Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[jar2574]

If you were picking up on this less than precise definition of proven, then you are correct and no, my conclusion is not certain.

I think that is what occured. In my view science isn't meant to provide certainty, it is meant to provide (very useful) probabilities.

I disagree with your first sentence here. An intrinsic part of the normal understanding of reality is causality.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

IMO causality is not an intrinsic part of our normal understanding of reality.
If an area of reality is not subject to causality, then causality is not an intrinsic part of reality.
Causality does not always apply in quantum physics, an area of reality.
Therefore causality is not an intrinsic part of our normal understanding of reality.

We may use causality everyday. It may be very useful. But we recognize that it is not an intrinsic part of reality, because some real things are not governed by it.

I say that either quantum shows all of causality is wrong, or it shows that causality does not govern quantum effects; there is no middle ground between these two opinions.

IMO there is somewhat of a middle ground. Causality does not govern quantum physics, but causality is not all wrong. It is just a theory (like all scientific theories) that only applies in certain circumstances.

I guess if your idea of causality is that causality must always be applicable to be correct, then yes, causality is all wrong under our current understanding of the world. I don't expect any scientific theory to be abblicable to everything, so I wouldn't call causality "all wrong." IMO we do not yet know how much quantum physics will change our understanding of other scientific laws, so we don't know just how "wrong" causality will end up being.

However, I think it was reasonable of me to use the definition in the imprecise, more common way. If there is some means of doubting my conclusion (other than this universal doubt) then you (or 5cats) has yet to phrase it clearly enough for me to pick up on it and be convinced by it.

I understand where you're coming from. It appears that you think that science points so strongly to your conclusion that an assumption that your conclusion is true is warranted.

We disagree because in my view the most reasonable thing is to assume nothing, and to recognize the limits of science. We have not proven that intelligence comes from sources governed by the laws of causality. So I won't assume that it does.

 

[5cats]

Originally Posted by Krikkitone
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

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.

You didn't say "almost infinity", you said infinity!

only work for people who don't quite understand infinity and limits (i.e. tending towards zero, and tending towards infinity).

No, I understand those things perfectly well. Infinity is infinity and "tending towards infinity" is something else entirely.

I agree that one can move forward in time towards infinity, but as we do so, entropy will eventually cause all motion to cease. Time will continue infinitly, but after a certain point nothing will be moving, ever again.
The reverse of this must also be true, if it is a "law". If the physical universe has a finite end (not time though) it must have a finite beginning, right? But if time goes back infinitely, then so too does the physical universe.
Limit theory has nothing to do with it.

The only way the physical universe can aviod infinity is if it was "created" at some point! THAT is an "uncaused cause" by definition. This is our current theory, Big Bang or Big God, take your pick

It would always remain finite of course, but for all intents and purposes it could be considered "infinitely big".

Here you're just playing with words, in a very illogical fashion I might add.
Entropy is a process, not a "thing". You can't measure how "big" a process is! You can measure the effect that enropy has on physical things. So if time moves infinitely forward, and it does, all things WILL achieve zero energy (which is infinte entropy) period! You can't stop entropy, it will not be "zero entropy" until there is zero energy. Unless you believe Zeno's Achilles & the Tortoise paradox is true...


Seems mighty simple to me. If anyone doesn't understand part of this, I'll elaborate but I've been posting some awful long posts and am trying to cut them down in size

 

[5cats]

So, if one exception, cannot be factored into a rule then most of our laws are utter rubbish. You've committed a crime if you kill someone unless it was in self-defence. But no! Exceptions aren't allowed, so according to you, I can then justify killing someone on this basis. 'You've allowed the exception of self-defence, so you can allow the exception of the murder I've committed'.

As long as the exception is still within the principle, it's a principle. If even one exception proves the principle wrong, then the principle is wrong entirely.

Comparing apples to oranges doesn't help your case at all. Are you deliberatly trying to confuse the issue?
If an exception is made once for self-defence, then that sets a precident. The next time someone is killed in self defence the exception will apply again and so on. NOT for cold-blooded mass murder! If one can demonstrate self defence is involved (is "the cause") then the self-defence laws apply.

In our discussion, you have repeatedly stated that all things in the physical universe are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
THEREFOR when 5Cats proposes something that involves non-causality, it MUST be wrong.
But suppose 5Cats demonstrates that there is, in fact, non-causality within our real, physical universe?
Well, that's an exception.
Ok, so an exception can be made for the existance of non-causality to actually exist in our physical unverse.
No, just once, not for anything else.

