Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[jar2574]

Ockam's Razor = entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

If your personal experience shows you that something exists, then you are not adding unnecessary entities to the world by believing that it exists.

If you start arguing that this "something" is central to how something in the world works, then Ockam's Razor usually takes effect, as it would in this thread.

Just wanted to point out that it shouldn't be used against belief per se.

 

[atreas]

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.

You don't remember well (you can trust I know extremely well MY language - I'm Greek). Psyche has only ONE meaning (what you call "soul").

As I was reading the thread (and I was internally translating everything into my language - I can't avoid that) I was always thinking that this whole conversation couldn't have been done in my language, because we don't have two words for the "soul". In my language a human being is called by definition "enpsychon on", which means "a being that has a soul". That of course doesn't prove the existense of soul - just shows the beliefs of people at the ancient times when my language was created.

 

[warpus]

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".

Whatever the origins of the word may be, psycholgoy does not deal with souls, it deals with people's personalities, mind, and behaviour.

This isn't a problem at all.

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.

No we don't.

How many times do I have to say this? The burden of proof lies with the person claiming that souls exist - it is impossible to prove a negative.

The PROPER way of reasoning is as follows: We can't prove that souls exist nor do we have any sort of evidence that they do. If you want to show that souls have something to do with intelligence/sentience/anythingelse, you'll first have to show that souls exist.

If we used your way of reasoning (which is way off), then I could claim the following:

That's where an actual scientific experiment comes in. Since we can't prove that Zeus does 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 Zeus isn't responsible for human intelligence.

This claim, as well as yours, are both absurd.

If your personal experience shows you that something exists, then you are not adding unnecessary entities to the world by believing that it exists.

I don't think you understand the meaning of Occam's Razor one bit.

Occam's Razor is a principle we use to weed out theories which are likely not to be true. It states the following: The least complicated explanation is likely to be true.

For example, when looking at an apple falling towards the ground, Occam's Razor tells us to discount the following theory: "an invisible man is pulling the apple towards the ground", because it's a far more complicated explanation than Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity.

Now, tell me, which theory is more complex?

A. Sentience arises from natural processes.

B. There is an all-powerful entity which creates things called souls. These souls are inserted into newly born humans and removed at death. None of this has ever been observed nor documented.

Occam's Razor is not meant to be used as a definite guide, but it is meant to be used as a guide nevertheless. If you're going to start using it, you better realize that it's going to discount any sort of supernatural theory you might have.

 

[Pawel]

So, wouldn'y you guys feeling a litte bad about beating the AI all the time if it had a soul?

 

[Zombie69]

No, for two reasons.

1. I don't believe in souls.

2. I wouldn't feel bad about beating a human all the time either.

 

[5cats]

So, wouldn'y you guys feeling a litte bad about beating the AI all the time if it had a soul?

Well yes! lol!

B. There is an all-powerful entity which creates things called souls. These souls are inserted into newly born humans and removed at death. None of this has ever been observed nor documented

.

Wellsee, here's where you drift away from what we're actually saying, adding your own mistaken belief (about our side of the theory) to 'pad' your arguement.

NO ONE has said that souls HAD TO come from God! I've said that you can call it a 'soul' a 'spirit' a 'life force' whatever. Where it comes from is an entirely different topic & irrelivent to this one.

What we have said is: #1 there are forces outside of causality (which we've demonstrated DO exist "in this world") and it is our opinion that #2 self-awareness (and the idea of free will) is one of these forces (or at least is governed by forces outside causality). Therefor: #3 you can't just build a brain and expect it to be self-aware, because there's more to self-awareness (in OUR THEORY) than just the physical.

Occam's Razor: The least complicated explanation is likely to be true

This is correct, but the explaination has to fit all the facts, or obviously it isn't true. We're presenting facts that fall outside the conclusion of the origional thought experiment that we think should be taken into consideration.

