artificial intelligence.

[gryphon]

you think an elf is really someting we have created ? . . so where is it. I'd say it's a design made up from things we already know. Nothing new goes in an elf we didn't already have.

Mayby the smashing of attoms is a sort of creation. When I went to school the system of elements was just above 100, now we have a few more.

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

I know. . and not just because it was required for my classes. . . ;)

[Dante]

you think an elf is really someting we have created ? . . so where is it. I'd say it's a design made up from things we already know. Nothing new goes in an elf we didn't already have.

Na ha, but this is where I met the same problem and, if you look carefully above, overcame it. We may already have had the elven characteristics to examine, pointy ears, archery, etc; but those things 'that we already know' do not make an elf. To make an elf, they must also have the concept of 'elf' added, because *Drum roll* Ideas are greater than the sum of their parts! Put together all the things that make up an elf and you will still not get an elf, you will just get something that looks and behaves like an elf.

To actually be an elf, it must be an elf, if you see what I mean. And that is original. Also, I meant elf as a concept rather than an object.

(On a side note, I can actually overcome my own argument here; but that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

[gryphon]

An elf is not just that combination of things . like you mentioned, there are more definitions of them. And Mister Spock with a bow is hardly an elf.

A man with a gun can be a terrorist, or a freedom fighter .. or just a furious postal worker. It's the situation and just a simple human thought that devines him as who he is.

What if we would meet another creature tomorrow. Fitting your Elf description in perfect detail.. . with one exception. . he doesn't last forever. Do we still call it an elf ?

Or is it even still an elf ?

If we would meet God tomorrow, and he turns out to be mortal afterall. . just has a longer lifespan.. is he still God. . did he still create us ?

There is a differance to how we name things, the world around us and what it really is. We are surrounded by matter. One way or another. And we give that matter a name, we describe the way it acts and reacts. But besides that. We can't do much more with it.

On a linguistic level, we refer to that matter by name. Name refering to matter. Your elf example can be rephrased like cappital cities. They are big, metropolis but most important. They usually hold the seat of government. So. . did we create them ? . . I think we just named them.

A capital can change, today New York. . tomorrow San Francisco. . just another dedication of a city. THe capital of The Netherlands is not the same as our seat of government. In a way we "created" the consept of a capital city. But what have we really created but given a name to a place.

Back to your elf example . . .what have we created there besides the idea. . besides the consept in our mind ?

[SpiceGuid]

in my opinion, humans exibiting intelligence does not mean it's reproductible by machines.

the universe, and the mind, is totally ordered, it is made of patterns and singularities. every human intelligence is a unique system, meaning intelligence is a singularity, not a pattern. this is the main reason why human intelligence is not reproductible by machine, a machine intelligence is computing patterns, not an eye singularity.

a singularity is where patterns are born, singularities appear at pattern frontier (where all patterns fail to apply):

machine intelligence is not a singularity, it fails in breaking the monotony of thinking patterns, it is not a catastrophic event in the living universe (like a human birth is).

intelligence (as a performance) has no value because it is only a pattern builder, only singularities (lives) have value.

[Dante]

I never said it was anything but a concept. Who cares if it's just a concept? It's original nevertheless.

And I know there are other elves. I was working from a single assumption. The theory works just as well with faires, werewolves, vampires, martians, angels, etc.

[Caid Ivik]

Human is able to create, however recurrent creation as you propose is illogical  ;)

[Dude_Doc]

Haven't we discussed this like a hundred times?

Anyways, I don't believe (from what I can tell by the near future technology), that artificial intelligence has something with computers to do. To create an artificial brain, of non-organic matter, I think we have to somehow copy the human mind. Computers will, at least for a very long time, only be robots, bound by limits in their own system.

[HasimirFenring]

Computers will, at least for a very long time, only be robots

Keywords being "for a very long time", as it is only a matter of time.  Sentience is an emergent property, coming from a large neural network (see Michael Crichton's latest book: Prey").

[Caid Ivik]

Crichton is a beletry writer, I think?

"The dreadful foul drink called mead is made from honey, then fermented. It is the sourest, blackest, vilest stuff ever invented by any man, and yet it is potent beyond all knowing; a few drinks, and the world spins. But I did not drink, praise Allah."  ;D

[Dante]

Anyways, I don't believe (from what I can tell by the near future technology), that artificial intelligence has something with computers to do. To create an artificial brain, of non-organic matter, I think we have to somehow copy the human mind. Computers will, at least for a very long time, only be robots, bound by limits in their own system.

Ah, but are we too not bound by the limits of our own systems?

Human is able to create, however recurrent creation as you propose is illogical

[Dude_Doc]

Keywords being "for a very long time", as it is only a matter of time.  Sentience is an emergent property, coming from a large neural network (see Michael Crichton's latest book: Prey").

Artificial intelligence can not exist if it can't learn.

