artificial intelligence.

[TMA_1]

I was thinking about this.

artificial intelligence seems to me to be kinda a misleading name for it. To me it seems that artificial intelligence is actually just adaptation. It is similar to the machines in the prequels that have human forms and are used for sparring with swords (the fact that those were created is really stupid for the dune universe, obviously). For example in a video game with artificial intelligence, they dont think which you think the name would mean. From what I see and this is probably really obvious to you guys, it is like this.

Say you are protecting a base in your game and your fortifications are on the west side of it where they usually attack. Well after awhile the artifical intelligence will adapt to that and attack on the north, east, or southern side of the base. If the computing power is large enough, it might even take into account where the weakest part of your base is.

This isnt intelligence though. Many forms of life on earth do this on a constant basis, and some that you would never think that could do this. This is a far cry from intelligence though. To me it seems intelligence requires chaos, a sort of randomness that comes from abstract thinking.

This goes into a philosophy I have that humans naturally desire order because they are inherently chaotic. It is at a subconscious level because we dont usually think about this. Constnatly though we try to create things physically or mentally that solve questions or answer things that to us are hard to understand. We do this because we see the universe and ourselves as inherently chaotic, and we naturally desire for a state of order. For example we want Peace, we want money to be secure, we want a faith that solves things. Do any of you see what I mean?

[gryphon]

are you trying to so that the human brain can only accept and understand things that are brought to it in an orderly fasion ?

This is a chaotic univers....

[Apollyon]

Your entire spiel is based on a nebulous definition of the word 'intelligence'. Intelligence is the ability to understand, particularly to understand a situation that one is not inherently adapted to, by which one may become partially adapted. A computer need not 'understand' the situation, since any possible situation is pre-programmed, hence it is deemed 'artifical'.

[Caid Ivik]

Intelligence is the thinking system, like BIOS of our brain. It can analyze some attributes of our perceptive range and some not, due to bodily and other limits. Computer AI is same, just the perceptive/analyzed area is limited by program, there are simply less variables flowing to processor than to our brain. All types of AI - adaptative, unadaptative or random - are based on our soul. Let it is learning, preset reactions or decisions by values. Also AI computer doesn't truly copy us, it still lacks creativity, any forms of hermetical, semantic or fantasy-based thinking. AI lacks AC.

[TMA_1]

apollyon, I hate to say it but your definition is just as hazy as mine.lol

I was being generalistic because I didnt expect to get nitpicked about it. I dont exactly feel like writing 5 pages of stuff here. I also think that people on this site can come to their own conclusions on things like that, as I think peopleo n this site are intelligent enough.

or do you need my explanations apollyon? hehe jk man

and caid, I totally agree with you about the artificial consciousness thing.

[Caid Ivik]

Problem is that writing here means writing only for a small group. You can say we are intellectuals, an elite, but still, there are just few people reading it. However if you make a larger article on another site, which is visited enough, or into some newspapers, feel no shame to double it here  ;D

[SpiceGuid]

@Caid: we are not an elite, we are just alphabetised people who have read the Dune novel and/or played Westwood games.

artificial intelligence is usually to maximize a profit function.

human intelligence is different, human intelligence is to create new forms or new patterns from existing forms.

sure new patterns increase the order in human affairs, however it's balanced by the perpetual creation of new forms.

also human intelligence has to cope with conservatism:

* new forms do not fit into existing patterns/standards

* patterns/standards are endorsed by an authority, and this authority discourages new patterns/standards that could diminish its influence

This goes into a philosophy I have that humans naturally desire order because they are inherently chaotic. It is at a subconscious level because we dont usually think about this.

in my opinion there is no subconscious level. we are perfectly ordered, but the world complexity make it appear as chaotic, and we also have to behave as chaotic so that the others can't exploit us. because if we expose some logic then others use this logic against us, for their own profit. subconscious is an artefact of otherness, mental state is conscious and language is hyperconscious, a mask for the conscious we don't want to reveal. the language is not an attempt to explore our subconscious, but instead an attempt to dissimulate our conscious.

sometimes i doubt the human intelligence is a result of Darwinian evolution. i mean there are not enough patterns in wild nature, patterns are mostly in human-made things and human-made theories, so where comes the humain ability to recognize and produce patterns?