We're not saying it's impossible to build a merely-physical self-aware brain, but that the conclusion of the thought experiment isn't the "only logical" one out there.
People have said we are not being 'logical' are doing so largely because we don't agree with their world-view. IMHO. They are simply selectively ignoring whatever doesn't fit into their origional beliefs, hardly "scientific" eh? Not "logical" either.
To go with jar's analogy: It's true we can't prove Zues exists. But if we can prove Apollo exists, that would lend credence to the possibility of Zues's existance, right?

Nit-picking about self-awareness and intelligence being the same has nothing positive to add to the discussion. I've defined it as being different, either accept that or demonstrate why it's wrong.

I took a glance at it friskymike, but it didn't strike me as my cup of tea

 

[Supa]

Err, people, did you really talk about psychology as the study of soul ? o_O

 

[jar2574]

How many times do I have to say this? The burden of proof lies with the person claiming that souls exist - it is impossible to prove a negative...

If someone claims that human intelligence does not come from non-physical sources, then the burden of proving that lies with them. I made no claim as to where intelligence comes from.

You are correct in one respect. It is impossible to prove a negative. That is why the statement "human intelligence does not come from non-physical sources" cannot be proven scientifically unless the scientific experiment actually takes place.

I never made any claim that souls do or do not exist. I do not bear any burden of proof.

If we used your way of reasoning (which is way off), then I could claim the following:

That's where an actual scientific experiment comes in. Since we can't prove that Zeus does 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 Zeus isn't responsible for human intelligence.

You could claim that. And you would be correct. Your claim and mine were not that Zeus or souls are responsible for intelligence.

We can't prove that Zeus isn't responsbile for human intelligence until we undertake the scientific experiment. Until then, we have not proven that Zeus is not responsible for human intelligence.

This claim, as well as yours, are both absurd.

I made a claim that something has not been proven. That claim may sound absurd to you, but it is not false. The claim is true. Science has not proven that human intelligence only comes from physical sources.

I don't think you understand the meaning of Occam's Razor one bit.

You are wrong. I understand the meaning of Ockham's Razor.

It can be expressed in Latin as, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

In English this means, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Exactly what I said it meant.

From dictionary.com (no Webster's on me, sorry): "A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony."

Occam's Razor is a principle we use to weed out theories which are likely not to be true. It states the following: The least complicated explanation is likely to be true.

That's not what Ockham's Razor states. That is how it is interpreted when used to justify which theory is better.

For example, when looking at an apple falling towards the ground, Occam's Razor tells us to discount the following theory: "an invisible man is pulling the apple towards the ground", because it's a far more complicated explanation than Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity.

Now, tell me, which theory is more complex?

The invisible man is an extra entity, and is not needed after we understand the theory of gravity. So Ockham's Razor suggests that the invisible man theory is less likely than Newton's.

A. Sentience arises from natural processes.

B. There is an all-powerful entity which creates things called souls. These souls are inserted into newly born humans and removed at death. None of this has ever been observed nor documented.

Occam's Razor is not meant to be used as a definite guide, but it is meant to be used as a guide nevertheless. If you're going to start using it, you better realize that it's going to discount any sort of supernatural theory you might have.

Well I never put forth any sort of supernatural theory, but I did state that Ockam's Razor applies when we want to "explain how something in the world works." And I said it applied to this thread.

Maybe you meant to address all this to someone else?

 

[jar2574]

Nit-picking about self-awareness and intelligence being the same has nothing positive to add to the discussion. I've defined it as being different, either accept that or demonstrate why it's wrong.

Just to clarify: I don't think anyone claimed that self-awareness and intelligence are the same. Under brighteye's definition of intelligence, which I accepted for the purposes of this thread about AI, self-awareness in humans is a form of intelligence.

However, many forms of intelligence do not possess self-awareness. And self-awareness could exist in something that has no effect on the physical world, which would mean that it was not defined as "intelligent" for the purposes of this thread (because we were talking about creating AI within the physical world). I didn't see anyone saying that intelligence and self-awareness were the same thing.

