Could Deep Blue play a smarter AI ?

[NapoléonPremier]

If the physical universe has a finite end (not time though) it must have a finite beginning, right?

There is no time separate from the physical universe. Time is just one of the (known) four dimensions of the universe. If the universe ends, then time ends with it (at least according to the current model).

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.
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?

He's going to shoot you in self-defense...!

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.

That's very interesting. I like your plane image. However, in it, the position of the people/particles is already determined, it's just that the observer doesn't know it yet. If I understand correctly, in the actual case of particles, their spin (in your example) is not actually determined before you measure it. Is this something that we are sure of ? Or just a strong possibility ? And does this undetermination invalidates - at least to some extent - the notion of causality which has been so vibrantly discussed here ?

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.

Yeah, that's a funny thing that puzzled me for sometime. When you come to think about it, scientists the world over could be the true masters of the world since they are the one actually detaining the knowledge to make all the weapons and all the technology in general - even if this power would be used for the "common good". And yet they are just basically employees, doing their technical tasks with no control whatsoever with what is done with their work, powerless in front of all the would be dictators. I guess the "will to power" is much more important than knowledge - at least as far as power is concerned.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Heat Death says that eventually, the entire universe will run out of 'usable' energy and nothing will move.

Where do you think that thread will be when that happens ? Message #5,864,341 ?

 

[kingjoshi]

There is no time separate from the physical universe. Time is just one of the (known) four dimensions of the universe. If the universe ends, then time ends with it (at least according to the current model).

There are multiple definitions and perspectives of time. Physical reality is what provided the foundations of knowledge and theory. But our abtractions can go beyond it. Time in metaphysics and time in physics are not the same beasts.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

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.

That's the bad thing when you hop in such a long thread. Everything you say has a strong chance of having a feeling of "been here, done that"...
However, parts of this thread have now turned into something else : for instance, the frightening debate Brighteye and Jar have been entertaining for dozens of posts about some obscure aspects of causality and logic, which nobody but them really understand, and which have nothing to do anymore with the "thoughtexperiment" it was originally supposed to be, very much resembles the debates middle age scholars had for tens of thousand pages on topics such as "is the Holy Trinity three different people or three aspects of the same being" etc. The only difference - and you might say it matters - is that the loser would usually be forced to recant or end up burned at the stake ("We don't need no water, let the motherf***** burn, burn motherf***** , burn !" the monks would chant ). So Jar, Brighteye, buddies/mates, whaddya say we burn the loser to up the ante (or the stakes, shall I say) ?


Originally Posted by NapoléonPremier
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.

I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but basically I'm one of those here suggesting there is another reality behind/beyond the material - metaphysics, litterally. However, I'd be very curious to know how you get to this through logic, because personnally I can't.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

If you think that the most reasonable thing to assume is nothing, then you do not assume causality at all, and you are a solipsist.

You mean he's having sex with small animals ? That's awful !

 

[NapoléonPremier]

There are multiple logical interpretations of quantum theory:
Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, The transactional interpretation, Everett's interpretation, Bohm's interpretation, and the Ithaca interpretation just to name a few!
Not all of these interpretations break causality. Some are indeed more favorable when Occams razor is applied but that doesnt apply to truth, only to presumption. You shouldn't be using presumptions to 'prove' things.

Could you briefly remind us what these different interpretations state (and which ones break/don't break causality) ?

An example of how deterministic the double-slit results are can be found on many credit cards, childrens trading cards, many national currencies, as well as stickers --> The old favorite of marketing --> Holograms!

Could you elaborate on that ?

 

[kingjoshi]

I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but basically I'm one of those here suggesting there is another reality behind/beyond the material - metaphysics, litterally. However, I'd be very curious to know how you get to this through logic, because personnally I can't.

My misunderstanding. I apologize.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Personally, when we start making AI identical to human intelligence then I will assume that your conclusion is correct, even though "universal doubt" would still suggest that it could be false.

Personally I would use against Brighteye (in all friendship of course ) a new sneaky weapon I just made up and that I call "the sophistic Occam's razor" : his thought experiment has already created so much complexity in this thread, that we must deem it unlikely and reject it...

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Quote:Originally Posted by NapoléonPremier
I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but basically I'm one of those here suggesting there is another reality behind/beyond the material - metaphysics, litterally. However, I'd be very curious to know how you get to this through logic, because personnally I can't.

My misunderstanding. I apologize.

You don't have to apologize. If you know how to reach the spiritual through logic, I'd be sincerely interested.

 

[kingjoshi]

Quote:Originally Posted by NapoléonPremier
I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but basically I'm one of those here suggesting there is another reality behind/beyond the material - metaphysics, litterally. However, I'd be very curious to know how you get to this through logic, because personnally I can't.

You don't have to apologize. If you know how to reach the spiritual through logic, I'd be sincerely interested.

Definition of "spiritual" has always been elusive for me. Coming to greater understanding about myself and the world can be a "spirtual" experience for me. Even if the understanding leads me to conclude I know less then I thought

Confusing, but I hope that made sense

 

[NapoléonPremier]

The classical text on AI is (currently) the book "Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach", by Russell and Norvig. The problem you are examining here is examined briefly in Ch. 26 of this book, in the section "Can Machines Really Think?" and the subsections "The mind-body problem" and 3 more subsections with thought experiments. Unfortunately my English are very poor to discuss this subject in full depth (I think everybody interested on the subject should have a look at the book), but the main points presented there are the following:

The basic thing that we have to decide is whether there are two distinct types of things (body and soul), which is called the dualist theory, or there is no such a thing like an immaterial soul, which is called the monist theory (more often it is called materialism).

