Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[5cats]

r=replica, b= original brain, s=soul, I=intelligence
Your argument
1. S causes I
2. b has S
3 r might not have s
A) r might not have I

Arrrg! I do wish you'd stop misunderstanding everything we say on the subject. Talk about straw man arguements!

We (well, ME at least) have clearly stated that intelligence has nothing to do with self-awareness. I have clearly stated that my theory is that souls are required NOT for intelligence, but for self-awareness, sentience as it were.
Yet you continue to equate souls with intelligence, then proclaim that we (people who don't agree with you) are illogical.

Give it a rest! Actually discuss the points we (I) make insted of substituting your... foolishness.

My premises are untestable, and much less useful within the physical world. But they logically sound and support my conclusion, and therefore my conclusion is logically sound

This also applies to my ideas, which are very similar to jar's and others'. Brighteye and occasionally Zombie are trying to 'disprove' our ideas using 'logic'. But every time we point our mistakes or fallacies in these 'disproofs' it is simply ignored, or the subject "switched" for example:

This argument, as it is here, is entirely irrelevant to whether a replica will also have a soul.

It is YOUR answer that has nothing to do with jar's post. Jar (and I) is attempting to disprove YOUR theory that "non-physical things outside the realm of cause and effect determinism do not exist". We do that, and you reply that it doesn't explain something else?? Well DUH! Talk about an extremely frail grasp of logic! If you want to talk about the duplicate having a soul or not, then talk about it! But don't suddenly bring the subject up when presented with iron-clad proof that your logic on a completely different matter is faulty.

THAT is why I get so frustrated. Rather than addressing and discussing an issue, you slip and slide around things, all the while suggesting that your opponents are the ones being illogical. Your refusal to address an issue is the worst form of "logic' and the lowest form of "discussion" imaginable.

My experiment was entirely logical. If you want to question the assumptions, feel free. But as I have said in my last post, questioning causality means questioning all of it

Your origional thought experiment is logical, moot point
I do feel free to question, moot point
I did question causality, you responded with an absurd idea that it's ok for a Quantum "exception" but not for any other exceptions. Where is the logic in this? You state one thing is 100% true, I point out it's wrong, there are exceptions, I give a definitive example and you say (in effect) "well, aside from that it's still 100% true".

 

[jar2574]

Logic doesn't put value on premises. It assumes premises to be true and goes from there. Whether the premise actually is true or not has nothing to do with logic.

Premises are assumptions, yes. But whether premises are actually true has a lot to do with logic. If you are solely looking at the validity of a conclusion then the truthfulness of the premises is not important. But if you are looking at whether the conclusion must be true then the premises must also be true.

If someone claims that a conclusion must be true, then the truthfulness of the premises supporting that conclusion become relevant.

Your premise, by the way, has a heck of a lot less chance of being true than his.

I did not claim that my premise was true. I claimed that my argument was logically sound, that my conclusion is logically valid, not that my conclusion was true.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

I don't think some people here truely understand the value of Occams Razor:

http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

That of course applies to "souls" or whatever other PARANORMAL concepts are being used to "justify" some of the arguements here. Its one thing to believe, its another to justify.

A poster here drew the conclusion that both sides of the "soul" arguement are logical

The two sides presented here being

(A) A soul absolutely exists
(B) The concept of a soul is unjustified, so should be presumed not to exist.

I will include a 3rd and 4th side to at least by symetric (there are a potentialy infinite number of sides):

(C) The concept of a soul is justified, so should be presumed to exist.
(D) Soul's absolutely do not exist.

While one can argue that under certain premises, all parties are being logical. One cannot argue that the relative value of the conclusions are similar.

(B) is the current Occam while (A) (C) and (D) are culled by the Razor.

 

[Zombie69]

Premises are assumptions, yes. But whether premises are actually true has a lot to do with logic. If you are solely looking at the validity of a conclusion then the truthfulness of the premises is not important. But if you are looking at whether the conclusion must be true then the premises must also be true.

If someone claims that a conclusion must be true, then the truthfulness of the premises supporting that conclusion become relevant.

And finding out whether the premise is true has nothing to do with logic. It involves science. Logic can only go from premise to conclusion, it can't create or validate premises.

I did not claim that my premise was true. I claimed that my argument was logically sound, that my conclusion is logically valid, not that my conclusion was true.

Good. Now, say the same thing about the other side. You keep saying that his argument is not logically sound because of bad premises, while by your own admission now whether or not an argument is logically sound has nothing to do with whether the premise is true or false.