This is what I've been saying all along! You CAN make a second, third & etc exception and still allow for a causal universe, so long as you realize that causality doesn't neccessarily apply to everything.

Ok?

 

[5cats]

Are you really trying to postulate that natural events could give rise to something supernatural?

No, by definition if it occured naturally it would NOT be supernatural. Just because we don't currently understand HOW it happens, doesn't mean it is impossible. Or supernatural.

The only thing we [currently] know of that exists outside of the laws of causality are the random quantum fluctuations I was talking about. Are you basing your entire argument on "Well, there COULD be other things that lie outside of the laws of causality" ? 'COULD BE' doesn't sound like a very strong premise to base your entire argument on.

I added the "currently" for sake of clarity
What's wrong with 'could be'? How about "It is within the realms of possibility" ? After all, "could be, or not could be, that is the question..."

I would love to hear your hypothesis on the nature of the soul, if it does not come from God. (most people who believe in souls attribute them to a deity)

Yup, most people do, within a limited definition of "soul" But there are others who still believe in 'spirit force' who don't believe in God (capital G). And still others who think sentience and self-awareness is part of the evolutionary process. Belief in a soul (spirit) doesn't rule out evolution, per se. Just like believing in God doesn't mean you have to believe in "Biblical Creationism". God could just as easily created the Big Bang, right? Yes, I do in fact believe God did create the Big Bang It makes equal sense as the idea that it 'just happened'...

 

[5cats]

An intrinsic part of the normal understanding of reality is causality. Following directly from accepting causality as a principle, combined with specific laws that act in conjunction with it (such as gravity), and are also intrinsic to our understanding or reality, we can make a great many logically justified conclusions. .

Well yes, quite right, absolutely.

This is a key point in what I've said to 5cats. These conclusions follow directly from causality, and are not individually deniable; to deny one of them one must deny the principle on which they are based.
5cats seems to be tending to the idea that quantum proves that one such conclusion is wrong, and therefore the particular conclusion that 5cats dislikes (and which was the point of my initial argument) could also be wrong. I say that either quantum shows all of causality is wrong, or it shows that causality does not govern quantum effects; there is no middle ground between these two opinions..

No, not exactly. It's what you've said, that 'souls' cannot exist because they'd be outside of causality. But We Agree that there are things outside causality, so that isn't a valid "disproof" of the possibility that souls exist!
There's plenty of middle ground, as jar has discussed.

If there is some means of doubting my conclusion (other than this universal doubt) then you (or 5cats) has yet to phrase it clearly enough for me to pick up on it and be convinced by it.

I'll say it this way (although I think I already said it in a previous post) once an exception to a Law is allowed, further exceptions won't invalidate the origional Law any more than the first one did. As long as one exception is possible, others are possible too! Consider 'murder' by accident, or by reason of insanity, they're exceptions to the murder laws, right?

 

[Zombie69]

You didn't say "almost infinity", you said infinity!

No, I understand those things perfectly well. Infinity is infinity and "tending towards infinity" is something else entirely.

Like i said, you can go back and forward in time infinitely, but entropy never becomes zero or infinite in either direction. It tends towards zero in one direction and tends towards infinity in the other. The same goes for enthalpy, but in the opposite direction.

Entropy is a process, not a "thing". You can't measure how "big" a process is! You can measure the effect that enropy has on physical things.

Actually, you can measure entropy, just as you can measure enthalpy.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Cats are notoriously good at ignoring stuff that they don't care about, including you, as you probably know all too well.

That's, oh so true...

Dolphins... Plus they're self-aware (a minor detail, but which you seem to give a lot of importance to).

I think on the contrary it is an extremely important detail. Self-awareness is the fisrt step towards superior beingness. Do we know how dolphins achieve it ?
They're actually pretty sentient : for instance, they will "know" when a (human) woman is pregnant and avoid swimming near her.

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.

That's probably true. But mice are devilishly clever. However, I still wouldn't recommend playing the game of "cat and mouse" when you're a mouse...

 

[Pawel]

You seem to really know what you're talking about regarding quantum physics, probably the most of all of us here, so please state clearly your point of view on one of the crucial questions that has agitated this thread :
can the behavior of a SINGLE particle be regarded as undeterministic, or is it just an effect of measurement or causes we don't know yet ? (In my current understanding, it is truly undeterministic)

And also, since you seem to be a physicist, what is your specific field of research ?

