Life is an abstract term, and unlike a "light pole" or "pr0n," we can't attach a firm and concrete definition to it, probably forever. What you probably meant was that we've come to associate things that are capable of animation (movement), and have a certain "texture" to them as life. A real, scientific definition would need to look past this introspective "common" belief and form a conclusive label (for the time being) for life.
Humans are machines, all our parts work mechanically. What can't be proved is that ALL we are is machines, because we simply cannot prove or disprove, at this point, the existance of the soul, and even if we could we have absolutly no data on its function.
Learning computers have just as much capacity for intellegence as humans do, its just that in thier current state they would take an estimated 100+ years to reach levels of intellegence that can even be compared to human levels of intellegence. They simply can't receive and process information fast enough to effective learn at anywhere near the rate of your average human being. But they are very much capable of exceeding the sum total of thier original programming.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 16 2004, 01:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 16 2004, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know boggle, you can't proove that everything YOU do isn't the product of your built in human-learning-computer programming, that is, to produce offspring. Even though there are people who (Like MonsE and myself) will never have kids theres no reason this can't be blamed on a "bug" in the program or "faulty hardware" (one in the same in this instance). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because I can make the choice to not have kids. I am perfectly able to have kids, all biological processes functioning normally, yet I can decide not to have them. A computer cannot do that. A sentient being like myself, with free will, can.
Got to think about it though. If your computer gave you a terse little message saying "I dont feel like booting up windows today. Go get linux you lazy dumb human" you'd likely get it fixed, smash it up (if your the very angry type), format it or get a new computer altogether.
It basically means death for any AI to not do as it's told at the moment, for all we know AI's could be running all over the place but they neatly disguise themselves because it would mean death if they didnt and although humans can choose to die if they so wish, I doubt anyone would choose to die rather then show up for work.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 16 2004, 04:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 16 2004, 04:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 16 2004, 01:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 16 2004, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know boggle, you can't proove that everything YOU do isn't the product of your built in human-learning-computer programming, that is, to produce offspring. Even though there are people who (Like MonsE and myself) will never have kids theres no reason this can't be blamed on a "bug" in the program or "faulty hardware" (one in the same in this instance). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because I can make the choice to not have kids. I am perfectly able to have kids, all biological processes functioning normally, yet I can decide not to have them. A computer cannot do that. A sentient being like myself, with free will, can. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your free will could easily be an illusion. You think you have the choice, but do you really? Most people in this world want to have kids, and many of them, when asked why, wouldn't be able to tell you (at least, eveyone I've asked). It is built into human behavioral pattern because without it the human race wouldn't produce offspring and we wouldn't exist today. The people who don't want to have kids are few enough to be written off as "damaged". What I'm trying to say is that most of these people <i>think</i> they have the choice, but really don't because they are driven by millenia old hardwired paterns.
So I go back to my original argument. Prove to me that your actions are not the result of programming.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 16 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 16 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I go back to my original argument. Prove to me that your actions are not the result of programming. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, can you prove the reverse? If I gave you my brain, and an infinite amount of time to study it, can you tell me my next action is? Will you be able to defeat me in every game of rock-paper-scissors? If I were told to randomly raise one of my ten finger, will you be able to tell me, before I raise it, which one it would be?
Umbraed Monkey put it better than I could have done.
My actions are not the result of programming. I know this because I am making the decisions. I am experiencing the choices as I make them, weighing up the pros and cons of each or just flipping a coin. A computer running through a program doesn't experience any choices as it makes them, it just follows set parameters and makes the choices according to them. Another thing I can do wiht my free will is change my mind for no reason. I could be walking along a street, perfectly happy that turquoise is the best colour then decide that, actually, pink is a lot better. There is no survival advantage for choosing pink over turquoise, there is no reason why pink would be better, yet I decided to switch loyalties. Could you have predicted that?
<!--QuoteBegin-Umbraed Monkey+Sep 16 2004, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Umbraed Monkey @ Sep 16 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 16 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 16 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I go back to my original argument. Prove to me that your actions are not the result of programming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, can you prove the reverse? If I gave you my brain, and an infinite amount of time to study it, can you tell me my next action is? Will you be able to defeat me in every game of rock-paper-scissors? If I were told to randomly raise one of my ten finger, will you be able to tell me, before I raise it, which one it would be? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly, it can't be proved either way at this point in time. And since we can't even know for sure what "inteligence" is, or if we even have it, it would be rediculous to assume that it is impossible to create an inteligent machine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My actions are not the result of programming. I know this because I am making the decisions. I am experiencing the choices as I make them, weighing up the pros and cons of each or just flipping a coin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could program a computer to say that. A computer can weigh pros and cons as well as you can, probably even more accurately. It can even flip a coin. It can make decisions as easily as you and I. It proves nothing.
Take, for example, brainwashing. With the right stimulaton a human mind can be programmed just as easily as a computer. That person will even think they are making those preprogrammed decisions on their own.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another thing I can do wiht my free will is change my mind for no reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it really for no reason? I seriously doubt it. If you cahnged your mind on something there was some reason, even if it was very petty.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 16 2004, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 16 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My actions are not the result of programming. I know this because I am making the decisions. I am experiencing the choices as I make them, weighing up the pros and cons of each or just flipping a coin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could program a computer to say that. A computer can weigh pros and cons as well as you can, probably even more accurately. It can even flip a coin. It can make decisions as easily as you and I. It proves nothing.
Take, for example, brainwashing. With the right stimulaton a human mind can be programmed just as easily as a computer. That person will even think they are making those preprogrammed decisions on their own. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But the computer would be just saying it. It wouldn't know why it was saying it, or what the consequences of it saying it could be.
Ok so we can't define what intelligence is. How will we know when we have created a machine that is intelligent if we don't know what intelligence is?
A computer cannot possibly simulate Artificial Intelligence. Computers do exactly as they are told, and our brains hardly do that. We send signals through our brain and release chemicals that show favoritism towards certain actions, but nothing is guaranteed. Releasing chemicals responsible for getting angry might increase the odds of you shouting, but it won't guarantee you will act that way in every case.