 

[Zombie69]

I don't think some people here truely understand the value of Occams Razor:

I was beginning to wonder when you'd mention this! Occam's razor is why i said last page that your premise has a heck of a lot more chance of being true!

 

[Dusty Monkey]

I was beginning to wonder when you'd mention this! Occam's razor is why i said last page that your premise has a heck of a lot more chance of being true!

I'm not sure that I presented a premise on the subject, but thanks

One could give all the believers a headache by asking them when exactly a "soul" gains control of a human - Immediately after the sperm breaks into the egg? Some time while its a fetus? The moment the baby leaves its mothers body? When the cord gets cut? When its spoken its first word? When its taken its first step? Its first kiss? When it procreates? Just before death?

The reason the answer here is tough is because there is no justification for there even being a soul. We couldnt even begin to set a limit let alone pinpoint a moment.

Thats not of course saying that a soul doesnt exist.. its saying that there is zero evidence for a soul other than because "someone else said so" (religions propogate the idea for sure)

(edited for spelling)

 

[MxxPwr]

I don't think some people here truely understand the value of Occams Razor:

http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

That of course applies to "souls" or whatever other PARANORMAL concepts are being used to "justify" some of the arguements here. Its one thing to believe, its another to justify.

A poster here drew the conclusion that both sides of the "soul" arguement are logical

The two sides presented here being

(A) A soul absolutely exists
(B) The concept of a soul is unjustified, so should be presumed not to exist.

I will include a 3rd and 4th side to at least by symetric (there are a potentialy infinite number of sides):

(C) The concept of a soul is justified, so should be presumed to exist.
(D) Soul's absolutely do not exist.

While one can argue that under certain premises, all parties are being logical. One cannot argue that the relative value of the conclusions are similar.

(B) is the current Occam while (A) (C) and (D) are culled by the Razor.

Neat! Let me try:

(A) The making of a Human-like Artifical Intelligence (or Strong AI) is possible
(B) The making of a Human-like Artifical Intelligence (or Strong AI) is possible and will happen
(C) The making of a Human-like Artifical Intelligence (or Strong AI) is possible but won't happen
(D) The making of a Human-like Artifical Intelligence (or Strong AI) is impossible

I include (A) because it is a mirror image of (D). Though it's probably redudant if given (B) and (C). Or honestly, (B) and (C) are redudant because they only offer forecasts off of (A). So, I'd have to say (A) is the current Occam as long as you don't make forecasts off of it. With (C) finishing a strong second. (B) would take a major change in technology and approach and (D) would take some major apologies to bring it back to the forefront.

So, how'd I do?

 

[atreas]

I can accept whatever you want - that soul doesn't exist or that it exists. Still, I have a small scientific problem - I notice that there is a medical (i.e. scientific) specialty that's called "psychiatrist". Of course, psyche = soul (even if you doubt that, I can tell you that from the root of the word it can't be different: psyche is the soul in Greek). That means, there is something that science thinks it exist, and also that is different from "neurology".

I always wondered not so much whether soul exists or not (that can be easily settled on a personal level), but what exactly the science was trying to cure - something that they can't know whether it exists? And if they couldn't know that, how did they created a specific medical field?

 

[jar2574]

And finding out whether the premise is true has nothing to do with logic. It involves science. Logic can only go from premise to conclusion, it can't create or validate premises.

We can evaluate the truth of premises using logic. To claim otherwise is illogical. If we are looking at the truth of an argument (his) and not just its validity (mine), then we should use logic to analyze whether the premises are true. We can also use science, but it this case it's not necessary to use science to show that a premise was false.

He claimed that a premise (a scientific law) was 100% certain, because that was necessary to the truthfulness of his conclusion. However, scientific laws are not 100% certain. Logic tells us that. We don't need science to tell us that the premise was not true.

Good. Now, say the same thing about the other side. You keep saying that his argument is not logically sound because of bad premises, while by your own admission now whether or not an argument is logically sound has nothing to do with whether the premise is true or false.

I never claimed that my argument was true. I said my argument was sound.

He claimed that his argument was true and sound. At first his argument was neither. His argument, as corrected, may be valid.

I felt free to counter the truthfulness of his premises, because their truthfulness was important to his conclusion. I used logic to counter the truthfulness of his premises. Contrary to your view that only science may show a premise to be false, logic may do so as well. The truthfulness of my premises, in contrast, was unimportant, because I was only claiming validity.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

"medical" != "scientific"

Homeopathy for example is not scientific inspite of it being a "medical" theory.

As for psychiatry:

Psychiatric theory does not make the claim that a soul exists, or even that there is evidence for a soul. So I am wondering WTH you are talking about??

