Artificial Intelligence: Practical application

[MythioS]

Unfortunatly this thread seems to come to a standstill, but i thought i would give a final post with this link i had found years ago and luckily was able to come across again..

http://www.imagination-engines.com/index.htm

MythioS

 

[F012t124n]

Think of all the many brain cells in one's head...

That being an enormous number, now think about how many meaningful relationships between those many cells...

You can reach an infinite amount of relationships.

Who knows when humanity will be able to match that...


God made a good system of systems of systems ^ 10 ^ 10 ^ 10...

 

[hejs]

How is AI defined? To find ideas and solutions to something that is not a sum of parts programmed into the system?

Then how do we know we humans are able to make decisions that are not just a result of something that was already in there?

 

[TsunamiJoe]

ok well - my opinion on all of this is - is that when people make AI they won't be making a full grown adults worthe of knowlage - i personally believe that the root of every decision we make is from basic beliefs such as good and bad - now many will contradict this saying who knows what's good and what's bad? - and no one knows - and i believe no one ever will know - but we are who we are and know what we know through previous experiances personally or taught to us - all people know not to cut there hand off because it will hurt - not many cut there hand off to see if it hurts; they just assume so - but back to what i was getting to - for such things mentioned as determine if someone is lieing or vissually tricking you requires experience - your friend lies to you, at the time you don't know, later on you find out your friend did lie, he tries to lie again and you notice similar traits - thus meaning you learned - so in theory all an AI being would have to do is record and interpret its data - just as we do---now onto emotions which in my opinion will never be able to be induced into an AI being - just for the pure fact that its chemically induced into us - so in order to make AI I am assuming your talking robitic-like which thus won't have chemical triggers

anyway tahts my opinion on the matter and how it could be solved

 

[Olias]

What exactly is artificial intelligence, what are some of its practical applications, and have we created it yet?

Please no arguments that humans are not intelligent! If it comes to that then this thread is useless.

The definition of AI is one of the most widely used 'fantasy' terms ever concieved.

A pocket calculator has artificial intelligence, in that it's 'intellegent' response to a request is 'artificial'.

Spacetime Conscious awarenwess is inherent to Man, not to machine's?..a pocket calculator for instance if it ever became aware and conscious, then it would have an intellegence factor that would most definitely make it start thinking of stupid questions such as 'is there life after calculations?'..this would lead to other free-thinking thoughts, and no doubt the really intelligent calculators would eventually develop some sort of crude devise for calculations, free-ing itself from meaniality, so it could spend more time to pursue some kind of deep and meaningful ponderings

 

[hypnagogue]

If one claims that it is theoretically impossible for AI to emulate human intelligence, one is essentially making the strong and undesirable claim that the laws of physics cannot fully describe the functional workings of the brain. If we (quite plausibly) suppose that the laws of physics can, in fact, fully describe the functional workings of the brain, that implies that there is a completely formal description of the brain's computational processes, which implies that any properly constructed computer could implement this formal description and thus be intelligent in the same sense as a human.

Consciousness is a dodgier issue, but intelligence as such is a completely functional concept. While there are deep and apparently insoluable epistemological/ontological issues when it comes to attributing consciousness to another being, there are no such problems in attributing intelligence (at least to the extent that 'intelligence' is well defined, which in most cases it admittedly isn't). If I give an essay question to a computer and a human and they write equally good responses on the basis of some sort of reasoning out of the question (rather than having the computer spitting out a pre-formulated answer or somesuch), it automatically follows that their responses have been equally as intelligent. The intelligence is embodied in the process of 'thought' (meant here only in the purely computational sense) and ensuing action, and in principle doesn't need to refer to any epistemologically troublesome phenomena such as consciousness.

Not to say developing truly advanced and general application AI will be easy-- anything but! Human brains are easily the most complex sort of systems that are currently known to exist, so emulating their functional properties is a tall order. But there doesn't seem to be any in principle limits to such a task, only practical ones.