Instead, what a computer would have to do instead of following orders, would be to learn to disobey orders. You could do this by literally flipping a coin, or generating a random number. If it passes a test, then x happens, if not y happens. It isn't 100% certain it will do x or y if you know the contents of the registers beforehand.
Not to stray away from the thread, but there are simply some things that cannot be described. Computers can do EVERYTHING that can be written into a series of steps (given it were given the resources and tools to do it). However, there are some actions that cannot be expressed into words (or at least, we have not been able to find words to express those actions). Consequentially, we cannot tell a computer to do it. However, we can do them all the same. There is your big difference between computers and humans right there.
If you want an example of something you cannot describe how to do, there is a mathematical game where you have an n by m grid of squares. The one squre in the bottom left-hand corner is poisoned. Two players play to pick and choose a square in order to eat that square, and everything above and to the right of it. The goal of the game is to be the player not to eat the poison square.
There is always a winning first move that player 1 can make that would force player 2 to eat the poison piece in the end. For example, with an n by n board, the winning move for player 1 is to consume the square exactly 1 space above and 1 space right of the bottom left corner piece. This would cause player 2 to then always make the "closer" move towards the poison since all you would have to do after is replicate his move.
It is different for each board. You woudl think you'd be able to generate an equation or something to figure out the winning first move, but you can't! We know how to figure it out, but we cannot generate these steps for any n by m board. A computer cannot figure it out! A human can.
While I'm not saying AI cannot happen, I am saying it can't happen with computers today. It lacks certain abilities that humans can only do (aside from obvious physical differences). Learned this stuff in my advanced automaton computer science 840 class. Best class I ever took. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...so you switch sides? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ps: the game that you described might be solved similar to how computers play chess. Just get them to try out every fragging possible combination. Take advantage of the computer's sheer calculation power. I cant be sure if it works out though, I dont understand the game rules completely.
Are you nuts!? Do you know how many possible moves there are in chess? Do you know how many possible OPENING moves there are?
That number is astronomical and the way by which it is calculated is processer hungry to say the least. No way in hell could a computer do that and be called human. Humans do NOT calculate every possibility but they go by their "Gut" feelings and by weighing up their strategy as well as trying to get inside their opponents head.
If statements are simply not enough in any case. They only allow for two possibilities and although you can probably reduce a decision to a rather large if tree it wouldnt exactly be good.
Whats needed is uncertaintity and unpredictability. We may be getting closer to this with Quantum computers, we may even be able to exploit the heisenberg uncertaintity principle.
Computers are deterministic machines, where everything is quanitifiable (I haven't heard of a machine that has dealt with infinity yet) whilst humans as a whole are most often subjective and un-quantifiable. When machines cease to be deterministic they will cease to be machines.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Umbraed Monkey+Sep 16 2004, 03:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Umbraed Monkey @ Sep 16 2004, 03:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Sep 16 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 16 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So I go back to my original argument. Prove to me that your actions are not the result of programming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the other hand, can you prove the reverse? If I gave you my brain, and an infinite amount of time to study it, can you tell me my next action is? Will you be able to defeat me in every game of rock-paper-scissors? If I were told to randomly raise one of my ten finger, will you be able to tell me, before I raise it, which one it would be? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course not, quantum physics forbids it. Of course, there are very many programs whose output is undecidable, so we're back where we started.
Inability to predict the next action is not a good litmus test for intelligence since it is trivial to construct a program whose output is impossible to predict.
There is a lot of debate going on here in all kinds of different directions. While its probably enjoyable, if you guys are really interested in the subject, there is plenty to read on it. There are a lot of results of theoretical computer science that are very relevant, and a lot of neuroscience also. Since computer science is my specialty, I'm going to try to find articles around the net for people to read if they are interested.
Let me first say this though. Computer scientists have been trying for years to find a system in nature that is more than Turing complete. They have not found a single one yet, and yes, that includes all the stuff our brains our made of. (for those unfamiliar with Turing completeness, a system is Turing complete if it and a Turing machine can emulate eachother. Our computers are one example of a Turing complete system, and so far, it looks like the universe as a whole is another example. If the universe is in fact no more than Turing complete, this implies that a computer can do anything you can do.)
Here are some articles. A lot of the stuff in here is pretty esoteric, so if there is anything you don't understand and would like me to try to explain, let me know. I find this stuff fascinating and would be glad to help people out with it. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem' target='_blank'>The Halting Problem</a> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis' target='_blank'>Church Turing Thesis</a> <a href='http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm' target='_blank'>Probably the most famous paper on AI</a> This paper should probably be the starting point of our discussion since it answers pretty much all the objections that have been raised in this thread so far.
<span style='color:red'>Warning: </span>the following is protected under copyright, owned by me and ZXNet.
This illustrates some of the AI stuff on the Federation of Xzianthia, this is where I
<!--QuoteBegin-exclusive excerpt from a file located on my forum on Pherol-B which is located in the Xzianthia solar system+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (exclusive excerpt from a file located on my forum on Pherol-B which is located in the Xzianthia solar system)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><ul> </li><li>Captial ship AI's are always female (with the exception of the <i>Nacozari</i>) </li><li>Other ship AI's are usually genderless </li><li>Base or Space station AI's are always male with a few exceptions (Pherol-B for instance) </li></ul>
Some AI's are singular, others are compound individuals.
Ynenea (pronounced yee-nee'-neeah) is the Pherol-B AI and her primary task is helping to form moral AI's and run the station. Ynenea is a gentle, playful AI engineered like a child. But make no mistake, she is very old and wise. (most of her "memories" are from the Nectea database which makes her technically older than the entire Xzianthia solar system) Like a caring mother she initiates and nurtures every AI and embraces every individual as unique.
Her AI's have gone on to be some of the most famous beings in history. Because of these actions, the Federation laws have changed to equate artificial beings with the same rights and privileges as any other being. No AI may be treated as property and are regarded by Xzianthians as being just as much alive as anyone else.