Show me a single double-blind psychiatric study that does not focus on the use and benefits of medicine/chemicals and I'll show you evidence for the already justified placebo effect, not souls.

The study of the mind is of course a worthwhile subject to investigate.

 

[Zombie69]

I'm not sure that I presented a premise on the subject, but thanks

Your premise being that cause and effect apply to this case. A premise based on science. If only more people based their beliefs on science rather than on the "supernatural"...

 

[atreas]

Psychiatric theory does not make the claim that a soul exists, or even that there is evidence for a soul. So I am wondering WTH you are talking about??

Show me a single double-blind psychiatric study that does not focus on the use and benefits of medicine/chemicals and I'll show you evidence for the already justified placebo effect, not souls.

We don't disagree: I am just telling you that what surprises me is that they created a medical specialty for a subject they don't know for sure even whether it exists or not (I specifically stated I don't care for proof about that). And "psychiatric" isn't considered the same as "homeopathy", at any level.

 

[Zombie69]

We don't disagree: I am just telling you that what surprises me is that they created a medical specialty for a subject they don't know for sure even whether it exists or not (I specifically stated I don't care for proof about that). And "psychiatric" isn't considered the same as "homeopathy", at any level.

Well, neither psychatrists nor homeopaths are taken seriously by scientists in other branches!

The word psychiatry may come from a greek word meaning souls, but that's how it often is with epystemology. The origin often has nothing to do with the meaning. Psychiatry studies the mind, not the soul. I would say the difference is significant.

 

[atreas]

Well, neither psychatrists nor homeopaths are taken seriously by scientists in other branches!

The word psychiatry may come from a greek word meaning souls, but that's how it often is with epystemology. The origin often has nothing to do with the meaning. Psychiatry studies the mind, not the soul. I would say the difference is significant.

The word is much more ancient than you think, and had always a meaning of its own (didn't need epystemology to create it) - the interesting fact is that THE PRESENT perception seems to be that whatever people used to call "soul" has medically only something to do with the mind (and the nervous system, I would add).

 

[Zombie69]

A minor point, but epystemology doesn't create words or meanings, it only explains the origin of words. I knew that psychiatry was actually very old, even though for the longest part of its history it didn't have the scientific backing that it does now (which is still very minimal imo and that field is still laughable today as far as i'm concerned).

 

[Brighteye]

r=replica, b= original brain, s=soul, I=intelligence
Your argument
1. S causes I
2. b has S
3 r might not have s
A) r might not have I

Arrrg! I do wish you'd stop misunderstanding everything we say on the subject. Talk about straw man arguements!

We (well, ME at least) have clearly stated that intelligence has nothing to do with self-awareness. I have clearly stated that my theory is that souls are required NOT for intelligence, but for self-awareness, sentience as it were.
Yet you continue to equate souls with intelligence, then proclaim that we (people who don't agree with you) are illogical.

Give it a rest! Actually discuss the points we (I) make insted of substituting your... foolishness.

I have said before that I don't give a stuff about the difference between sentience and intelligence. My argument applies to anything that you think affects our decision-making: I call this intelligence. If you want to talk about sentience, that's up to you, but if you start discussing my argument you have to be discussing intelligence.
If you think my argument is relevant to sentience because sentience falls within my definition of intelligence, then drawing the distinction between the two words is unnecessary, because for the purposes of the argument they're the same.
If you start debating my argument using irrelevant terms, I'm not the one being foolish. If you want to make my argument apply to sentience and then debunk it, that's up to you. I never discussed sentience except when Jar decided that it fell within my definition of intelligence.

This also applies to my ideas, which are very similar to jar's and others'. Brighteye and occasionally Zombie are trying to 'disprove' our ideas using 'logic'. But every time we point our mistakes or fallacies in these 'disproofs' it is simply ignored, or the subject "switched" for example:



It is YOUR answer that has nothing to do with jar's post. Jar (and I) is attempting to disprove YOUR theory that "non-physical things outside the realm of cause and effect determinism do not exist". We do that, and you reply that it doesn't explain something else?? Well DUH! Talk about an extremely frail grasp of logic! If you want to talk about the duplicate having a soul or not, then talk about it! But don't suddenly bring the subject up when presented with iron-clad proof that your logic on a completely different matter is faulty.

My theory is not that non-physical things do not exist. My point is simply that things outside the realm of causality do not have an effect on causality, because that contradicts their definition. If you define them as within causality then they are governed by it.
Who is being stupid? Me, for making this simple point and having to defend it over the course of hundreds of posts, or you and Jar for not understanding it not only at first, when I might not have explained it clearly, but even now when I have stated it many times in many different ways, all of them comprehensible. I never said that souls cannot exist. On every occasion that someone suggested that I had, I specifically denied it and restated what I did say. Therefore I am not the one being slippery; you two are for continually misinterpreting what I have to say.