I think that most people today would agree with you that the behavior of a single particle isn't deterministic. However, if you want me to state it clearly, let me first try to explain what it actually means.

Assume that you are sitting at a table with a friend, but there are three chairs. Your eyes are closed, so you can't see in which chair your friend is sitting. Since cheating is not allowed, once you open your eyes the probability of finding your friend to the right or to the left is about equal (superposition of eigenstates). Furthermore, say that you are sitting in a plane flying at high speed. The probability of finding your friend in a certain place thus propagates in a deterministic fashion through space. However, once you open your eyes you will see your friend sitting in only one of the two chairs. The probability of finding him in the other suddenly becomes zero. (The measurement 'pushes' the system into one eigenstate.) And you will always find him in the same chair even if you repeat the measurement by quickly closing your eyes and then opening them again.

This is very much how a simple quantum mechanical system works. It can, for instance, be an electron with its spin pointing up or down. Before you measure the spin, there is a certain probability of finding it in either state, but if you repeat the measurement, you will always see the same thing that you measured before. However, your friend clearly knows in which chair he is sitting. The probability you assign to each possibility represents your imperfect knowledge of the world. The question about randomness is thus the following. Does the electron know which way its spin points, or does it only (randomly) make up its mind about it once you decide to actually measure its spin? Of course, the electron probably isn't very bright, but it can have an internal (hidden) variable which determines what it is 'really' doing.

It may seem difficult to distinguish the two cases, but there are actually strong indications, such as Bell's inequalities, that 'hidden' variables do not exist. Without going into detail, the basic idea of Bell's work is to say that you can't have it all. If you believe one thing, you may have to give up something else.

Now, there are some concepts that physicists find appealing, such as locality and causality. But it turns out that these are to some extent contradictory concepts in the quantum world. So, while Zombie may well champion determinism, causality, and locality, he would find it a real challenge to actually make a theory that didn't contradict itself and yet have all these properties.

And what does the quantum world 'really' look like? The classic (Copenhagen) interpretation is that we cannot know. We can describe some aspects of it, but at a fundamental level it probably is very different from what we can even imagine. Thus, it is really hard to say what this means for other human ideas that clearly are much further from the 'true' world than quantum physics itself.

However, don't take my word for it. As most physicists I spend most of my time on specific problems (production of kaons and hyperons) rather than thinking about the deeper meaning of the fundamental concepts.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

A chimp (or a human for that matter) has never actually seen its forehead either, yet they'll instantly know it's theirs and will try to remove the mark.

Again, do we know how they have this "spontaneous" knowledge ? And is this "self awareness" a survival advantage ?

 

[5cats]

However, don't take my word for it. As most physicists I spend most of my time on specific problems (production of kaons and hyperons) rather than thinking about the deeper meaning of the fundamental concepts.

Good thing too, or they'd spend all their time on messageboards, arguing!

Like i said, you can go back and forward in time infinitely, but entropy never becomes zero or infinite in either direction. It tends towards zero in one direction and tends towards infinity in the other. The same goes for enthalpy, but in the opposite direction.

Pawel, could you offer an opinion on this?

Zombie, Enthalpy: the sum of the internal energy of a body and the product of its volume multiplied by the pressure
I'll go look at some on-line Dictionaries, but that's what mine says.

 

[Pawel]

To my knowledge time is not really well understood for one particle. For instance, an electron going backward in time is equivalent to a positron going forward in time. Entropy is a statistical concept. The idea is that the direction of time can be determined by the fact that no system gets more ordered as time goes by. I don't really get this going back and forth part, but that's probably because I missed the other posts.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Aw, my brain hurts from reading the whole thread
But some of it was really interesting (otherwise I would be a compulsive reader, ready for the nuthouse )
But the real question would be: why does a human waste so many time on writing about AI, quantum psychics and the existence of souls on a game forum (or reading it for that matter). That really puzzles my mind.

Keep up the good work

That's the beauty of the human mind, though... Probabilities are all of this is just for "nothing" (or at least entertainment), but who knows, maybe one of the posters who is also a real world scientist (for instance Pawel), will have a flash of intuition prompted by all that blabber, which will allow him to develop a new super weapon, which in turn will allow us to resist a surprise attack by aliens...
This restlessness and eagerness to explore, even the apparently vain, is what has taken us so far so quick (from flintstones to spaceships in about 10000 years). We're all heroes, here...

