About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


Post 80

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's true that you can separate out native speakers of a given language from some others by use of idioms and colloquialisms, but that doesn't rule out some imagined non-human intelligence - just one that doesn't speak the language as fluently.

As to the communications that depend on grasping more subtle understandings of a human's feelings or changes in meaning that are conveyed with humor or through tone of voice, inflection, etc., I think that is still just a degree of skill in interpretation and depth of language understanding. After all, much of what you have described would also confuse a person speaking English as a second language.

OMG, if I'm wrong about this, then that 'person' with the East Indian accent on the help line yesterday was a machine!

Post 81

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OMG, if I'm wrong about this, then that 'person' with the East Indian accent on the help line yesterday was a machine!

Be afraid - be very afraid... heh, heh, heh... [snort]...   ;-)


Post 82

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

As to the communications that depend on grasping more subtle understandings of a human's feelings or changes in meaning that are conveyed with humor or through tone of voice, inflection, etc., I think that is still just a degree of skill in interpretation and depth of language understanding.
I disagree that greater degrees of skill in interpretation would/could ever be sufficient, and I'd also say that experience with language won't ever be enough. If language and thought weren't different things for us -- if thought was the mere manipulation of symbols in our minds -- then I wouldn't disagree with you.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/19, 7:09pm)


Post 83

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know, Ed... Think about what all forms of true intelligence have in common... Reality. No matter what their thought processes are like - and they could be quite different - to produce true knowledge they must capture reality. What is left, is to acquire a common use of symbols (language) to be able to communicate. Are there some differences that are hard to share? Yes. Look at all the communication problems between young and old, between men and women, or between those that grew up in radically different environments. But notice how much can be communicated - Thank you, objective reality!


Post 84

Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 5:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Think about what all forms of true intelligence have in common... Reality. No matter what their thought processes are like - and they could be quite different - to produce true knowledge they must capture reality. What is left, is to acquire a common use of symbols (language) to be able to communicate.
I continue to disagree. I think that perception processes can be quite different between different intelligent beings and they would still all, objectively, capture reality. Thought processes, I argue, cannot retain that captured objectivity -- unless they are of a very certain kind.

Unless you objectively perceive length as green, you cannot retain objectivity -- by integrating green things with long things. The perception type dictates the thought required, but the concepts are actually entirely the same (they refer to the exact same referents!).

We can perceive differently, but we cannot ever think differently (and still be "intelligent"). That sounds more harsh than I meant. I don't mean to give the impression that we shouldn't "think outside the box" -- I'm talking about thought more generally than that. Try to picture a supposedly intelligent being who allowed contradictions in its thinking, not just hypothesized counterfactuals, contradictions. That's what I mean.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/20, 5:54am)


Post 85

Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

You said, "Try to picture a supposedly intelligent being who allowed contradictions in its thinking..."

But that kind of being would NOT be intelligent - we call them Liberals. More seriously, if a non-human form of 'intelligence' was in fact flawed in its nature such that it could not understand reality, then it would not be an 'intelligence.' It is the commonality of function that supports my position - the function of grasping reality.
---------

You said, "Thought processes, I argue, cannot retain that captured objectivity -- unless they are of a very certain kind."

Generally speaking, it is obvious that there MUST be a capacity to retain captured objectivity or, whatever it is, it is NOT intelligence. And I agree that certain kinds of processes would allow for that and other processes would not. But nothing you have said or that I have said makes it impossible for a non-human to possess those processes.
----------

We have but one reality, and we have but one function as regards this discussion - to grasp that reality. Different kinds of entities can perceive reality differently, they must, none-the-less, end up with similar understandings to have knowledge. Therefore there are some differences in processes that would make possible a translation from different precepts to get to the same concepts. There are people who were born blind, yet with their different way of perceiving the world they are not denied knowledge of reality or declared not intelligent. Some of the research being done for the blind involves giving them an entirely different way of perceiving reality (e.g., radar-like device paints a 'picture' on their back as a pattern of tactile impulses).

Post 86

Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

It is the commonality of function that supports my position - the function of grasping reality.
And it is the commonality of the structure of thought that supports my position -- the retainment, upon only very certain integrations, of the objective structure of reality.