THAT is why I get so frustrated. Rather than addressing and discussing an issue, you slip and slide around things, all the while suggesting that your opponents are the ones being illogical. Your refusal to address an issue is the worst form of "logic' and the lowest form of "discussion" imaginable.

You get frustrated?! I'm the one dealing with people who, by your admission (previous quotation), are making arguments not relevant to what I am actually saying. My refusal to address an issue not at all related to my point is nothing to do with bad logic.

Your origional thought experiment is logical, moot point
I do feel free to question, moot point
I did question causality, you responded with an absurd idea that it's ok for a Quantum "exception" but not for any other exceptions. Where is the logic in this? You state one thing is 100% true, I point out it's wrong, there are exceptions, I give a definitive example and you say (in effect) "well, aside from that it's still 100% true".

Did you read my post? I specifically responded to this simplistic criticism. I can't be bothered to repeat myself.

 

[Brighteye]

To be fair, the original argument wasn't over the relative value of my conclusion, but the fact that I said that souls were irrelevant to making AI, without admitting any possibility that they were relevant.
For usual definitions of possibility (i.e within this world) this is true, because as soon as we start disbelieving that the world works as it appears (specifically causality) then we are no longer thinking about this world.

I don't think some people here truely understand the value of Occams Razor:

http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

That of course applies to "souls" or whatever other PARANORMAL concepts are being used to "justify" some of the arguements here. Its one thing to believe, its another to justify.

A poster here drew the conclusion that both sides of the "soul" arguement are logical

The two sides presented here being

(A) A soul absolutely exists
(B) The concept of a soul is unjustified, so should be presumed not to exist.

I will include a 3rd and 4th side to at least by symetric (there are a potentialy infinite number of sides):

(C) The concept of a soul is justified, so should be presumed to exist.
(D) Soul's absolutely do not exist.

While one can argue that under certain premises, all parties are being logical. One cannot argue that the relative value of the conclusions are similar.

(B) is the current Occam while (A) (C) and (D) are culled by the Razor.

 

[Brighteye]

I can accept whatever you want - that soul doesn't exist or that it exists. Still, I have a small scientific problem - I notice that there is a medical (i.e. scientific) specialty that's called "psychiatrist". Of course, psyche = soul (even if you doubt that, I can tell you that from the root of the word it can't be different: psyche is the soul in Greek). That means, there is something that science thinks it exist, and also that is different from "neurology".

I always wondered not so much whether soul exists or not (that can be easily settled on a personal level), but what exactly the science was trying to cure - something that they can't know whether it exists? And if they couldn't know that, how did they created a specific medical field?

From my limited knowledge of ancient Greek I remember that psuche is a hard word to translate. Souls is a reasonable option, but the two words are not identical. Equally often people use the word 'mind', which makes the word 'psychiatry' more understandable.
Edit: looks like Zombie also brought up the idea of it actually being about the mind. I hadn't even read his posts when I wrote this.

 

[friskymike]

I would urge all of you debating the concept of an created intelligence becoming self-aware to read the first chapter "Orphanogenesis" (on-line in full) from Greg Egan's book "Diaspora" which describes a possible mechanism for this occuring in great detail and with high plausability. He's a science fiction author and computer programmer and a pretty bright guy. Heres an excerpt:

I wonder if I'm the only one that finds Greg Egan's description of the programmes and processes hypothetically involved in an AI becoming self-aware to be very convincing? Anyone else bother to read the chapter? For any science fiction fans, I can definitely recommend the whole book, it is mind expanding stuff.

 

[jar2574]

To be fair, the original argument wasn't over the relative value of my conclusion, but the fact that I said that souls were irrelevant to making AI, without admitting any possibility that they were relevant.
For usual definitions of possibility (i.e within this world) this is true, because as soon as we start disbelieving that the world works as it appears (specifically causality) then we are no longer thinking about this world.

I basically agree with this statement, outside of the concept of human intelligence / awareness. Some people argue that this comes from souls.

That's where an actual scientific experiment comes in. Since we can't prove that souls do not exist, and that human intelligence / awareness does not come from non-physical sources, we have to make an identical brain from scratch before we can show scientifically that we didn't need a soul to make human intelligence.

Specific causality is only a hypothesis within the experiment, it is not the conclusion.

Until we actually do the experiment, the believers are just looking at the same world using different premises. And neither side's conclusion has been proven or disproven scientifically.