If you mean that self-awareness is not a form of intelligence, and that the two are mutually exclusive, then I'd have to disagree with you. I think self-awareness plays a role in human intelligence, (in human decision-making).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

To address the issue of causality, the nature of causlity either reqires that
1. There is at least One Uncaused Cause
OR
2. There are circular causes and effects

Now some people might go with # 2, but that implies some really severe disruptions in standard thought of cause and effect
#1 tends to be a more standard issue for anyone who comments on it (Big Bang caused by 'quantum fluctuations' in the nothingness, or God, etc.)

So that means that you can't reject things that 'enter into causality, but are not affected by it' unless you support circular causality (which is almost as bad from a normal concept of causality , because the 'Why' is only answered by a circular argument)

So rejecting souls on the basis of causality can't work because causality Must fail at some point.

 

[Zombie69]

To address the issue of causality, the nature of causlity either reqires that
1. There is at least One Uncaused Cause
OR
2. There are circular causes and effects

Or :

3. You can go back in time infinitely, just as you can go forward in time infinitely. This happens to be my view of the universe. It's pretty consistant with the observations and you can't prove it wrong, so i think it's a very likely scenario.

So rejecting souls on the basis of causality can't work because causality Must fail at some point.

Not necessarily. See above.

 

[Brighteye]

I left the rest of it. Occam's razor is a scientific principle used to reach scientific conclusions. It's not a hard logical principle, but if you all agree that it applies to whether souls exist then science proves (as far as science proves anything) that souls do not cause intelligence. As far as science never proves anything, because we can doubt its principles (just as we can doubt anything), then this is not proven.

As for this point, I answered it in two ways. You may think my answers are poor, but you haven't even considered them. Repeating your point does not make them go away. First of all, I suggested that quantum fluctuations are a background noise level caused by the first cause, if there was one, and therefore their distribution has a cause. As noise, it has a distribution rather than individual events. These individual fluctuations make no more difference to cause and effect than noise in nerve recordings does; I still know that the nerve impulses I see have a relevant cause, and I ignore the noise. When the amount of nerve impulses recorded changes, we do not say that because we have noise that has no cause within our system the whole system is incorrect.
Our system applies until proven wrong. Under it's own rules (and that's an important part of the point) it proves (through physicists' experiments) that quantum fluctuations are not caused individually. Souls are not proven by causality's rules.
Quantum is a necessary exception to causality in order for it to be consistent, unless you go with Zombie69.
Souls causing intelligence requires you to doubt causality; you have no evidence for this specific proposition, so your method of reasoning is based on doubt. If you doubt, your doubt applies equally, and you doubt the whole of causality, not just the part regarding intelligence.
Unless you are not being logical, but subjective. If you are being subjective then you can choose to say the world is any way you like.
However, I have already said that as far as anything can be proven (because nothing is immune to such subjectivity/universal doubt), my point is proven.

I have previously shown:
My view of the world as involving causality is the logically justified view (though not proven, because it cannot be).
If causality is taken to be true, then souls are irrelevant to making AI
If causality is not taken to be true, then nothing is certain, because all our knowledge of the world requires it.

The internally consistent version of causality is the logically sensible option. Everything else is subjectivity/universal doubt. Nothing can be proven against these positions, and therefore, for everyday use, my statement that my point is proven is true, because we usually define true as 'true notwithstanding universal doubt'.

 

[warpus]

NO ONE has said that souls HAD TO come from God! I've said that you can call it a 'soul' a 'spirit' a 'life force' whatever. Where it comes from is an entirely different topic & irrelivent to this one.

If a soul is supernatural and it doesn't come from God, where does it come from?

Either way, wherever you might think souls come from, Occam's Razor would favour a natural explanation for sentience.