 

[5cats]

To my knowledge time is not really well understood for one particle. For instance, an electron going backward in time is equivalent to a positron going forward in time. Entropy is a statistical concept. The idea is that the direction of time can be determined by the fact that no system gets more ordered as time goes by. I don't really get this going back and forth part, but that's probably because I missed the other posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Here's Wiki, and I know it isn't 'the best' reference, but it'll do.
The last two paragraphs (scroll waaaay down) deal with The Arrow of Time and Cosmic Entropy (heat death)

And it makes exactly the same points & conclusions as I made
Of course it's still controversial, duh! But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has never been disproven.

The "Arrow" of time: Entropy always points one way, regardless of time moving forward or backward. I you view motion, left to right, in reverse time, the motion is right to left. Ok? Not so entropy, it ponits right while time moves forward, and it points right while time moves backwards too.
It might be the only thing in the universe that does this.
Heat Death says that eventually, the entire universe will run out of 'usable' energy and nothing will move.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

If you invoke an unjustified premises to show why some other premise is justified, then you really have not justified anything at all. Hence you cannot get from "logic" to "souls" - justify AT LEAST one of them first.

You're right, logic cannot help you "find" the spiritual reality, despite many (unsuccesful) attempts in the past by brilliant philosophers and theologians (Descartes, Leibniz, Saint Augustinus to name just a few). They are two different orders.

I do not know of a reason to suppose that a 'soul' exists other than because 'someone else said so' -- Scientists specifically, and critical thinkers in general, really frown on invoking such unjustified ideas in productive discourse.

There is no good reason that I am aware of to suppose that a 'soul' exists.

However, since so many philosophical and religious systems have hinted to the existence of a spiritual reality underlying physical reality, you may decide, because of inductive logic, that it's worth investigating (of course you may also say "it's just a bunch of superstitious crap, people used to say tornadoes were created by gods sneezing, now we kow better, no need to get into that bulls***, it's just a complete waste of time. But that leaves you where you're at).
And, as I mentioned before on that thread, there actually are ways to verify for yourself that you are, indeed, a spirit, and not just a bunch of carbon cells (altough carbon is very useful to sustain life in the physical world, I don't mean to demean it... ). When I say verify, I mean : "observe as a verifiable fact". Not : "believe because such and such said so, or because your family believes it". And it's actually much easier than you would think. You would be surprised.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

The only truths that are 100% certain are those that are logically certain.

And even these are not certain per se, in the absolute. They are only certain within a given logical system, with specific axioms, etc...
I mean, if you put as a simple axiom "Brighteye is always right, even when he is wrong", then the proposition "his devastatingly insane thoughtexperiment his RIGHT" becomes a 100% logical truth...

 

[NapoléonPremier]

By the way, is it me, or does anyone else notice a difference between jumping off a building and trying to create a thought experiment about identical brains?

Maybe it's just me.

No, I think they have some similarities : after spending a hundred posts dissecting in minute details the ins and outs of Brighteye's loony thoughtexperiment, you really feel like jumping off a building...

But this exchange between the two of you is very interesting : you're obviously both intelligent and I assume open-minded people, yet after spending so many posts discussing in extensive detail what seems like something rather simple, you still can't find an agreement and hold your ground. I guess this is where you see the limits of a "purely logical" discussion...

 

[Brighteye]

And even these are not certain per se, in the absolute. They are only certain within a given logical system, with specific axioms, etc...
I mean, if you put as a simple axiom "Brighteye is always right, even when he is wrong", then the proposition "his devastatingly insane thoughtexperiment his RIGHT" becomes a 100% logical truth...

And we all work within the system of logic and therefore these truths are absolutely certain. To deny logic is to deny the very basis of rational thought. Without it we can't really do useful thinking at all. That's why everyone's arguments here are attempts at being logical.

Devastatingly insane? It's devastatingly simple really. As for your simple axiom, I don't think the second clause is necessary...

 

[Brighteye]

No, not exactly. It's what you've said, that 'souls' cannot exist because they'd be outside of causality. But We Agree that there are things outside causality, so that isn't a valid "disproof" of the possibility that souls exist!
There's plenty of middle ground, as jar has discussed.

