The singularity is near - raymond kurzweil

[Xmini-ballerX]

I think the closest we will ever come to create some form AI would be in the form of a "super computer" that would have to evaluate every possible outcome and work out the best in the space of nano seconds to actually perform a action that could be beneficial in the current situation it is in.

If we wanted to create AI to benefit human kind certainly need to abide by life's naturally occurring rules , for example Life and Death. Even if we could create emotion in a artificial being ,who is to say it will know how react to them. It could feel love , but show hate ( or the other way round ). Some human beings can't even deal with there emotion , how can we be sure a computer could?

I believe that the soul or concious or God given and no human could ever create one. If you asked me : Would there ever be a computer that could think for itself ?
The point I would try to make is the interpretation of the word "think" in the question.
For example you can play your PC at chess and either win or lose. But if you didn't know any better you would be under the illusion that the PC can think for itself whilst playing you. However we obviously know it is Programmed to act in the way it does. There could be artificial beings living amongst us now released by governments in order to help control society , as far fetched as it sounds it still could be plausible. The being(s) could have been programmed to react to every possible outcome that could ever happen we would not know any different from human being to artificial being ( obviously the cosmetics of the AB would have to look like a human being ) Step aside from the billions and billions of lines of coding and hours it may take to produce such a thing , in my head it doesn't sound as far fetched.

 

[Skeet]

...er, actually Skeet, for the most part, brain cells do not regenerate mate ...... once deaded, they remain deaded

Oh bugger!

Heard plenty of times about "killed off a few million brain cells"...they don't grow back...interesting.

Ok, so not-growing-back aside; It should still be able to last a bit longer than the rest of the body normally would. Barring dementia and other similar troubles.

 

[Robbo]

I think the closest we will ever come to create some form AI would be in the form of a "super computer" that would have to evaluate every possible outcome and work out the best in the space of nano seconds to actually perform a action that could be beneficial in the current situation it is in.

OK, you got me thinking and here’s my response; To evaluate every possible outcome would need a computer that possessed infinite memory and infinitely fast processing power, both of which will remain impossible for any computer, 'super' or not.
As to whether it's beneficial or not will be decided upon the programming and I don't really understand why you introduce the notion of it being 'beneficial in the current situation it is in'.
It just seems a bit arbitrary to even ponder this ...

If we wanted to create AI to benefit human kind certainly need to abide by life's naturally occurring rules , for example Life and Death. Even if we could create emotion in a artificial being ,who is to say it will know how react to them. It could feel love , but show hate ( or the other way round ). Some human beings can't even deal with there emotion , how can we be sure a computer could?

I have zero idea as to why you feel any device that could be described as 'intelligent' would need to abide by life’s naturally occurring rules as you call them, industry already makes millions of devices that can outlive humans, why make an exception for one that is intelligent - it just makes no sense?

..er, when you talk about coding the machine to feel emotions [even if this were possible but it ain’t], I don't understand what you mean when you pose the question, 'how it would react to them' .. is there a right way then?
I don't think so, emotions are all subjective and every mechanism [biological or otherwise] will react in their own peculiar way.

As to how a machine could deal with emotions?
What's it gonna do, jump in the air and pound you with it's ram?
Rather than being an obstacle to invoking responses by giving machines emotions, if ever possible [but it won’t], the mere fact it could react is more than cause to explore rather than dissuade.

I believe that the soul or concious or God given and no human could ever create one. If you asked me : Would there ever be a computer that could think for itself ?
The point I would try to make is the interpretation of the word "think" in the question.
For example you can play your PC at chess and either win or lose. But if you didn't know any better you would be under the illusion that the PC can think for itself whilst playing you. However we obviously know it is Programmed to act in the way it does. There could be artificial beings living amongst us now released by governments in order to help control society , as far fetched as it sounds it still could be plausible. The being(s) could have been programmed to react to every possible outcome that could ever happen we would not know any different from human being to artificial being ( obviously the cosmetics of the AB would have to look like a human being ) Step aside from the billions and billions of lines of coding and hours it may take to produce such a thing , in my head it doesn't sound as far fetched.

You seem to be getting confused with the soul, consciousness and the ability to think .. all of which need to be described and fully understood before discussing them in machines.
The ability to think is somewhat vague these days with computers seemingly thinking as they go about their business.
I suppose the ability to think can best be described as a mental function whereby any form of data is processed.
There doesn’t have to be a specific task assigned to thinking merely the function of a conscious mind.
Computers can certainly emulate thinking because they can produce results that involve calculations and what looks like inner reflection but a computer’s inner reflection is merely the accessing of its code, nothing more.
Someone’s mind is the conscious and unconscious workings of the brain whereas a person’s soul can best be understood by believing it to be the essence of a person, it is a person’s soul that makes him unique; one’s mind is the interface between the soul and the outside world ... this is how I see all three.
I don’t think anyone will ever create a soul but we have already created pretty good approximations to minds.