[Dante]

@Caid: we are not an elite, we are just alphabetised people who have read the Dune novel and/or played Westwood games.

Exactly. ;D Though I don't think that's what he meant...

in my opinion there is no subconscious level. we are perfectly ordered, but the world complexity make it appear as chaotic, and we also have to behave as chaotic so that the others can't exploit us. because if you expose some logic then others use this logic against you, for their own profit. subconscious is an artefact of otherness, mental state is conscious and language is hyperconscious, a mask for the conscious we don't want to reveal. the language is not an attempt to explore our subconscious, but instead an attempt to dissimulate our conscious.

We are perfectly ordered? That's a bit egotistical, is it not? How can something orderly exist in a chaotic world?

Artificial intelligence. Ho hum. I'm not sure we should talk about artificial intelligence now as it is not a changless topic. AI is evolving (good word choice :)) all the time. In twenty years it will have improved far beyond what it is now, unless something untoward occurs. Nevertheless...

As it stands now, AI is a simple process of action/reaction, with some apparantly bordering on creativity. I see nothing to prevent the creation of a sentient and creative AI in the future, given enough research and improvements in technology. If asked, I can list a few projects going on now that may be the keys to the process.

And given this potential to create a sentient AI, one that can create and not just react, perhaps we can't reach a conclusion now. I believe that it will be possible to create an AI with a fully capable mind, but not yet.

[erjin999]

Is the mind not simply a computer that has some preprogrammed ideas, somewhat like a BIOS. It also reacts to its surroundings and uses data from its senses to generate more reactions.

Could it not be that a computer (in the silicon sense) could also compute the same reactions if it had the same data from the senses...AND the same "BIOS", of course ? i.e. a computer mimicing a human mind, with the same instintcs and same senses...

If so, then I believe that artificial intelligence, in the sense of thinking, sentient machines, are possible. If it is not possible, then they would not be possible.

Basically, it depends on our definition of intelligence. Does a computer producing the same reactions as a human would, become a sentient thingy ?

Then also their is the scope of their reactions compared to humans....the domain of expert systems.

[Apollyon]

"apollyon, I hate to say it but your definition is just as hazy as mine.lol"

More that I was correcting your definition. You bring creativity into the equation, which simply is not a part of the word's meaning. Therefore abstract thought and 'chaos' isn't really involved. If you want a really straightforward definition, then intelligence is 'the ability to understand information and apply it'.

The real question is: when does an artificial intelligence cease to be artificial?

[Dante]

Is the mind not simply a computer that has some preprogrammed ideas, somewhat like a BIOS. It also reacts to its surroundings and uses data from its senses to generate more reactions.

But aren't these reactions just that? Reactions? The most simple AI now can be programmed to react to specific stimuli. All reactions, including thought processes, are non-intelligent. How can they be? Every thought is a reaction to another, every action in reaction to yet another action... The only true intelligence is in the ability to create. I'm not sure if we can actually do this, but if we can, then an AI can.

[erjin999]

The only true intelligence is in the ability to create. I'm not sure if we can actually do this, but if we can, then an AI can.

On the second sentence, I agree, that if a computer can mimic us humans, then it can also be called intelligent if we are called intelligent. That is not to simply follow instructions to copy humans, but to come to the same reactions/conclusions as humans would in a situation with the same data.

Not too sure about the first sentence though.

Maybe off topic slightly: What about animals? Are they considered intelligent? Does that not have any bearing on our perception of intelligence?

[Caid Ivik]

@Caid: we are not an elite, we are just alphabetised people who have read the Dune novel and/or played Westwood games.