But nothing you have said or that I have said makes it impossible for a non-human to possess those processes.
True, but irrelevant. As I've said all along, the possibility thing is completely arbitrary (read: meaningless) until you nail down a plausible mechanism by which it is to come about. My further point on that is that thought will have to be a certain way -- even if perception is another kind of perception.

Therefore there are some differences in processes that would make possible a translation from different precepts to get to the same concepts. There are people who were born blind, yet with their different way of perceiving the world they are not denied knowledge of reality or declared not intelligent.
Yes, their array of perception is different, but they think the same as those with sight. Imagine the opposite. Imagine if blind folks thought differently than seeing folks. I'm not talking about integrating sounds rather than sights, I'm talking about doing something different than "traditional" integration.

That is not possible (while retaining objectivity).

Ed


Post 87

Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 10:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here are some interesting [selected] excerpts from the Wiki on The Singularity is Near:
2020s
****************
The threat posed by genetically engineered pathogens permanently dissipates by the end of this decade as medical nanobots¡ªfar more durable, intelligent and capable than any microorganism¡ªbecome sufficiently advanced.

 
A computer will pass the Turing test by the last year of the decade (2029), meaning that it is a Strong AI and can think like a human (though the first A.I. is likely to be the equivalent of a kindergartner). This first A.I. is built around a computer simulation of a human brain, which was made possible by previous, nanotech-guided brainscanning.
****************
 
2030s
****************
Mind uploading becomes possible.
 
Using brain nanobots, recorded or real-time brain transmissions of a person's daily life known as "experience beamers" will be available for other people to remotely experience. This is very similar to how the characters in
Being John Malkovich were able to enter the mind of Malkovich and see the world through his eyes.

The same nanotechnology should also allow people to alter the
neural connections within their brains, changing the underlying basis for the person's intelligence, memories and personality.
****************
 
2040s
****************
Human body 3.0 (as Kurzweil calls it) comes into existence. It lacks a fixed, corporeal form and can alter its shape and external appearance at will via foglet-like nanotechnology. Organs are also replaced by superior cybernetic implants.
****************

2045
****************
$1000 buys a computer a billion times more powerful than all human brains today. This means that average and even low-end computers are hugely smarter than even highly intelligent, unenhanced humans.

The Singularity occurs as artificial intelligences surpass human beings as the smartest and most capable life forms on the Earth. Technological development is taken over by the machines, who can think, act and communicate so quickly that normal humans cannot even comprehend what is going on; thus the machines, acting in concert with those humans who have evolved into postbiological cyborgs, achieve effective world domination. The machines enter into a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, with each new generation of A.I.s appearing faster and faster. From this point onwards, technological advancement is explosive, under the control of the machines, and thus cannot be accurately predicted.

With the entire universe made into a giant, highly efficient supercomputer, A.I./human hybrids (so integrated that, in truth it is a new category of "life") would have both supreme intelligence and physical control over the universe. Kurzweil suggests that this will open up all sorts of new possibilities, including manipulation of the physical constants, inter-dimensional travel, and controlling the fate of the universe.
****************

In the 2020s, medical nanobots conquer infectious disease. This seems implausible because it treats microbiological life as static. But microorganisms replicate fast. E. coli -- given nutrition -- doubles every 20 minutes (would cover the whole earth in just 3 days), and each doubling could involve mutation. By treating life as something static, and technology as something advancing, it appears that technology would dominate or conquer life -- but that view is too simple.
 
Also in the 2020s (in 2029, the Turing Test will begin to fail to differentiate between human and computer). Now, I believe that there are computers right now that can existentially pass the Turing Test when the human investigator is a child, or mentally-undeveloped person. Some people will be fooled, but that is because they are, themselves, fools (gullible, credulous). If you plant a 6 year-old kid in front of a computer screen and tell her to start typing to the "person" on the other end -- and then you ask her if the "person" she was communicating with is a human or not -- then she'll be tricked. But the $64,000 question -- of which the child is ignorant -- is that you have to get your interlocuter to communicate what it feels like to be human:
 
1) machines will always fail at this task
2) even some humans -- mentally undeveloped -- will fail at this task
 
In the 2030s, we're supposed to be able to upload minds, but there isn't even consensus on what a mind is. That's arbitrary and, therefore, wrong.
 