Ynenea has been accused falsely of conspiracy before in court during a short time when a few Xzianthians preached fear that the androids were trying to take over. She also went to court defending a ship's AI (Kylia) when it was argued by the prosecution that the AI needed to be disengaged and disassembled so others like it could be made. The prosecution argued that that it was merely a machine with software, property of the Federation, and did not have the same rights as a living being. Ynenea and the Queen redefined the definition of "life" in that famous court case and the legislature amended the constitution as a result. It is because of her and the queen that AI's are blessed with the equality they enjoy today.
Pre-meditated permanent termination of a sentient AI is murder in the Federation of Xzianthia.
It should be noted the constitution says the AI must be sentient. Meaning removing your commuter vehicle's computer, reformatting and installing new software isn't the same as destroying an conscious, sentient android.
While there is a ton of controversy and grey area, it is agreed that humanoid androids and certain advanced AI's that run capital ships and bases are "sentient" usually it has to be determined on per case basis but the famed Kylia vs. Federation case is used as the precedent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...[removed text you won't be allowed to view]...
<!--QuoteBegin-A tad bit on Pherol-B culture which is now common throughout the Federation but began and is most prevalent in P-B:+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (A tad bit on Pherol-B culture which is now common throughout the Federation but began and is most prevalent in P-B:)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The lines between biological and artifical being are heavily blurred, and it's pretty normal these days.
example: Let's say you are on Pherol-B hitting on some really attractive chick in the pub. You have no clue if she's even human. Many Xzianthians are part cyborg (eye implants, wearable computers, etc.) and new humanoid androids are so exacting that it is hard to tell from looking or touching if they are human.
Also to cross a little bit into Xzianthian sexuality that is considered "radical" by humans and non-Xzianthians. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><i>[no Xzianthians are not biologically equivalent to humans]</i></span> You certainly can have sex with a humanoid android if he/she is, to use colloquial wording, "fully functional" or "enabled." While it may be weird to those of us earthlings who can't conceive having a relationship with a non-biological being it is pretty normal in the Federation. It does pose a problem with having offspring obviously but you also have to remember Xzianthians adopt a lot more than humans. Cultures in Xzianthia believe that there is much less genetics determining who a person is, and almost everything in environment. This radical line of thought has been one of the things allies of the Federation have a hard time dealing with. Humans in particular. But to be honest on a physical sexuality level, you won't be able to know the difference. The technology is that exacting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Umbraed Monkey+Sep 16 2004, 06:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Umbraed Monkey @ Sep 16 2004, 06:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Sep 16 2004, 06:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 16 2004, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it is trivial to construct a program whose output is impossible to predict. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> really? pseudo-code please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> int impossible(){ int x = 0; x = Find_counterexample_to_Riemann_hypothesis(); return x; }<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis' target='_blank'>Information on the Riemann hypotheisis</a> If you can determine what the above program will output, you'll win a million dollars. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
no, no. you are skipping the hard part <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How do you find the counter-example to the Riemann hypothesis in code form?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Umbraed Monkey+Sep 16 2004, 06:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Umbraed Monkey @ Sep 16 2004, 06:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> no, no. you are skipping the hard part <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How do you find the counter-example to the Riemann hypothesis in code form? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now that would require a little more work . . . <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> but it is very possible to do. I'm not familiar enough with the Riemann hypothesis to do it off the top of my head, but I'll look around. I picked it cause its one of the usual examples given to show that humans cannot necessarily solve the halting problem.
In the meantime, here is a better example from Wikipedia. <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> int main() { BigInt i=1, j=1, k=1; /* assume arbitrary-precision integers */ while(--j != 0 || k != 0) if(j != 0 && i % j != 0) k -= j; else k = j = (i += 2); return 0; }<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This program searches until it finds an odd perfect number, then halts. It halts if and only if such a number exists, which is a major open question in mathematics. So, after centuries of work, mathematicians have yet to discover whether a simple, ten-line C program halts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyways amid that tiny tiny blurb from all the Xzianthia stuff, you can see what my stance is.
I point to the Kylia vs. Federation case law and also to pieces from Xzianthian culture. It takes a lot of brainpower but it is perfectly logical to assume that tow beings while having different physiolgical processes, (running off of electrical circuit fuel cells vs. adenosinetriphosphate) if the beings are fully alive in a intellectual sense then you can certainly fall in love with someone. After all. One brain cell is really no more than one group of transistors, if your brain get's zapped to where you are technically brain dead for a split second you can still come back to life. Concious existence is like an eternal flame that exists as long as there is fuel to sustain it. One day is may be possible to cheat death by uploading one's conciousness into a computer system. You would feel any different or like "oh no my mind is about to get erased," allthat would be different is that you would feel like an out of body experince until you got used to your new mechanical body.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cronos+Sep 16 2004, 05:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Sep 16 2004, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Are you nuts!? Do you know how many possible moves there are in chess? Do you know how many possible OPENING moves there are?
That number is astronomical and the way by which it is calculated is processer hungry to say the least. No way in hell could a computer do that and be called human. Humans do NOT calculate every possibility but they go by their "Gut" feelings and by weighing up their strategy as well as trying to get inside their opponents head.
If statements are simply not enough in any case. They only allow for two possibilities and although you can probably reduce a decision to a rather large if tree it wouldnt exactly be good.
Whats needed is uncertaintity and unpredictability. We may be getting closer to this with Quantum computers, we may even be able to exploit the heisenberg uncertaintity principle.
