying) as erroneous logic, WELL, harumph, then I guess my logic is erroneous.

And besides, one's conclusion is only false if you give up on the argument.

 

[Zombie69]

My family has had at least a dozen cats so i do know how they act. If a cat is introduced to a mirror for the first time as an adult, it will react aggressively to it. It will do so until it figures out that it can't hurt "the other cat", and that "the other cat" can't hurt it either, because a glass separates them. Then it will just ignore this stranger. Cats are notoriously good at ignoring stuff that they don't care about, including you, as you probably know all too well.

Dolphins have a more complex language (and language is a more complicated brain function than one would think, and is a good measure of intelligence), can do more complex problem solving (as shown by experiments), and are more intelligent than cats in pretty much any way you could think of. Plus they're self-aware (a minor detail, but which you seem to give a lot of importance to).

In fact, cats are actually pretty dumb and could probably be beat by mice in most elaborate experiments you could think of to measure their problem solving abilities.

 

[Zombie69]

By the way, for anyone interested, i just found something particularly interesting to this thread. They now make robots that are self-aware!

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051219/awarerobot_tec.html?source=rss

 

[5cats]

My family has had at least a dozen cats so i do know how they act.

Dolphins have a more complex language (and language is a more complicated brain function than one would think, and is a good measure of intelligence), can do more complex problem solving (as shown by experiments)

In fact, cats are actually pretty dumb and could probably be beat by mice in most elaborate experiments you could think of to measure their problem solving abilities.

Oh, okay then. I just ascribe a different reason to their behaviour.
YEs indeed, language is a really complex thing. However, cats have a language too, involving tails, whiskers and occasionally claws... they also make the classic "meow" sound only for humans.
Cats are sometimes really dumb! I have one now who's amazingly un-intelligent but he's a good cat! Cats are such great preditors, even stupid ones survive...
I know a couple of people who've experimented with (on) cats. Sometimes they co-operate, other times... not.

 

[Zombie69]

Dolphin intelligence and self-awareness :
http://www.earthtrust.org/delbook.html
http://www.tagate.com/dolphins_resource_center/anatomy/dolphin_anatomy_1.shtml

"The standard test for self-awareness in animals is the mirror test, developed by Gallup in the seventies, in which a temporary dye is placed on an animal's body, and the animal is then presented with a mirror. Most animals react to a mirror as if it is another animal. However, like great apes, dolphins have been shown to recognise the mirror image as themselves, by examining the marking on their body."

"We can say that average dolphin intelligence is somewhere on the continuum between above-average(?) human and peak dog, but we cannot say definitively where."

Empathy and self-awareness in animals :
http://www.zoosemiotics.helsinki.fi/Can Animals EmpathizeYES.doc

With empathy, some animals even look like they have a moral code :
http://www.beep.ac.uk/content/261.0.html

"In a laboratory setting, macaque monkeys were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow."

Returning to cats :
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14338

"Although there were methodological problems with some earlier studies, it is now broadly accepted that chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans can recognize themselves in mirrors. Claims that dolphins and gorillas can pass this test are disputed. And all other species examined (including fish, dogs, cats, elephants and parrots) react to themselves in a mirror either not at all or as if the reflection is another animal."

 

[MxxPwr]

...
1. The world does not exist as I think it does and my actions are pointless
2. The world does not exist as it appears to, I believe it doesn't, and my actions or lack of them are also pointless.
3. The world does exist as it appears but I think it doesn't: my lack of appropriate action is bad.
4. The world exists as it appears to, and I think that it does. My actions are correct.

Anyone who denies what appear to be scientific laws is doing either option 2 or 3. I prefer options 1 or 4.
This is my justification for making a scientific law a logical certainty. Within the way we view the world it is a logical certainty, and any other way of viewing the world is either an unnecessary addition to choosing options 1 or 4, or else choosing options 1 or 3.
So, you could say that God makes the world work the way we see it does, but you're still saying it works the way we see it does. We have only our sense data to guide us, and however flawed it may be it is better to form a view of the world using it than ignoring it. Therefore fundamental scientific laws such as cause and effect are laws, and not suggestions. They have more evidence than any other option and are therefore the best option.

Um, the wording in the numbered bullet section seems a little inconsistent, if not contradictory.

You end each statement that one's actions are:
(1) pointless; as in meaning/meaningless
(2) pointless again
(3) bad; as in moralilty
(4) correct; having neither the meaning/meaningless connotation of pointless nor the moral attribuate of bad

Also the wording used in the begininng of each statement is inconsistent. In your own wording (1) should read, 'The world does not exist as it appears, but I believe it does...' So, I'm going to try to clean up the wording. If you disagree with how I'm cleaning it up, by all means, let me know.

(1) The world = A+B; I think the world = A; so...
(2) The world = A+B; I think the world = A+B; so...
(3) The world = A; I think the world = A+B; so...
(4) The world = A; I think the world = A; so...

Leaving off the pointless/pointful(?) part for a minute. People of groups (1) and (3) are both incorrect. People of groups (2) and (4) are both correct. All this assumes of course that the world is whatever it is and it is our thought that is either correct or incorrect. And the correctness or incorrectness of our thought seems to be independent of our knowledge of what the world really is.

So, actually all of the thoughts are equally pointless, in that they don't change what the world is. But as for the correctness or incorrectness of the thoughts, that depends on what the world is.

 

[MxxPwr]

My family has had at least a dozen cats so i do know how they act. If a cat is introduced to a mirror for the first time as an adult, it will react aggressively to it. It will do so until it figures out that it can't hurt "the other cat", and that "the other cat" can't hurt it either, because a glass separates them. Then it will just ignore this stranger. Cats are notoriously good at ignoring stuff that they don't care about, including you, as you probably know all too well.

My observation of one. For what it's worth. Cat, outside, staring intently at sliding glass door. Head and eye movement tracks another cats reflection in door (the other cat was behind him). Ears turned in general direction of other cat. Waved back an forth. Locked onto other cat with ears. Turned in perfect alignment to intercept other cat. My conclusion, cat knew what the reflection was, used it to get a bearing with it's ears.