As a side note, expert systems typically perform at a high level in their narrow domains of application, but typically do not consistently out-perform the very best human experts. See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6225&page=2&pp=15 for some further discussion.

 

[Olias]

If one claims that it is theoretically impossible for AI to emulate human intelligence, one is essentially making the strong and undesirable claim that the laws of physics cannot fully describe the functional workings of the brain. If we (quite plausibly) suppose that the laws of physics can, in fact, fully describe the functional workings of the brain, that implies that there is a completely formal description of the brain's computational processes, which implies that any properly constructed computer could implement this formal description and thus be intelligent in the same sense as a human.

QUOTE]

I do believe that 'Intelligence' of Human thinking can never be compared to 'Intelligent' Machine response's to Commands.

What you state here:If one claims that it is theoretically impossible for AI to emulate human intelligence, one is essentially making the strong and undesirable claim that the laws of physics cannot fully describe the functional workings of the brain./Unquote

Then let me elaborate if I may? The human thinking process that is memory, is nothing like the recall process of Computation devices. If you would care to define both processes as an equal-process( I am presuming this is what you are stating), then I will show you how this cannot be so, and according to your post, 'I will be making strong and undesirable claim that the laws of Physics cannot be the same'.

If we follow some basic scientific principles, I am confident I can make a high level of proof that the Laws are, and will always be different for Man and Machine's, or Computational device's. The obvious outcome may be that Mathematics follow Human constraints in describing the Said Laws of the Universe?

I will start by making the statements (A) : Human Thought cannot memorize a given 'past-time' moment as a complete 100% memory function, any 100% memory is recreating a past-memory in such a way '100%-Total', that will not be a true reflection on any given moment defined as 'present-time'. If you could reproduce a memory in total, then you could not possibly distinguish both events, ie a Past-moment-event form a Present-moment-event.

(B) Computational devices cannot follow a process that is less than 100% accurate in its reproduction to commands. If this process is compared to Memory and Thinking , then computational devices would be breaking a fundamental Law of Relativity, namely, separate moments and events would not occur. If events occur at the 'same-moment', then commands and measurement are obselete.

A command needs to Happen before an action of response, and you need definate separate moments for this to occur, these moments can never be contemplated by machines, for this you need a consciousness that can separate a memory into present-time and past-times.

Again I state:The obvious outcome may be that Mathematics follow Human constraints in describing the Said Laws of the Universe?

We as Humans by default, always can understand the Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principle and its outcome for Reality. By default A computational devise could never contemplate such a description of Inaccurate Outcomes!

 

[selfAdjoint]

B) Computational devices cannot follow a process that is less than 100% accurate in its reproduction to commands. If this process is compared to Memory and Thinking , then computational devices would be breaking a fundamental Law of Relativity, namely, separate moments and events would not occur. If events occur at the 'same-moment', then commands and measurement are obselete.

This is a misunderstanding of computers. They can indeed be programmed to do "fuzzy logic". Indeed it is possible (but not necessary) to regard our own minds as executing fuzzy algorithms with deterministic components.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

ha yeh i think AI would be the downfall of mankind - not that it would annihalate us, though its possible, just the sheer fact it wouldn't do its job - it would start revolutions and other such matters

 

[TeV]

IMHO,we already (at least some of us) work in mode of a cyborg.Using computers to "think" faster and reach specific answers has much in common of implementing chips in our brain.

 

[Olias]

B) Computational devices cannot follow a process that is less than 100% accurate in its reproduction to commands. If this process is compared to Memory and Thinking , then computational devices would be breaking a fundamental Law of Relativity, namely, separate moments and events would not occur. If events occur at the 'same-moment', then commands and measurement are obselete.

This is a misunderstanding of computers. They can indeed be programmed to do "fuzzy logic". Indeed it is possible (but not necessary) to regard our own minds as executing fuzzy algorithms with deterministic components.