It also follows, a computer can never have a soul and can therefore never experience emotions as we experience them and so your suggestions seem to make little sense when you ask how a computer might react to feeling an emotion.

As for the government already introducing robots into our midst?
Gobbledegook, pure and utter gobbledegook!

There is no evidence whatsoever either in terms of achieved technology [we are not even close to what it would take to do this] or indeed any example of one of these beings being discovered .. I mean, are these beings exempt from accidents?
I’m sure something like a blown fuse or overheated anal passage might have occurred sometime somewhere somehow .... but it ain’t and it won’t ... this point is akin to conspiracy philosophy and is just as irrational.
As to your last line?
If in your head, the possibility of all this isn’t far-fetched, then you really need to read some more but stay away from sci-fi and also stay away from acid [LSD] - both will fuhk you up mate J

Still, your post was pretty well constructed and provoked a response that would have hopefully made things clearer for you; I’ll await your next offering J

 

[Robbo]

Oh bugger!

Heard plenty of times about "killed off a few million brain cells"...they don't grow back...interesting.

OK, so not-growing-back aside; It should still be able to last a bit longer than the rest of the body normally would. Barring dementia and other similar troubles.

The brain's functions are primarily best understood by the constant flow of oxygen to fuel electrical and biological processes associated with a conscious and unconscious mind; you imply there are no moving parts but of course, the flow of blood will cause differences in a brain's arteries and veins radial dimensions but apart from that, not much else moves around too much.

Of course the brain moves around in its skull full of fluid but the brain doesn't actually move as a function of its working other then the natural swelling associated with the ebb and flow of blood throughout its arterial and venal systems.

To keep the brain alive after the body has expired has all sorts of problems associated with it not least the moral question but those aside, it's most certainly theoretically possible but I wonder the psychological problems associated with waking up in a dream ..... after all, unless you hook up some sort of interface with the outside world, then waking up is gonna be quite a scary experience I think.

Still Skeet, it makes ya think that's for sure

 

[Skeet]

The brain's functions are primarily best understood by the constant flow of oxygen to fuel electrical and biological processes associated with a conscious and unconscious mind; you imply there are no moving parts but of course, the flow of blood will cause differences in a brain's arteries and veins radial dimensions but apart from that, not much else moves around too much.

Of course the brain moves around in its skull full of fluid but the brain doesn't actually move as a function of its working other then the natural swelling associated with the ebb and flow of blood throughout its arterial and venal systems.

To keep the brain alive after the body has expired has all sorts of problems associated with it not least the moral question but those aside, it's most certainly theoretically possible but I wonder the psychological problems associated with waking up in a dream ..... after all, unless you hook up some sort of interface with the outside world, then waking up is gonna be quite a scary experience I think.

Still Skeet, it makes ya think that's for sure

The bit in bold, is where I perceived cell regeneration would assist us with sorting out the;

...the only wear and tear that I can see, would be on those areas that transport fluid (blood)

...which I now know is not possible.

You say, "waking up in a dream". Perhaps this was intentional, but the term "waking up", suggests that you are no longer dreaming and are in fact, conscious.

You have certainly done more "sleeping" and "waking up" than I have (by a small margin), but I have never "woken up" in a dream.

The opposite (of sorts), I have done, whereby my eyes etc are awake, but my body is not and hence you are aware of being conscious, but are still paralysed. THAT, is not funny.

My thought, was not on merely maintaining the brain (inclusive of persona), but replacing the body around it, so essentially, the person is cybernetic, like Robocop but less 80's looking and not American.

Point being; yes you would have interfaces with the outside world.

I suppose that then raises the issue of sleep. We know that sleep, apart from resting the body, is when we dream and the brain does all sorts of fun stuff, while were are not conscious.

With a body that does not fatigue (muscular) or become lethargic, how do we induce sleep?
Energy would not come from the usual biological source and would therefore (I assume) be limitless.

We know, (certainly in cats) that lack of proper REM sleep, causes death. I assume that it may do the same in humans.

Would merely shutting down some of the external links, as one does when one sleeps, be enough? Would the brain then take over and do it;s think, allowing the persona to slip into unconsciousness?

How do you "engineer" a body, that can switch off external sources from the persona, but still enable them to be monitored subconsciously (meaning, if something happens while you are sleeping, that your subconscious think you should be aware of...it usually wakes you up)?

Two questions:

1) Did you see that programme or (more likely) read about, the science types who created a "New" Cell? As in, brand new, not from any existing cell?

2) Did you ever look at the "Maths Quiz" and did you come up with something like an answer?
I worked pretty hard on that one...made my head hurt!

 

[Robbo]

The bit in bold, is where I perceived cell regeneration would assist us with sorting out the;



...which I now know is not possible.

You say, "waking up in a dream". Perhaps this was intentional, but the term "waking up", suggests that you are no longer dreaming and are in fact, conscious.

You have certainly done more "sleeping" and "waking up" than I have (by a small margin), but I have never "woken up" in a dream.