What we have said is: #1 there are forces outside of causality (which we've demonstrated DO exist "in this world")

The only force outside of causality that I'm aware of are quantum fluctuations.

and it is our opinion that #2 self-awareness (and the idea of free will) is one of these forces

I haven't seen any post in this thread suggesting that self-awareness arises from quantum fluctuations.. although I might have missed that post. That is an interesting hypothesis, and one that is shared by some.. but I don't see where souls fit in here?

Therefor: #3 you can't just build a brain and expect it to be self-aware, because there's more to self-awareness (in OUR THEORY) than just the physical.

That doesn't arise logically from #1 and #2, unless you're thinking of a different force that is "outisde of causality". Do you mind defining it and showing some evidence of its existence (ie. any sort of research done by competent scientsts regarding it) ?

It's true we can't prove Zues exists. But if we can prove Apollo exists, that would lend credence to the possibility of Zues's existance, right?

Sure, it would. Much in the same way, if you could show any sort of evidence that the Christian God exists, that'd be a good start to proving that souls exist.

Nit-picking about self-awareness and intelligence being the same has nothing positive to add to the discussion. I've defined it as being different, either accept that or demonstrate why it's wrong.

Self-awareness and intelligence are two entirely different concepts, imo.

 

[warpus]

If someone claims that human intelligence does not come from non-physical sources, then the burden of proving that lies with them.

Sure. But if there isn't any proof that sentience/whatever comes from the supernatural, we have to assume that it comes from the natural.

I never made any claim that souls do or do not exist. I do not bear any burden of proof.

Yet you insist that those who claim that souls do not exist prove it, instead of putting the burden of proof with those who claim that they do exist, where it belongs.

You could claim that. And you would be correct. Your claim and mine were not that Zeus or souls are responsible for intelligence.

We can't prove that Zeus isn't responsbile for human intelligence until we undertake the scientific experiment. Until then, we have not proven that Zeus is not responsible for human intelligence.

Scientists are not going to sit there and perform experiments to prove negatives. They are going to try to come up with a hypothesis, and prove THAT. If somebody says "what if sentience comes from souls?", you do not have to prove that they don't. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim - they have to claim the positive.. and if they can't, the hypothesis is thrown out.

I made a claim that something has not been proven. That claim may sound absurd to you, but it is not false. The claim is true. Science has not proven that human intelligence only comes from physical sources.

I don't dispute that it's true, my point is that it's irrelevant that nobody has proven a NEGATIVE.

If people had to prove negatives to make a point, not even the theory of gravity would have been accepted. Somebody could have said "invisible monkeys pull objects down, prove that I'm wrong" and scientists would still be sitting there, trying to prove every single negative that people come up with.

The invisible man is an extra entity, and is not needed after we understand the theory of gravity. So Ockham's Razor suggests that the invisible man theory is less likely than Newton's.

Exactly. In our discussion, Occam's Razor would always point AWAY from a supernatural explanation of sentience, due to the inherent complexity of such a scenario. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Dusty Monkey]

What we have said is: #1 there are forces outside of causality (which we've demonstrated DO exist "in this world") ...

No you haven't.

The only thing demonstrated here on this specific subject was that the people demonstrating it used an unjustifiable premise. You may wish to take it for granted, but science sure doesn't.

Quantum theory does NOT by necessity break causality.

Did I make myself clear?

You seem to usualy *begin* with the false premise. This is why I often do not need to address the rest of your posts.

 

[jar2574]

Occam's razor is a scientific principle used to reach scientific conclusions.

As you point out, Ockham's Razor doesn't "prove" anything, it merely suggests which theory is better. Theories which involve needless entitites are less likely to be true than those that do. Ockham's Razor may suggest that souls do not create intelligence, but of course it cannot prove that.

I have previously shown:
My view of the world as involving causality is the logically justified view (though not proven, because it cannot be).

OK. I agree that we should use causality in our daily interaction with the world, if that's what you mean.