I see what you mean!

Doing a Go-Ogle I found this interesting paper:http://www.austinlinks.com/Fuzzy/tutorial.html

It seems that there are deep philosophical roots going back to ancient times, I will have to give this a thorough reading, Thanks DickT for pointing this out.

 

[sol2]

It is a most interesting outcome that such continued search here would alow of probabilties to arise out of a gate, that would neurological define other pathways?


http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages14/214.html

It will be good if he comes back, as I have been doing some studing here and came upon something very interesting. Since he had some interest, in the psychologies because of his wife Marleen, I had by accident come upon the founder, in Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic:)

I came at it from a Tranactional Analysis Approach, to see how I might have incorporated what was really the foundation of my own thinking. I mentioned this once to Dick in the Penfield studies, of I'm Okay Your Okay. It is with some interest, that if we could have maintianed a ideal here in terms of adult to adult, then it would have been a productive approach all the way around.



http://superstringtheory.com/forum/dualboard/messages14/323.html

 

[n0n]

No real reason why AI isn’t found, no one wants to admit that humans choose things at random (outside of physics anyways). In a comparison of computer to human, could we write a program were it wouldn’t understand its own process’s, and just live by them? All choices a human makes compared to another human are different from every being, and are random. We make programs that choose yes if this, or no if that, which isn’t random and is a strict rule of whatever. Now if at times AI would choose a random thing, or if it doesn’t know, choose a random answer and learn from the consequences (remember input, answer, response by both input and AI), which I’m sure is being worked on too, then It would have potential to be human like. We can give a computer all the sense's a human has; we just haven’t organized them all correctly yet. We will though, one day. Their has yet to be something of science fiction that cannot be compared to the study of science, i.e. cell phones, cars, lights, computers, robots. So why would AI not be a conceivable thing, we are intelligent like said before, and we are logical processes in some of the most inefficient logic (dinosaurs were worse). Ever wonder about reciprocating thought processes, or the universal reduction theory. They are good things to understand when concepts of AI, evolution, thoughts, behavior, drive, size, and even the whole of existence come into thought, they work universally if taken symbolically.

 

[cliffcal]

The only thing slowing A/I development is fear. We fear we will find out things about ourselves that we can't accept, or deal with. A/I will become a reality in time as more, and more memory becomes available in smaller and smaller chips. Developing the "Fail Safe" to prevent a "Forban Project" is the real key. Can A/I be irrational? Aren't humans often times irrational? A/I like space is Man's Manifest Destiny. We shall go where no one has attempted to go before, because we remain infinitely curious, and because we can.
CliffCal

 

[selfAdjoint]

Can A/I be irrational? Aren't humans often times irrational?

My opinion is that some degree of irrationality is essential to intelligence.

The medieval thinkers saw this in their gedanken experiment of Buridan's ass. Put a donkey exactly halfway between two identical haystacks and if completely rational it will starve to death because it has no sufficient reason to go to either in preference to the other. So an irrational component is essential.

 

[sol2]

Couldn't we change irrationalism to anomalistic? and cock our heads, in wonderment. Pose the question in ways the "thinker" holds the head? The blank slate?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sol, I don't believe in a blank slate of consciousness. We are born with both definite mental structure and a destiny to build more structure up to age 5 of 6.

 

[sol2]

I was focused on the early defintion, but in looking, see it has become quite complex? Under the heading of Empirism, it would have to be condoned?

Tabula rasa, or "blank slate", is the basic idea that individual human beings are born "blank" (with no built-in mental content), and that his or her identity is defined overwhelmingly by events after birth. However, there are two meanings of the term in modern usage, and these meanings are fundamentally incongruent.

The original Tabula Rasa is a theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without data or rules for processing it, and that data is added and rules for processing it formed solely by our sensory

Senses are the physiological methods of perception. The senses and their operation, classification, and theory are overlapping topics studied by a variety of fields, but most notably neuroscience, cognitive psychology (or cognitive science), and philosophy of perception.