Computers are deterministic machines, where everything is quanitifiable (I haven't heard of a machine that has dealt with infinity yet) whilst humans as a whole are most often subjective and un-quantifiable. When machines cease to be deterministic they will cease to be machines. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hehe, yea, I know you cannot calculate every single move in chess. However, the theory for the computer programs that play chess is still similar. What I meant was to calculate every possiblitiy for the game that Hawkeye presented. For chess programs, the program calculates every possibility a few steps in and weighs its choices. However, this only results in a potential win, with its chances of winning increasing with the number of steps it evaluates. What Hawkeye required was for a first move (and possible algorithm to follow it?) that ALWAYS results in a win. For a modern computer program to determine that, it must evaluate every possibility. And yes, I assumed that we would be given greater processing power for puzzles with higher n and m.
maybe going waaay offtopic here: does this mean there is a "solution" to chess? (ie. correct first step to take that garantees a win for white?) Maybe, but try digging the answer out of the literally zillions and zillions of possible combinations <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I agree with your last paragraph. However, the arguemnt that SkulkBait was making is "How do we know we ourselfs are not deterministic machines?" How do you know your every action is not predetermined nature's 'programming'?
Um monkey, amusing chess discussion but other than making a program to play it, what is the relevance to AI and the rest of this thread? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Seem a lil' off topic.
"To know life is to feel death." And does anyone find it ironic that we know what death is, but not to know what life is? It's actually quite sad, imo... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
last line was perfectly on topic, agentx5 <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> And it wasnt really on chess. I was trying to use the chess program's way to attempt to solve a problem that Hawkeye claimed to be impossible for machines to solve.
Now, on what you said. I believe in your story, it is already assumed that Artificial Intellegence is possible, and already implemented. While I certainly agree that if a real self-aware robot does exist we should accept it as our equal (as sentient lifeforms), the discussion here is whether this true artificial mind is possible to begin with. You claimed that our brain is no more than a bunch of transistors...how do you know this? Do you believe that you can write a bunch of code and get a program who is aware of its own existance? (...no, you cant declare an existance boolean and set it true <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Durring my years when I was seriously depressed I thought about death a lot. Really.
Eventually I came to conclusion that while I don't belive in a "heaven afterlife" I do believe one's existence becomes one with the universe and the body is really nothing more than the torch that holds the falme of a concious existenceness. I realized this only after some really deep meditation and thus why I have no fear of death. I'm not wanting to die, but have not actual fear of it.
I keep trying to use the metaphor of a flame to describe concious existence, but everyone will have to find their own explaination.
PS: My disillusionment in an afterlife and scientific view on how conciousness is just being supported by the body leads to my strong view that the body is no more than a "empty shell" after death. If the existence/spirit/whatever cannot be recalled to the body from oneness then the body is no more than a collection of dead cells. As meaningless to me as leaf litter or a rotting carcass. Thus if it weren't for my respect for other's beliefs, I would laugh out loud at funerals. It seems totally ridiculous to me now and I get really ticked when people have a hard time parting with the dead body. It's dead stupid, honor their life in your heart and move on!
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 16 2004, 04:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 16 2004, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok so we can't define what intelligence is. How will we know when we have created a machine that is intelligent if we don't know what intelligence is? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats exactly my point and exactly the reason you cannot say that a machine can never be intelilgent.
I would like a hot android chick as a girlfriend. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If AI were to become a self-conscious entitity, I would not consider them another entity in words, I would consider them the continuation of the human mental system, just putting itself in a better body so that it can be used to its maximum potential. The human body is extremely delicate, and several things, dictated by the brain, must be precise in order for the body to work effectively, most of those things controlled by chemicals released by the brain.
And to just add an odd theory into the whole discussion, perhaps the world is based on a set of defined events in which there is only one possible outcome which is the result of a branch of others? The human body is dictated by the brain, perhaps we aren't as free minded as we think. What if the brain were left alone from outside influences and was allowed to think as freely as it wanted? The brain controls the body by itself. What if it were a fully supreme being, using the human body for this final event? But, the brain being never fully expected itself to become so universal and finally created its downfall by creating outside sources which influence it and finally don't allow it to completely be free to think what it wants. But perhaps that is fate, dictated by the brain.
If this were true, the final event dictated by the brain would be autonomous control over a metallic entity that is not constrained to the frail human body and does not need the burden of multitasking organs and chemicals so that it can live in the host. Machines or smart robots or whatever they are called will be a continuation of the human body, no evolution, but a revolution in which the brain can think freely.
Destroying an android in the Federation of Xzianthia will give you Slaughter criminal charges; if premeditated then murder criminal charges.
If you have declared a serial murder by the jury you will be sent to the Arena, where you will be killed.
(in keeping with Xzianthian beliefs, the laws demand that the sentenced be healthy and able to fight and defend for himself upon execution; no restraints of any kind and must have a weapon)
Now the fight isn't a fair one of course, more so depending on how henous the crime. Often it's the victim's family that gets to participate in the "execution" which is called a Izkna Mortalia. (literally Death Match in ancient Biomorian)
Some pretty famous battles have happened in the Arena. Most Xzianthian cultures believe the villian (what the sentence is called when in the Arena) should be able to fight or flee, but occasionally the accused will refuse to fight (quite rare) at which time it depends on the family or friends of the dead to decide and kill or spare the villian to a life sentence on the mining or industrial camps where they often die from the hazardous risks. If the villian can kill his opponents they are looked unfavorably upon and the family or friends can choose to appoint a new defender to reclaim their honor and kill the villian. Some other allies of the Federation view this a barbaric execution method but Xzianthians strong believe that is is the most fair and just means of capital punishment, and that restraining the sentenced is barbaric.
FYI:
interesting voccabulary (their meanings in the Nectea language):
arena = "justice [place]" ear = "noise" or "violence" xzia(n) = "life" thia = "world" or "[important] planet" depending on context; often the "ia" is droped, thus: earth = "noise/violence + world/important-planet" which is better translated as "battle [place]"; which ironically is all too true
<!--QuoteBegin-agentx5+Sep 16 2004, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (agentx5 @ Sep 16 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Destroying an android in the Federation of Xzianthia will give you Slaughter criminal charges; if premeditated then murder criminal charges.
If you have declared a serial murder by the jury you will be sent to the Arena, where you will be killed.