Also in the 2030s, we'll be able to "be" other people (to have their inner experiences as if we were them), but this is simplistic. Folks are complex. There's more to an inner experience than some well-written software. Even all of the software in the known world would not be able to conjure up something like this.
 
Also in the 2030s, we can change ourselves into being "non-ourselves" -- by fiddling with neural connections. I could be James Dean, for instance (or not appreciably different from James Dean). This seems far-fetched.
 
In the 2040s, we become "Transformers" and can live in 100% mechanized, synthetic material. But again, this treats life as being simpler than it is. To repeat, we can't even make a living leaf ex nihilo (without starting with living material from a tree or a leaf).
 
In 2045, when we hit the Singularity, we transcend metaphysics and identity. I don't buy that.
 
Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/12, 10:27am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 6:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How do we reconcile the following observations from this thread?

1] By some year not so far away, a $1000 computer will exceed the computational power of the human race.

2] This video gadget keeps crashing in my browser.

In the future, that will read:

3] My self-correcting software thing keeps crashing.

We're actually part way there, Kitty Hawk stage; our 'anti-virus/anti-malware' software is normally what is dragging our silicone to a crawl, as it, too, is directly attacked.


I'm not being my usual lout self; there is some truth trying to expose itself in those conflicting observations. I temper my reading of Kurzweil with reading of Wolfram, and his NKS observations about complexity; complex systems erupt unpredictably from simple rules, which is the positive side of the law of unintended and unforeseen consequences.

There is absolutely no doubt that at the tip of the intellectual spear, remarkable, mind boggling things are being done ... in labs. (Facebook isn't it, however.) And there is also absolutely no doubt that when commercialized, much of the promise of these remarkable things ends up in the service of the most dismal uses imaginable.

Mankind saw it with the invention of TV. We see it now with the internet. We see it with our multimedia political campaigns. This is how we on average, broadly, use all this technology? To have the great national political debate, widely participated in by many? Or does that happen rarely and quietly, on the fringes in backwater cracks and crevices, far from the roaring Oceans of What Is Done With All This Tech On Average?

Intensely focused humans somewhere are working on the exponential growth of optical switch bandwidth so that eventually, all that porn moves even faster. College tech geeks have long been working on ever more capable full body sensors ... in the name of remote virtual sexual stimulation.

If I was a betting man, Kurzweil's singularity will largely be realized when direct brain stimulation, coupled with near infinite bandwidth, allows 80% of the population to wire itself into a 3D virtual porn induced frenzy in the dark somewhere and twitch itself into a slobbering oblivion as complete addicts to the dopamine. Some kind of blend of The Matrix, Clockwork Orange, GATTACA, MAD MAX WORLD, and somewhere way off in the fringes, something that hopefully makes all of that worth the effort.

The ever growing bandwidth at mankind's fingertips has permitted the exponential growth of activity that is light-years and light-speed wide... but only an Angstrom deep. A hundred billion or so 'tweets' still boil down to a whole lot of nothing and only a little something. For 99% of those tweets, the consonants are overkill.


And still, once in a very great while, there is the brief sight of a sprinter without legs, running on blades of tempered steel, and the twittersphere erupts in a brief wave of registered admiration... until Paris Hilton shows her hoo-hah coming out of a Porsche somewhere and we all move on...

In some ways, the tech is changing, but the times they are staying the same...

regards,
Fred

Post 89

Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,
If I was a betting man, Kurzweil's singularity will largely be realized when direct brain stimulation, coupled with near infinite bandwidth, allows 80% of the population to wire itself into a 3D virtual porn induced frenzy in the dark somewhere and twitch itself into a slobbering oblivion as complete addicts to the dopamine.
That's a pretty dismal view of human nature (80% of us willfully loaded up into a 'Matrix'-type world of non-stop pleasure-sensing) ...

Ed


Post 90

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

True enough. Is 60% optimistic enough?

regards,
Fred

Post 91

Monday, August 13, 2012 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

I started a poll to get a feel for the "public sentiment" on this matter.

:-)

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


User ID Password or create a free account.