Well, compared to most people in my umgebung, average alphabetisation rate is higher here ;D

[erjin999]

@Caid: we are not an elite, we are just alphabetised people who have read the Dune novel and/or played Westwood games.

I'd like to think that makes me an elite  8)

[Caid Ivik]

Me too ;D

On the second sentence, I agree, that if a computer can mimic us humans, then it can also be called intelligent if we are called intelligent. That is not to simply follow instructions to copy humans, but to come to the same reactions/conclusions as humans would in a situation with the same data.

Not too sure about the first sentence though.

Maybe off topic slightly: What about animals? Are they considered intelligent? Does that not have any bearing on our perception of intelligence?

Animals work very closely to computer systems. However, mostly in end-stated systems, tough higher lifeforms have also adaptative analysis. It's usual to say that ie one dog is intelligent and other one dumb. It's based on effectivity of their perception analysis, or we can say, of their AI program.

[erjin999]

So a dog can be said to have intelligence. An intelligent thinking sentient being. Then if a dog's thought process could be completely impersonated by a computer, could we not deem the computer as intelligent as a dog ? Some thoughts of Turings test coming in here, I suspect...

[gryphon]

human intelligence is different, human intelligence is to create new forms or new patterns from existing forms.

sure new patterns increase the order in human affairs, however it's balanced by the perpetual creation of new forms.

Can you name a totally new system that humans have invented. . or created ?

We just make mathematical and logical formula's for everything that is happening around us. .. is that intelligence, just logically ordening the world surrounding us ?

We don't make systems. . we describe systems we see around us...

sometimes i doubt the human intelligence is a result of Darwinian evolution. i mean there are not enough patterns in wild nature, patterns are mostly in human-made things and human-made theories, so where comes the humain ability to recognize and produce patterns?

Patterns. . as in. . ? Mathimathical stuff .. or what are those patterns we have been producing ?

Sofar human behaviour is only a matter of patterns. . we act in patterns not uncommon in nature.

It's usual to say that ie one dog is intelligent and other one dumb. It's based on effectivity of their perception analysis

Can we also say one human is intelligent and the other isn't ?

If intelligence is a thing all humans have, it's not really unique. . we all have it and are born with it. Making it commen and probably adaptable for other species.

If it's something one human can have and another human doesn't have. .. then what value holds the termology of "intelligence" . . it would be the same as "beautifull".

[Caid Ivik]

So a dog can be said to have intelligence. An intelligent thinking sentient being. Then if a dog's thought process could be completely impersonated by a computer, could we not deem the computer as intelligent as a dog ? Some thoughts of Turings test coming in here, I suspect...

We must be strict in definitions. In my previous post I tried to explain terms of "intelligence" and "soul". Soul has many "parts": like already in any "medieval" modular game (ie Doom) you have central engines and differences between games are based on complexity of modules. Later games have also modules for ie OpenGL handling, older haven't, so aren't able to understand possibilites of OpenGL. One of such "modules" is also human's creativity, which enables him to "upgrade" other of his modules (you can train your intelligence, animals aren't given such ideas), or even, we can say, hardware around him. Animals lack this module, so maybe we can say some of them are intelligent, but still not creative. With consciousness it is same I think.

[Dante]

On the second sentence, I agree, that if a computer can mimic us humans, then it can also be called intelligent if we are called intelligent. That is not to simply follow instructions to copy humans, but to come to the same reactions/conclusions as humans would in a situation with the same data.

Not too sure about the first sentence though.

Maybe off topic slightly: What about animals? Are they considered intelligent? Does that not have any bearing on our perception of intelligence?

Intelligence, covering the ability to think, reason, debate, analyse, remember, etc. But think (;)) about it; it not everything we do simply a reaction, including thoughts? I say do not think about a red balloon; what is the first thing you do? Whether you think of a red balloon or not is irrelevent, the fact is that whatever you do next is, provided you heard me, in reaction to what I have said.