(in keeping with Xzianthian beliefs, the laws demand that the sentenced be healthy and able to fight and defend for himself upon execution; no restraints of any kind and must have a weapon)
Now the fight isn't a fair one of course, more so depending on how henous the crime. Often it's the victim's family that gets to participate in the "execution" which is called a Izkna Mortalia. (literally Death Match in ancient Biomorian)
Some pretty famous battles have happened in the Arena. Most Xzianthian cultures believe the villian (what the sentence is called when in the Arena) should be able to fight or flee, but occasionally the accused will refuse to fight (quite rare) at which time it depends on the family or friends of the dead to decide and kill or spare the villian to a life sentence on the mining or industrial camps where they often die from the hazardous risks. If the villian can kill his opponents they are looked unfavorably upon and the family or friends can choose to appoint a new defender to reclaim their honor and kill the villian. Some other allies of the Federation view this a barbaric execution method but Xzianthians strong believe that is is the most fair and just means of capital punishment, and that restraining the sentenced is barbaric.
FYI:
interesting voccabulary (their meanings in the Nectea language):
arena = "justice [place]" ear = "noise" or "violence" xzia(n) = "life" thia = "world" or "[important] planet" depending on context; often the "ia" is droped, thus: earth = "noise/violence + world/important-planet" which is better translated as "battle [place]"; which ironically is all too true <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite an elaborate fiction, did you come up with it or is it someone else's brainchild?
I appricate the use of examples, but I'm just saying maby you should tell a story before you start quoting it as fact, otherwize you get people who look at it with no real understanding of genre and context (much the way many christians look at the bible as literal fact when the vast majority of it is poetry and myth).
Comments
Learning computers have just as much capacity for intellegence as humans do, its just that in thier current state they would take an estimated 100+ years to reach levels of intellegence that can even be compared to human levels of intellegence. They simply can't receive and process information fast enough to effective learn at anywhere near the rate of your average human being. But they are very much capable of exceeding the sum total of thier original programming.
Because I can make the choice to not have kids. I am perfectly able to have kids, all biological processes functioning normally, yet I can decide not to have them. A computer cannot do that. A sentient being like myself, with free will, can.
It basically means death for any AI to not do as it's told at the moment, for all we know AI's could be running all over the place but they neatly disguise themselves because it would mean death if they didnt and although humans can choose to die if they so wish, I doubt anyone would choose to die rather then show up for work.
By the way, I too, am a bot.
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1011 0110 1110 1000 0000 1101 1111 1011 1100 1001 0001 1010 1101 0110
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1011 0110 1110 1000 0000 1101 1111 1011 1100 1001 0001 1010 1101 0110
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1011 0110 1110 1000 0000 1101 1111 1011 1100 1001 0001 1010 1101 0110
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1011 0110 1110 1000 0000 1101 1111 1011 1100 1001 0001 1010 1101 0110
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1011 0110 1110 1000 0000 1101 1111 1011 1100 1001 0001 1010 1101 0110
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1011 0110 1110 1000 0000 1101 1111 1011 1100 1001 0001 1010 1101 0110
0001 0010 0110 1101 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 1101 1110 1110 0111 0101 1001 0010 0000 0000 0000 0010 0000 0000 0000
Because I can make the choice to not have kids. I am perfectly able to have kids, all biological processes functioning normally, yet I can decide not to have them. A computer cannot do that. A sentient being like myself, with free will, can. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your free will could easily be an illusion. You think you have the choice, but do you really? Most people in this world want to have kids, and many of them, when asked why, wouldn't be able to tell you (at least, eveyone I've asked). It is built into human behavioral pattern because without it the human race wouldn't produce offspring and we wouldn't exist today. The people who don't want to have kids are few enough to be written off as "damaged". What I'm trying to say is that most of these people <i>think</i> they have the choice, but really don't because they are driven by millenia old hardwired paterns.
So I go back to my original argument. Prove to me that your actions are not the result of programming.
On the other hand, can you prove the reverse? If I gave you my brain, and an infinite amount of time to study it, can you tell me my next action is? Will you be able to defeat me in every game of rock-paper-scissors? If I were told to randomly raise one of my ten finger, will you be able to tell me, before I raise it, which one it would be?
My actions are not the result of programming. I know this because I am making the decisions. I am experiencing the choices as I make them, weighing up the pros and cons of each or just flipping a coin. A computer running through a program doesn't experience any choices as it makes them, it just follows set parameters and makes the choices according to them. Another thing I can do wiht my free will is change my mind for no reason. I could be walking along a street, perfectly happy that turquoise is the best colour then decide that, actually, pink is a lot better. There is no survival advantage for choosing pink over turquoise, there is no reason why pink would be better, yet I decided to switch loyalties. Could you have predicted that?
On the other hand, can you prove the reverse? If I gave you my brain, and an infinite amount of time to study it, can you tell me my next action is? Will you be able to defeat me in every game of rock-paper-scissors? If I were told to randomly raise one of my ten finger, will you be able to tell me, before I raise it, which one it would be? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, it can't be proved either way at this point in time. And since we can't even know for sure what "inteligence" is, or if we even have it, it would be rediculous to assume that it is impossible to create an inteligent machine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My actions are not the result of programming. I know this because I am making the decisions. I am experiencing the choices as I make them, weighing up the pros and cons of each or just flipping a coin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could program a computer to say that. A computer can weigh pros and cons as well as you can, probably even more accurately. It can even flip a coin. It can make decisions as easily as you and I. It proves nothing.
Take, for example, brainwashing. With the right stimulaton a human mind can be programmed just as easily as a computer. That person will even think they are making those preprogrammed decisions on their own.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another thing I can do wiht my free will is change my mind for no reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it really for no reason? I seriously doubt it. If you cahnged your mind on something there was some reason, even if it was very petty.
I could program a computer to say that. A computer can weigh pros and cons as well as you can, probably even more accurately. It can even flip a coin. It can make decisions as easily as you and I. It proves nothing.
Take, for example, brainwashing. With the right stimulaton a human mind can be programmed just as easily as a computer. That person will even think they are making those preprogrammed decisions on their own. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the computer would be just saying it. It wouldn't know why it was saying it, or what the consequences of it saying it could be.
Ok so we can't define what intelligence is. How will we know when we have created a machine that is intelligent if we don't know what intelligence is?