Ah, but are we too not bound by the limits of our own systems?

The limits I spoke of was those of the mind. Of course, there are lots of limits in our world, like politics, laws (both human and natural), moral and ethics. But one thing that is not limited is our imagination, our creativity, the possibility to find solutions, to imagine someone else's situation, to ask ourselves "what if", "why" and all those things.

Sure, a machine could probably do that, but it's like a body without a soul. It stores the possible solution for a problem, and it builds upon it, more like a sentient database. It won't  ask itself "what am I?", "why am I here" or "what do I want?" or "what's my stile?", at least not emotionally, it will only search for the closest thing to those answers, which is data it has assimilated (or whatever you might call it) for that purpose.

 

[Dante]

Which is exactly what we do.

Put it this way: To see a limit one must be outside it. We can see the current limitations of machines because they are not our limits. We cannot see our own limits, but they are there nevertheless. Likewise as you say, machines currently will not ask those questions because they cannot see their own limits. Machines will, eventaually, ask the questions you propose as we expend their limits for them.

[HasimirFenring]

This reminds me of "Destination: Void" by our Lord Herbert, about humanity's efforts to build a sentient machine.  Herbert of course complicated the issue by asking the question: "are we sentient?"

Artificial intelligence can not exist if it can't learn.

Sure, a sufficiently complex neural network (organic or inorganic) has the capacity to learn; once it can store experiences and draw on them to solve problems, the rest follow rather quickly.

Again, all a matter of time.  We need more knowledge of how the human brain works, and more technical expertise.

Anyone else read "Destination: Void"?

[Caid Ivik]

How so?

You cannot create big bang, God, or anything off this universe, how we call that source, as well as you don't create ie laws of gravity. You can only discover it, and then try to describe it in available rhetorical resources. If I understand your point, then I would say that we could create (or invent) a religion, but not God itself.

[Cyborg]

...But one thing that is not limited is our imagination...

Our imagination is actually restricted.

Try think of a colour that doesn't exist. Impossible.

You can't imagine things you sort of haven't seen before.

Like, I can think of a machine that's not built yet, but it would be built by parts I already know about.

I can't think of a new element. If there are five main elements. Try just imagine a sixth not using parts you already know about.

[Dude_Doc]

Our imagination is actually restricted.

Try think of a colour that doesn't exist. Impossible.

You can't imagine things you sort of haven't seen before.

Like, I can think of a machine that's not built yet, but it would be built by parts I already know about.

I can't think of a new element. If there are five main elements. Try just imagine a sixth not using parts you already know about.

Sure, there are things we can't imagine, because we haven't seen them before, but we can imagine things withing "our reach" or whatever you might call it. I don't think anyone/thing sentient can think of anything it hasn't seen/heard of before...

[Cyborg]

Perhaps a computer could...

You know, it has different intelligence boundaries than we have.

[Dante]

Sure, there are things we can't imagine, because we haven't seen them before, but we can imagine things withing "our reach" or whatever you might call it. I don't think anyone/thing sentient can think of anything it hasn't seen/heard of before...

Elves! Elves elves elves elves elves!!!!

[Cyborg]

E-e-e-e-elves!

Well, elves look like humans.

We can edit things we've seen before...

Like we can build an elf in our mind because we've seen legs, chests, arms and heads before.

We can adjust the appearance of them slightly, and we have an elf.

[Caid Ivik]

I didn't mean physically create, I meant creation of concepts. They need not be objects, just ideas.

Of course, I understand you. But if you look around whole process of perception-analysis-deduction, on which we base all our knowledge, then everything is just a concept created in phase of deduction.  You observe also only how things "look like" trough your senses or ratio, not how they are really, "an sich". Whole universe is just a big concept. However, this way of thinking leads only to blind ways, see how Gorgias ended up.

[Dante]

Well, elves look like humans.

We can edit things we've seen before...

Like we can build an elf in our mind because we've seen legs, chests, arms and heads before.

We can adjust the appearance of them slightly, and we have an elf.

No, we don't, we have something that looks like an elf! A piece of clay shaped exactly into an elf is not an elf. We may have the concept of chest, legs, arms, head, and everything else that makes up an elf, but where did the very concept of 'elf' come from? Nothing around us.

[Caid Ivik]

How can you know?  ::)

[Dante]

Can you prove otherwise?

[Cyborg]

It doesn't interfer with what I said about our imagination.

An elf itself doesn't exist.

But it's just a name we put on something that resemble our general interpretation of an 'elf'.

An elf made of wood is a wooden elf sculpture. A human made of wood is a wooden human sculpture.

[Dante]

It's not a name, it's a concept built up from the little pieces (such as chest, arms, pointy ears, etc) but with one extra piece that makes it an elf. Put together everything that makes up an elf (chest, arms, pointy ears, etc) and you will not have the concept of an elf, you will just have the pieces. Ideas are greater than the sum of their parts.