I'll say it this way (although I think I already said it in a previous post) once an exception to a Law is allowed, further exceptions won't invalidate the origional Law any more than the first one did. As long as one exception is possible, others are possible too! Consider 'murder' by accident, or by reason of insanity, they're exceptions to the murder laws, right?

I've said it every time someone brings it up, and I'll sya it again: I have never said that souls cannot exist. I have never tried to prove this, and those proofs I have given do not concern this statement. I'll repeat:
I have never said that souls cannot exist. I have never tried to prove this, and those proofs I have given do not concern this statement. That serves as my reply to next time you say this.

Further exceptions will be based on doubting the universality of the law. This doubt cannot justify one exception; it must doubt every exception. Doubting every exception means denying the applicability of the law at all.
Having denied that the law exists you have no evidence for anything else, so you can replace the law with a subjective belief. If your belief is that the law holds except for souls and quantum then although it's similar to the original 'law' it's still a solely subjective belief based on doubt of our current principles.

Now, the obvious point for you to question is the universality of the original law. Its universality is intrinsic to what it is. We see that a certain rule applies in every case we observe, and so we call it a principle of the world: a physical law. Without it the world means nothing, because there must be principles that govern systems, or they are not systems. If the world means nothing, then we are at Descartes' universal doubt (again).
So, we have a principle that we think applies universally, because that's how the system operates. We do not every day see evidence for non-universality (e.g I throw a stone and it hovers in mid-air). If we did and we still used causality as a rule we would still assume it to govern those instances not excepted. That's what rules are.
However, after using this principle in detailed physics experiments we find that it seems to be violated. The principle itself leads us to conclude that it does not apply! We can allow this one exception, justified from within our system by the system's rules, and continue thinking that causality applies universally otherwise, or we can claim that causality is untrue.
If there is the possibility of souls causing breaks in causality then the possibility is only there from doubting causality's universality. If you doubt it's universality you doubt it universally. Quantum does not directly justify souls breaking causality. A couple of posters (e.g Warpus) asked how it does, because they saw this as either what you were saying or as the only thing you could now say.

 

[kingjoshi]

27 pages? I don't know if I'll get around to reading all of this.

Incase it wasn't stated, No. Deep Blue was hard wired to specifically play chess and only chess. Current chess programs that run on modern day computers are as powerful at chess now actually.

You're right, logic cannot help you "find" the spiritual reality, despite many (unsuccesful) attempts in the past by brilliant philosophers and theologians (Descartes, Leibniz, Saint Augustinus to name just a few). They are two different orders.

I must be smarter than them then. (I hope I used the then and than correctly, or I'd look awfully dumb )

Anyhow, logic is helpful. Not sufficient nor necessary.

 

[Brighteye]

Comparing apples to oranges doesn't help your case at all. Are you deliberatly trying to confuse the issue?
If an exception is made once for self-defence, then that sets a precident. The next time someone is killed in self defence the exception will apply again and so on. NOT for cold-blooded mass murder! If one can demonstrate self defence is involved (is "the cause") then the self-defence laws apply.

Yes, so if you can demonstrate that quantum effects are involved as the process by which souls affect causality but are outside of it then the exception for quantum applies. If you can't then the exception does not apply.
As for comparing apples to oranges, I expect people to be able to understand analogies. I frequently visit a home for the mentally handicapped (no, not because I belong there, so whichever joker was thinking of saying it, don't bother), and most of those can deal adequately with analogies. Trying to claim that it's an analogy and therefore irrelevant is pretty low. Show me how the analogy is flawed (and not by some silly statement regarding those aspects of my analogy that are irrelevant).

In our discussion, you have repeatedly stated that all things in the physical universe are subject to the laws of cause and effect.
THEREFOR when 5Cats proposes something that involves non-causality, it MUST be wrong.
But suppose 5Cats demonstrates that there is, in fact, non-causality within our real, physical universe?
Well, that's an exception.
Ok, so an exception can be made for the existance of non-causality to actually exist in our physical unverse.
No, just once, not for anything else.

This is what I've been saying all along! You CAN make a second, third & etc exception and still allow for a causal universe, so long as you realize that causality doesn't neccessarily apply to everything.

Ok?

You cannot make more exceptions without evidence. If you do then the exact same logical process that allows you to make one exception forces you to make all the exceptions, and deny the law. Your exception could be correct. However, its only justification is denying the applicability of the law at all.