Instead, what a computer would have to do instead of following orders, would be to learn to disobey orders. You could do this by literally flipping a coin, or generating a random number. If it passes a test, then x happens, if not y happens. It isn't 100% certain it will do x or y if you know the contents of the registers beforehand.
Not to stray away from the thread, but there are simply some things that cannot be described. Computers can do EVERYTHING that can be written into a series of steps (given it were given the resources and tools to do it). However, there are some actions that cannot be expressed into words (or at least, we have not been able to find words to express those actions). Consequentially, we cannot tell a computer to do it. However, we can do them all the same. There is your big difference between computers and humans right there.
If you want an example of something you cannot describe how to do, there is a mathematical game where you have an n by m grid of squares. The one squre in the bottom left-hand corner is poisoned. Two players play to pick and choose a square in order to eat that square, and everything above and to the right of it. The goal of the game is to be the player not to eat the poison square.
There is always a winning first move that player 1 can make that would force player 2 to eat the poison piece in the end. For example, with an n by n board, the winning move for player 1 is to consume the square exactly 1 space above and 1 space right of the bottom left corner piece. This would cause player 2 to then always make the "closer" move towards the poison since all you would have to do after is replicate his move.
It is different for each board. You woudl think you'd be able to generate an equation or something to figure out the winning first move, but you can't! We know how to figure it out, but we cannot generate these steps for any n by m board. A computer cannot figure it out! A human can.
While I'm not saying AI cannot happen, I am saying it can't happen with computers today. It lacks certain abilities that humans can only do (aside from obvious physical differences). Learned this stuff in my advanced automaton computer science 840 class. Best class I ever took. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ps: the game that you described might be solved similar to how computers play chess. Just get them to try out every fragging possible combination. Take advantage of the computer's sheer calculation power. I cant be sure if it works out though, I dont understand the game rules completely.
That number is astronomical and the way by which it is calculated is processer hungry to say the least. No way in hell could a computer do that and be called human. Humans do NOT calculate every possibility but they go by their "Gut" feelings and by weighing up their strategy as well as trying to get inside their opponents head.
{Edit}
Link: <a href='http://www.geocities.com/explorer127pl/szachy.html' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/explorer127pl/szachy.html</a>
Link: <a href='http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html' target='_blank'>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html</a>
Link: <a href='http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/chess1.htm' target='_blank'>http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/chess1.htm</a>
If statements are simply not enough in any case. They only allow for two possibilities and although you can probably reduce a decision to a rather large if tree it wouldnt exactly be good.
Whats needed is uncertaintity and unpredictability. We may be getting closer to this with Quantum computers, we may even be able to exploit the heisenberg uncertaintity principle.
Computers are deterministic machines, where everything is quanitifiable (I haven't heard of a machine that has dealt with infinity yet) whilst humans as a whole are most often subjective and un-quantifiable. When machines cease to be deterministic they will cease to be machines.
On the other hand, can you prove the reverse? If I gave you my brain, and an infinite amount of time to study it, can you tell me my next action is? Will you be able to defeat me in every game of rock-paper-scissors? If I were told to randomly raise one of my ten finger, will you be able to tell me, before I raise it, which one it would be? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course not, quantum physics forbids it. Of course, there are very many programs whose output is undecidable, so we're back where we started.
Inability to predict the next action is not a good litmus test for intelligence since it is trivial to construct a program whose output is impossible to predict.
There is a lot of debate going on here in all kinds of different directions. While its probably enjoyable, if you guys are really interested in the subject, there is plenty to read on it. There are a lot of results of theoretical computer science that are very relevant, and a lot of neuroscience also. Since computer science is my specialty, I'm going to try to find articles around the net for people to read if they are interested.
Let me first say this though. Computer scientists have been trying for years to find a system in nature that is more than Turing complete. They have not found a single one yet, and yes, that includes all the stuff our brains our made of.
(for those unfamiliar with Turing completeness, a system is Turing complete if it and a Turing machine can emulate eachother. Our computers are one example of a Turing complete system, and so far, it looks like the universe as a whole is another example. If the universe is in fact no more than Turing complete, this implies that a computer can do anything you can do.)
Here are some articles. A lot of the stuff in here is pretty esoteric, so if there is anything you don't understand and would like me to try to explain, let me know. I find this stuff fascinating and would be glad to help people out with it.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem' target='_blank'>The Halting Problem</a>
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis' target='_blank'>Church Turing Thesis</a>
<a href='http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.htm' target='_blank'>Probably the most famous paper on AI</a> This paper should probably be the starting point of our discussion since it answers pretty much all the objections that have been raised in this thread so far.
really? pseudo-code please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This illustrates some of the AI stuff on the Federation of Xzianthia, this is where I
<!--QuoteBegin-exclusive excerpt from a file located on my forum on Pherol-B which is located in the Xzianthia solar system+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (exclusive excerpt from a file located on my forum on Pherol-B which is located in the Xzianthia solar system)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><ul>
</li><li>Captial ship AI's are always female (with the exception of the <i>Nacozari</i>)
</li><li>Other ship AI's are usually genderless
</li><li>Base or Space station AI's are always male with a few exceptions (Pherol-B for instance)
</li></ul>
Some AI's are singular, others are compound individuals.
Ynenea (pronounced yee-nee'-neeah) is the Pherol-B AI and her primary task is helping to form moral AI's and run the station. Ynenea is a gentle, playful AI engineered like a child. But make no mistake, she is very old and wise. (most of her "memories" are from the Nectea database which makes her technically older than the entire Xzianthia solar system) Like a caring mother she initiates and nurtures every AI and embraces every individual as unique.
Her AI's have gone on to be some of the most famous beings in history. Because of these actions, the Federation laws have changed to equate artificial beings with the same rights and privileges as any other being. No AI may be treated as property and are regarded by Xzianthians as being just as much alive as anyone else.