If causality is taken to be true, then souls are irrelevant to making AI.

Nope. At the end, you presented a logically sound argument. Your argument was valid.

Your conclusion was not necessarily true, however. Not all of the premises have been tested. No one has tested whether all intelligence is created solely by physical things that are governed by causality. It's untestable.

This is just another demonstration of why science has its limits. We can't test everything.

If causality is not taken to be true, then nothing is certain, because all our knowledge of the world requires it.

So what? Nothing in the physical world is certain. That's the truth. The sun may not come up tomorrow. The universe may contract tomorrow into a mass the size of my fist. These are possibilities I suppose. They don't really freak me out, but I recognize that they could be true.

Of course, we use the idea of causality in our everyday lives. That makes a lot of sense. But it's not that hard for me to recognize that nothing in the physical world is certain. Doesn't bother me a bit.

The internally consistent version of causality is the logically sensible option. Everything else is subjectivity/universal doubt. Nothing can be proven against these positions, and therefore, for everyday use, my statement that my point is proven is true, because we usually define true as 'true notwithstanding universal doubt'.

Another fundamental principle behind science is that a hypothesis must be tested for it to become a scientific truth. If a hypothesis (souls can not create AI) has not been tested (or is untestable, as this one appears), then that means it cannot become a scientific truth.

 

[warpus]

Another fundamental principle behind science is that a hypothesis must be tested for it to become a scientific truth. If a hypothesis (souls can not create AI) has not been tested (or is untestable, as this one appears), then that means it cannot become a scientific truth.

And another fundamental scientific principle is that you will NEVER see a scientific hypothesis based on a NEGATIVE.

 

[jar2574]

Sure. But if there isn't any proof that sentience/whatever comes from the supernatural, we have to assume that it comes from the natural.

No we don't have to assume anything. It can't be proven either way at the moment. I'll be content with knowing that it cannot be proven. I won't assume either way.

For others, whose personal experience may lead them to believe in the supernatural, since it cannot be proven either way, they may feel even less comfortable assuming that intelligence comes solely from nature.

Yet you insist that those who claim that souls do not exist prove it, instead of putting the burden of proof with those who claim that they do exist, where it belongs.

Nope. Never insisted that anyone prove that souls do or do not exist.

If someone proposes an argument that depends upon souls existing or not existing, I'll point out that the premise cannot be proven, and therefore the conclusion may not be true.

Scientists are not going to sit there and perform experiments to prove negatives. They are going to try to come up with a hypothesis, and prove THAT. If somebody says "what if sentience comes from souls?", you do not have to prove that they don't. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim - they have to claim the positive.. and if they can't, the hypothesis is thrown out.

Agreed. And hopefully the scientists would stick to experiments where they can prove things, instead of making untestable claims about souls.

I don't dispute that it's true, my point is that it's irrelevant that nobody has proven a NEGATIVE..

It is relevant when someone's conclusion depends upon proving that negative.

If people had to prove negatives to make a point, not even the theory of gravity would have been accepted. Somebody could have said "invisible monkeys pull objects down, prove that I'm wrong" and scientists would still be sitting there, trying to prove every single negative that people come up with.

No scientist would claim that invisible monkeys were irrelevant to gravity, because he would realize that though monkeys are probably are irrelevant to gravity, he could not prove that the monkeys did or did not exist.

Scientists stick to things that can be tested.

Exactly. In our discussion, Occam's Razor would always point AWAY from a supernatural explanation of sentience, due to the inherent complexity of such a scenario. That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough. I agree.

 

[jar2574]

And another fundamental scientific principle is that you will NEVER see a scientific hypothesis based on a NEGATIVE.

We agree!

 

[whb]

And another fundamental scientific principle is that you will NEVER see a scientific hypothesis based on a NEGATIVE.

Is that your hypothesis? Because if so, you just disproved it

(edited to emphasise the humorous nature of this post. One, two, three, everybody groan...)