You drink because you are thirsty, you are thirsty because your body has produced the correct salivery reaction due to low water levels in the body. Every action or state (drinking, salivery gland control, low water) is a reaction, not a free action. You may think that the free action (and therefore the intelligence) lies in the ability to make a choice (Choose whether or not to drink the water), but this too is incorrect.

The brain too is subject to this rule. Every electrical pulse, every brain cell's connection, and every thought it transmits are all reactions; simple knee-jerk reactions to given stimuli, just like a computer. Every thought you have is in reaction to something else, and so is every choice. 'Intelligence,' in the accepted sense of meaning the ability to understand and manipulate data can hardly be a series of machine-like reactions, though, surely? Well actually yes. But true intelligence lies in the ability to create, to perform an action that is not a reaction to something else. Humans can do this; or at least some of them can. Computers, as yet, cannot. But they will.

I realise that this might be a bit convoluted for some, so if anyone wants any points clarified then please ask. My point is that the only true intelligence (sentience) lies with the ability to create, not the ability to 'think.'

Animals? Well personally I think that it depends on the animal. It's concievable that they all live the way they do (eat, drink, sex, guard, fight, repeat) because they have already answered all of life's deepest questions and can afford to spend all of their time goofing off. Especially houseflies. They buzz around all day because they can. I have little faith in the intelligence of dogs. I doubt their sentience.

And of course some animals are definately much more intelligent than they let on. Bees for example.

[Cyborg]

I agree with Dust Scout.

[gryphon]

'Intelligence,' in the accepted sense of meaning the ability to understand and manipulate data can hardly be a series of machine-like reactions, though, surely? Well actually yes. But true intelligence lies in the ability to create, to perform an action that is not a reaction to something else. Humans can do this; or at least some of them can.

I like most of it. But on the other side. What is a new thing humans have came up with besides addaptions and ways to use things already known to them.

We have learn to know, to use and manipulate the things surrounding us. And then adjust to that change. But what did we really created that nature didn't have in itself ?

[ you know that's one of the only "scientiffic" proofs that God excists ? ;) . .because humans can only think of things known to them. . not go beyond there own dimension so to speak. . the idea of something flawless is not one they should know. . and because we do have that idea .... ]

[SpiceGuid]

Can you name a totally new system that humans have invented. . or created ?

Marriage ?

[gryphon]

Yep, that's intelligence.

Most of the thing arround us are human-made or human-controlled.

controled upto a certain point, although Human made. . .I would prefer to say it's adapted by us. So far humans havn't been able to create any of the elementairy things in this world as far as I know. We can manipulate atoms. But not create them. All other things are just ways of using it, not creating it.

legal systems and distribution systems exibit patterns that are neither mathematical nor common in nature.

True. . but then does the "legal system" really exists ? It's just we as humans who are telling the world "looks" like that, follows those rules. But then. Does it really. . and if so did we create the things those rules describe or are they merely things we see around us and pretend we have created them ?

Newton didn't invented gravity, nor did Rembrandt create art more then Emanuel Kant has creatd the justice system. It are things going on around us .. which we describe. But certainly havn't created ourself.

Even if, and those things we have created would stand for intelligence. Then just that persone who created it would be the intelligent one. Others just learn it, and learn to use it just a a pair of shoes. You can understand the consept of things, although inventing, creating or just documenting it for the first time is another thing.

[Caid Ivik]

[ you know that's one of the only "scientiffic" proofs that God excists ? ;) . .because humans can only think of things known to them. . not go beyond there own dimension so to speak. . the idea of something flawless is not one they should know. . and because we do have that idea .... ]

You shouldn't spend so much time reading Anselm  ;D

[Dante]

We have learn to know, to use and manipulate the things surrounding us. And then adjust to that change. But what did we really created that nature didn't have in itself ?

I spent a very, very long time thinking about that after one particularly argumentative philosophy lesson. I never got to share my conclusions with the class (it dissolved into a debate into what elves look like...) so here we go now: Concepts are greater than the sum of their parts.

To prove this I, perhaps unwisely, chose to use the example of elves, because martians were clich