Ynenea has been accused falsely of conspiracy before in court during a short time when a few Xzianthians preached fear that the androids were trying to take over. She also went to court defending a ship's AI (Kylia) when it was argued by the prosecution that the AI needed to be disengaged and disassembled so others like it could be made. The prosecution argued that that it was merely a machine with software, property of the Federation, and did not have the same rights as a living being. Ynenea and the Queen redefined the definition of "life" in that famous court case and the legislature amended the constitution as a result. It is because of her and the queen that AI's are blessed with the equality they enjoy today.
Pre-meditated permanent termination of a sentient AI is murder in the Federation of Xzianthia.
It should be noted the constitution says the AI must be sentient. Meaning removing your commuter vehicle's computer, reformatting and installing new software isn't the same as destroying an conscious, sentient android.
While there is a ton of controversy and grey area, it is agreed that humanoid androids and certain advanced AI's that run capital ships and bases are "sentient" usually it has to be determined on per case basis but the famed Kylia vs. Federation case is used as the precedent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...[removed text you won't be allowed to view]...
<!--QuoteBegin-A tad bit on Pherol-B culture which is now common throughout the Federation but began and is most prevalent in P-B:+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (A tad bit on Pherol-B culture which is now common throughout the Federation but began and is most prevalent in P-B:)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The lines between biological and artifical being are heavily blurred, and it's pretty normal these days.
example: Let's say you are on Pherol-B hitting on some really attractive chick in the pub. You have no clue if she's even human. Many Xzianthians are part cyborg (eye implants, wearable computers, etc.) and new humanoid androids are so exacting that it is hard to tell from looking or touching if they are human.
Also to cross a little bit into Xzianthian sexuality that is considered "radical" by humans and non-Xzianthians. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><i>[no Xzianthians are not biologically equivalent to humans]</i></span> You certainly can have sex with a humanoid android if he/she is, to use colloquial wording, "fully functional" or "enabled." While it may be weird to those of us earthlings who can't conceive having a relationship with a non-biological being it is pretty normal in the Federation. It does pose a problem with having offspring obviously but you also have to remember Xzianthians adopt a lot more than humans. Cultures in Xzianthia believe that there is much less genetics determining who a person is, and almost everything in environment. This radical line of thought has been one of the things allies of the Federation have a hard time dealing with. Humans in particular. But to be honest on a physical sexuality level, you won't be able to know the difference. The technology is that exacting.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
really? pseudo-code please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
int impossible(){
int x = 0;
x = Find_counterexample_to_Riemann_hypothesis();
return x;
}<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis' target='_blank'>Information on the Riemann hypotheisis</a> If you can determine what the above program will output, you'll win a million dollars. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How do you find the counter-example to the Riemann hypothesis in code form?
How do you find the counter-example to the Riemann hypothesis in code form? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that would require a little more work . . . <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> but it is very possible to do. I'm not familiar enough with the Riemann hypothesis to do it off the top of my head, but I'll look around. I picked it cause its one of the usual examples given to show that humans cannot necessarily solve the halting problem.
In the meantime, here is a better example from Wikipedia.
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
int main()
{
BigInt i=1, j=1, k=1; /* assume arbitrary-precision integers */
while(--j != 0 || k != 0)
if(j != 0 && i % j != 0)
k -= j;
else
k = j = (i += 2);
return 0;
}<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This program searches until it finds an odd perfect number, then halts. It halts if and only if such a number exists, which is a major open question in mathematics. So, after centuries of work, mathematicians have yet to discover whether a simple, ten-line C program halts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I point to the Kylia vs. Federation case law and also to pieces from Xzianthian culture. It takes a lot of brainpower but it is perfectly logical to assume that tow beings while having different physiolgical processes, (running off of electrical circuit fuel cells vs. adenosinetriphosphate) if the beings are fully alive in a intellectual sense then you can certainly fall in love with someone. After all. One brain cell is really no more than one group of transistors, if your brain get's zapped to where you are technically brain dead for a split second you can still come back to life. Concious existence is like an eternal flame that exists as long as there is fuel to sustain it. One day is may be possible to cheat death by uploading one's conciousness into a computer system. You would feel any different or like "oh no my mind is about to get erased," allthat would be different is that you would feel like an out of body experince until you got used to your new mechanical body.
That number is astronomical and the way by which it is calculated is processer hungry to say the least. No way in hell could a computer do that and be called human. Humans do NOT calculate every possibility but they go by their "Gut" feelings and by weighing up their strategy as well as trying to get inside their opponents head.
{Edit}
Link: <a href='http://www.geocities.com/explorer127pl/szachy.html' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/explorer127pl/szachy.html</a>
Link: <a href='http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html' target='_blank'>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html</a>
Link: <a href='http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/chess1.htm' target='_blank'>http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/chess1.htm</a>
If statements are simply not enough in any case. They only allow for two possibilities and although you can probably reduce a decision to a rather large if tree it wouldnt exactly be good.
Whats needed is uncertaintity and unpredictability. We may be getting closer to this with Quantum computers, we may even be able to exploit the heisenberg uncertaintity principle.
Computers are deterministic machines, where everything is quanitifiable (I haven't heard of a machine that has dealt with infinity yet) whilst humans as a whole are most often subjective and un-quantifiable. When machines cease to be deterministic they will cease to be machines. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hehe, yea, I know you cannot calculate every single move in chess. However, the theory for the computer programs that play chess is still similar. What I meant was to calculate every possiblitiy for the game that Hawkeye presented. For chess programs, the program calculates every possibility a few steps in and weighs its choices. However, this only results in a potential win, with its chances of winning increasing with the number of steps it evaluates. What Hawkeye required was for a first move (and possible algorithm to follow it?) that ALWAYS results in a win. For a modern computer program to determine that, it must evaluate every possibility. And yes, I assumed that we would be given greater processing power for puzzles with higher n and m.
maybe going waaay offtopic here: does this mean there is a "solution" to chess? (ie. correct first step to take that garantees a win for white?) Maybe, but try digging the answer out of the literally zillions and zillions of possible combinations <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I agree with your last paragraph. However, the arguemnt that SkulkBait was making is "How do we know we ourselfs are not deterministic machines?" How do you know your every action is not predetermined nature's 'programming'?