The opposite (of sorts), I have done, whereby my eyes etc are awake, but my body is not and hence you are aware of being conscious, but are still paralysed. THAT, is not funny.

My thought, was not on merely maintaining the brain (inclusive of persona), but replacing the body around it, so essentially, the person is cybernetic, like Robocop but less 80's looking and not American.

Point being; yes you would have interfaces with the outside world.

I suppose that then raises the issue of sleep. We know that sleep, apart from resting the body, is when we dream and the brain does all sorts of fun stuff, while were are not conscious.

With a body that does not fatigue (muscular) or become lethargic, how do we induce sleep?
Energy would not come from the usual biological source and would therefore (I assume) be limitless.

We know, (certainly in cats) that lack of proper REM sleep, causes death. I assume that it may do the same in humans.

Would merely shutting down some of the external links, as one does when one sleeps, be enough? Would the brain then take over and do it;s think, allowing the persona to slip into unconsciousness?

How do you "engineer" a body, that can switch off external sources from the persona, but still enable them to be monitored subconsciously (meaning, if something happens while you are sleeping, that your subconscious think you should be aware of...it usually wakes you up)?

Two questions:

1) Did you see that programme or (more likely) read about, the science types who created a "New" Cell? As in, brand new, not from any existing cell?

2) Did you ever look at the "Maths Quiz" and did you come up with something like an answer?
I worked pretty hard on that one...made my head hurt!

When I wrote 'waking up in a dream' I was referring to when the brain regained consciousness but wasn't wired up to anything thus having no interface or contact with the outside world.
It would be like a dream state for sure.


To answer your questions though :-

1) I have read a few texts where cell creation is discussed but I'm not sure life has actually been created in that a cell grows and replicates and all that kinda stuff .. it is most certainly on its way with a partial success but cell creation is still a long way from a conscious being .. an awful long way .... half a billion years long

2) No, I most certainly did not try to answer it ... I have done all the mathematics I care to thanks and won't tax my brain unless I have to these days; I was actually considering going back to teaching the subject part time a few months ago but thankfully realised I probably wouldn't meet the necessary standard now and the thought of sitting over a book again to get back up to speed would do my nut in I think ..

 

[Skeet]

I doubt the Maths Quiz would have taxed you...if I can get more accurate results with my GCSE maths, than those who cite "Close Packing of Spheres", theory...I should think you could do it while eating breakfast.

Synthetic Cells. Yeah, dude called Szostak, I think is the one doing what I saw Here.

Basic idea being, they managed to create a nucleus, then they managed to create a cell to keep it in.

So not "life" as yet, bet the beginnings certainly.

 

[Robbo]

I doubt the Maths Quiz would have taxed you...if I can get more accurate results with my GCSE maths, than those who cite "Close Packing of Spheres", theory...I should think you could do it while eating breakfast.

Synthetic Cells. Yeah, dude called Szostak, I think is the one doing what I saw Here.

Basic idea being, they managed to create a nucleus, then they managed to create a cell to keep it in.

So not "life" as yet, bet the beginnings certainly.

I was well aware an approximation to life had been achieved in a lab but I wasn't aware of the details but after reading that text, it seems he has a fair way to go as I had suggested but even so, his achievements are astounding when you bear in mind it took evolutionary providence millions of years to achieve something similar.

It does of course provoke ethical questions because we all know government and large corporations are essentially morally corrupt and right-minded people have every right to be concerned.

If someone does actually create life, how long before the government or large corporation gets a hold of it and begins to control what's going on?.... The transition from research lab to a suit table will be almost immediate, believe me.

Money is the driving force for governments and corporations and so is it any wonder corruption goes hand in hand where money is the reason for being?

The future looks rather dismal but do we get the future we deserve or is any semblence of influence lost amidst the illusion of democracy?
Time for another thread maybes

 

[Skeet]

Money is the driving force for governments and corporations and so is it any wonder corruption goes hand in hand where money is the reason for being?

The future looks rather dismal but do we get the future we deserve or is any semblence of influence lost amidst the illusion of democracy?
Time for another thread maybes

Well perhaps. However...you would seem to be suggesting that what we are told about a given subject and what free thinkers would deem is obvious/actually the case, regarding that subject...are two different things. Surely not?

That would seem to be a conspiracy theory...and I thought you did not like conspiracy theories

 

[Robbo]

Skeet, I think the level of corruption, duplicity and greed in our government, banks and large corporations is so endemic it is now virtually impossible to eradicate.
We are now stuck with the powers that be in our country gorging themselves upon a body of money with no active deterrents whatsoever and when that happens ... poverty gaps widen and widespread lawlessness will simmer beneath the thin veneer of society that lulls all peoples into that false sense of social security... I don't think I'm dramatising leastwise I hope not but the outlook does seem pretty bleak if we uphold any semblance of fair play in our society to be a virtue.

I don't think anything too drastic will happen in the near future but there are signs that social unrest is coming all the time we have governments effectively hamstrung from doing anything that will relieve the tension and the greed.