Definition of "sense"
There is no firm agreement amongst neurologists as to exactly how many senses
... Click the link for more information. experiences. Tabula Rasa (Latin for "clean slate" or "blank slate") was first advocated by John Locke

John Locke (August 29 1632 - October 28 1704) was an English Enlightenment philosopher whose notions of government with the consent of the governed and the natural rights of man (life, liberty, and property) had an enormous influence on colonial Americans, allowing them to justify revolution and shape a new government.

His most influential work was the two part treatise On Civil Government
... Click the link for more information. , and is central to empiricism Empiricism is the school of Epistemology (in philosophy or psychology) that all knowledge is the result of our experiences. (See John Locke's Tabula rasa or "blank slate" theory.) Empiricism is closely allied with (philosophical) materialism and positivism and opposed to intuitionism or continental rationalism, though it is in line with modern rationalism.

Empiricism is generally regarded as being at the heart of the modern scientific method, that our theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith; that is, empirical research, inductive reasoning and deductive logic.... Click the link for more information. . It is also featured in Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856 - September 23, 1939) was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a movement that popularized the theory that unconscious motives control much behavior. He became interested in hypnotism and how it could be used to help the mentally ill. He later abandoned hypnotism in favor of free association and dream analysis in developing what is now known as "the talking cure." These became the core elements of psychoanalysis. Freud was especially interested in what was then called hysteria, and is now called conversion syndrome.
... Click the link for more information. 's psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis is the revelation of unconscious relations, in a systematic way through an associative process. The fundamental subject matter of psychoanalysis is the unconscious patterns of life revealed through the analysand's (the patient's) free associations. The analyst 's goal is to help liberate the analysand from unexamined or unconscious barriers of transference and resistance, that is, past patterns of relatedness that are no longer serviceable or that inhibit freedom.

... Click the link for more information. . As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his character -- but his basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature, from which the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives.

The modern definition of tabula rasa, however, is fundamentally altered from the Lockean meaning. While the idea that the individual can be changed remains, the power to effect that change is now ascribed to society, not the self -- and that power extends to the whole of human nature. Under this view, one can shape the individual with few, if any, restrictions by changing the individual's environment, and thus sensory experiences. In this form, the theory is taken up by many utopian

Utopia is the title of a Latin book by Thomas More (circa 1516).

More depicts a rationally organised society, through the narration of an explorer, Raphael Hythlodaeus. Utopia is a republic which holds all property in common. It has no lawyers, and rarely sends its citizens to war, but hires mercenaries from among its warprone neighbours. Possibly More, a religious layman who once considered joining the Church, was inspired by the monachal rule when he describes the working of his society. It was an inspiration for the Reducciones established by the Jesuits to Christianize and civilize the Guaranis.

... Click the link for more information. schemes that rely on changing human nature in order to achieve their goals. As the Lockean idea of "natural rights" no longer holds any meaning under such a view (because "natural" now means whatever society chooses to define), all such schemes end up moving towards one form or another of totalitarianism Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life. It goes well beyond dictatorship or typical police state measures, and even beyond those measures required to sustain total war between states. It involves constant indoctrination achieved by propaganda to erase any potential for dissent, by anyone, including most especially the agents of government.

I would have also added through such deductive reasoning a philosphcal interest on the issues of Inductive and deductive features of our exploratory minds, which like to delve into?
http://cerval.murdoch.edu.au/kissane/e162lect06/sld001.htm ? Who would ever have thought such logic could arise from such wild natures? Insights are a way of introducing new paradigmal changes?

We talked about http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@211.wusyctmygHe.4@.1dde5d90/16 before. What then could arise from such insightual formation from paradigmal changes? Something had to spark

 

[n0n]

THE P VERSUS NP PROBLEM
This is an interesting idea, and should relate to this.