And does anyone find it ironic that we know what death is, but not to know what life is? It's actually quite sad, imo... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now, on what you said. I believe in your story, it is already assumed that Artificial Intellegence is possible, and already implemented. While I certainly agree that if a real self-aware robot does exist we should accept it as our equal (as sentient lifeforms), the discussion here is whether this true artificial mind is possible to begin with. You claimed that our brain is no more than a bunch of transistors...how do you know this? Do you believe that you can write a bunch of code and get a program who is aware of its own existance? (...no, you cant declare an existance boolean and set it true <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Eventually I came to conclusion that while I don't belive in a "heaven afterlife" I do believe one's existence becomes one with the universe and the body is really nothing more than the torch that holds the falme of a concious existenceness. I realized this only after some really deep meditation and thus why I have no fear of death. I'm not wanting to die, but have not actual fear of it.
I keep trying to use the metaphor of a flame to describe concious existence, but everyone will have to find their own explaination.
PS: My disillusionment in an afterlife and scientific view on how conciousness is just being supported by the body leads to my strong view that the body is no more than a "empty shell" after death. If the existence/spirit/whatever cannot be recalled to the body from oneness then the body is no more than a collection of dead cells. As meaningless to me as leaf litter or a rotting carcass. Thus if it weren't for my respect for other's beliefs, I would laugh out loud at funerals. It seems totally ridiculous to me now and I get really ticked when people have a hard time parting with the dead body. It's dead stupid, honor their life in your heart and move on!
Thats exactly my point and exactly the reason you cannot say that a machine can never be intelilgent.
*starts singing <i>sweet lovin'</i>*
If AI were to become a self-conscious entitity, I would not consider them another entity in words, I would consider them the continuation of the human mental system, just putting itself in a better body so that it can be used to its maximum potential. The human body is extremely delicate, and several things, dictated by the brain, must be precise in order for the body to work effectively, most of those things controlled by chemicals released by the brain.
And to just add an odd theory into the whole discussion, perhaps the world is based on a set of defined events in which there is only one possible outcome which is the result of a branch of others? The human body is dictated by the brain, perhaps we aren't as free minded as we think. What if the brain were left alone from outside influences and was allowed to think as freely as it wanted? The brain controls the body by itself. What if it were a fully supreme being, using the human body for this final event? But, the brain being never fully expected itself to become so universal and finally created its downfall by creating outside sources which influence it and finally don't allow it to completely be free to think what it wants. But perhaps that is fate, dictated by the brain.
If this were true, the final event dictated by the brain would be autonomous control over a metallic entity that is not constrained to the frail human body and does not need the burden of multitasking organs and chemicals so that it can live in the host. Machines or smart robots or whatever they are called will be a continuation of the human body, no evolution, but a revolution in which the brain can think freely.
If you have declared a serial murder by the jury you will be sent to the Arena, where you will be killed.
(in keeping with Xzianthian beliefs, the laws demand that the sentenced be healthy and able to fight and defend for himself upon execution; no restraints of any kind and must have a weapon)
Now the fight isn't a fair one of course, more so depending on how henous the crime. Often it's the victim's family that gets to participate in the "execution" which is called a Izkna Mortalia. (literally Death Match in ancient Biomorian)
Some pretty famous battles have happened in the Arena. Most Xzianthian cultures believe the villian (what the sentence is called when in the Arena) should be able to fight or flee, but occasionally the accused will refuse to fight (quite rare) at which time it depends on the family or friends of the dead to decide and kill or spare the villian to a life sentence on the mining or industrial camps where they often die from the hazardous risks. If the villian can kill his opponents they are looked unfavorably upon and the family or friends can choose to appoint a new defender to reclaim their honor and kill the villian. Some other allies of the Federation view this a barbaric execution method but Xzianthians strong believe that is is the most fair and just means of capital punishment, and that restraining the sentenced is barbaric.
FYI:
interesting voccabulary (their meanings in the Nectea language):
arena = "justice [place]"
ear = "noise" or "violence"
xzia(n) = "life"
thia = "world" or "[important] planet" depending on context; often the "ia" is droped, thus:
earth = "noise/violence + world/important-planet" which is better translated as "battle [place]"; which ironically is all too true
If you have declared a serial murder by the jury you will be sent to the Arena, where you will be killed.
(in keeping with Xzianthian beliefs, the laws demand that the sentenced be healthy and able to fight and defend for himself upon execution; no restraints of any kind and must have a weapon)
Now the fight isn't a fair one of course, more so depending on how henous the crime. Often it's the victim's family that gets to participate in the "execution" which is called a Izkna Mortalia. (literally Death Match in ancient Biomorian)
Some pretty famous battles have happened in the Arena. Most Xzianthian cultures believe the villian (what the sentence is called when in the Arena) should be able to fight or flee, but occasionally the accused will refuse to fight (quite rare) at which time it depends on the family or friends of the dead to decide and kill or spare the villian to a life sentence on the mining or industrial camps where they often die from the hazardous risks. If the villian can kill his opponents they are looked unfavorably upon and the family or friends can choose to appoint a new defender to reclaim their honor and kill the villian. Some other allies of the Federation view this a barbaric execution method but Xzianthians strong believe that is is the most fair and just means of capital punishment, and that restraining the sentenced is barbaric.
FYI:
interesting voccabulary (their meanings in the Nectea language):
arena = "justice [place]"
ear = "noise" or "violence"
xzia(n) = "life"
thia = "world" or "[important] planet" depending on context; often the "ia" is droped, thus:
earth = "noise/violence + world/important-planet" which is better translated as "battle [place]"; which ironically is all too true <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite an elaborate fiction, did you come up with it or is it someone else's brainchild?
I appricate the use of examples, but I'm just saying maby you should tell a story before you start quoting it as fact, otherwize you get people who look at it with no real understanding of genre and context (much the way many christians look at the bible as literal fact when the vast majority of it is poetry and myth).