Under the monist theory the mental states are just states of the brain. But let us examine a particular kind of mental state: the propositional attitudes or intentional states: like the state "I desire something", or more specifically "I desire an ice cream" or "I desire a pizza". Are these two states the same? The problem is that they refer to objects of the OUTSIDE world; hence, if we say they are different because they are connected to different objects of the outside world we violate the principle we stated before: that mental states are states of the mind (i.e. internal).

To examine this problem the AI scientists have proposed some thought experiments, which include:

The "brain in a vat" experiment
The brain prosthesis experiment
The Chinese room

You certainly need to have a look for these in the web to understand how present AI science views this problem (sorry I can't help more - as things get deeper my English fail me).

Do they offer some kind of answer (at least their view on the question) or do they just state the problem ?

 

[NapoléonPremier]

@5cats
NOTHING!!!!!!!
DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT
WRONG! PERIOD! W R O N G !
YOU MADE IT UP!!!! PERIOD!
DO NOT MAKE THINGS UP
STOP MAKING THINGS UP!
WRONG.
I tried to let you off easy on that but now its too damn bad... you now have to deal with it.
Very very sad.

See, Monseigneur, Mylord, common people are even too stupid to take advantage of your immense generosity. I wonder if he's even worth feeding to the dogs. You're right, your Highness, this is "very, very sad".

 

[atreas]

Do they offer some kind of answer (at least their view on the question) or do they just state the problem ?

In the very start of the chapter the authors say the following:

"The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently (or, perhaps better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the weak AI hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (as opposed to simulating thinking) is called the strong AI hypothesis.

Most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for granted and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis - as long as their program works, they don't care whether you call it a simulation of intelligence or real intelligence."

This text is a strictly scientific book, that uses logic in a very structured way. Of course, they wouldn't fall into the pitfall of trying to prove the unprovable - that means, they stay out of the "monist - dualist" debate and just present the arguments of each side. Their view, IMO, is that they don't care about proving the strong AI hypothesis (for good reason, I could add).

In strictly logical terms, the propositions you are debating about aren't "Immaterial souls exist" against "Immaterial souls don't exist", but instead they are "I can prove that immaterial souls exist" against "I can prove that immaterial souls don't exist". The difference is huge - the first ones are just belief states while the second ones are global assertions, and they are also affected by Godel's theorem.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Freewill is ill-defined. What would your objective definition of freewill be for the experiment? How would it translate over to comparisons of people of different DNA,experiences, etc?

If the "original person" and the "replica brain", placed in separate but similar environments make the exact same choices in a series of experiments, it will be a strong point against freewill, indicating that what we call "freewill" is actually nothing more than a consequence of the chemical exchanges going on in the brain (identical in this case).

Even from an objective viewpoint, I don't see how a soul is disproved from your argument. Identical twins with the same DNA hasn't made a dent in the notion of souls. Even in vitro fertilization, cloning of embyonic cells, etc: it doesn't matter.

You're right, souls are ill-defined since their existence is not even established. But in the usual acception, a soul is more a less "the true person", the "real being". If the replica brain has exactly the same personality and characteristics than the original person, it would tend to show that in this understanding of the soul, there is no soul (since the soul is supposed to be in the "original person", yet the replica has the same characteristics).
Of course, then you could say that the soul now "animates the two brains", but that would be "one soul for two bodies", an even further stretch - even by soul "standards". Occam's razor, already discussed here, would rather suggest it more likely indicates there are no souls animating brains.

 

[NapoléonPremier]

Definition of "spiritual" has always been elusive for me. Coming to greater understanding about myself and the world can be a "spirtual" experience for me. Even if the understanding leads me to conclude I know less then I thought
Confusing, but I hope that made sense

I guess what you're saying is pretty elusive for us too... But don't worry, you're very much in the tone, welcome to the thread !

Personal Qualifications
Natural leader
Team player

Oh come on, dude ! You can't have it both ways ! Do employers still fall for that ?

 

[kingjoshi]

If the "original person" and the "replica brain", placed in separate but similar environments make the exact same choices in a series of experiments, it will be a strong point against freewill, indicating that what we call "freewill" is actually nothing more than a consequence of the chemical exchanges going on in the brain (identical in this case).

Well, for me that's the prevailing notion, until shown otherwise. So I don't believe in free will, but only as an illusion. A very persistent one that is impossibe to remove, but an illusion nonetheless. But I think free will is even harder to define then a soul. So take the previous statements of denying free will with an asterik. In your example, I would assume those two to behave the same and free will not existing.

Of course, then you could say that the soul now "animates the two brains", but that would be "one soul for two bodies", an even further stretch - even by soul "standards". Occam's razor, already discussed here, would rather suggest it more likely indicates there are no souls animating brains.

Ever heard of soulmates? Some people do believe that one soul can occupy two bodies. But my point was, regardless of this or other experiments and their results, people will believe despite evidence.

 

[kingjoshi]

Oh come on, dude ! You can't have it both ways ! Do employers still fall for that ?

A good leader knows when to be a follower. When to accept ideas of others in the team and give proper credit boosting morale and fostering a positive atmosphere. I think I can do that.

Whether employers fall for that, I'll find out when I start sending applications

I sincerely believe what I said though.

 

[5cats]

Wow, the cat has turned into a tiger...

YEah, it gets my dander up when people profess to 'defend logic' through illogical and underhanded means.

Ever heard of soulmates? Some people do believe that one soul can occupy two bodies.

It's my understanding that 'soulmates' refers to kindred souls, ones which are completely compatable, rather than one soul in two people...

Where do you think that thread will be when that happens ? Message #5,864,341 ?

Oh at least! Our grandchildren will still be at it! 5CatsIV and Brighteye Jr Jr Jr,