I choose the road less traveled, so when the paths cross I can simply slaughter you all where you stand.
deja vous!

I doubt they will be capable of creating their own programming, its like tasking someone to design a better brain than we already have.
let me just reitterate the catch-22 that you develop with this.
and this:




...
there I'm done reitterating.

if you force them to think one way (not with fuzzy boundaries, but with strict limits) they are not sentient as they cannot possibly fulfill requirment of being self aware.

if you dont set hard limits you cannot garuntee that your statement will be fulfilled.

you take a quite well traveled, very public road in which everything secular and capitalistic fails, and everything else is divine.

its a half-finished road for a reason.

I dont choose a side and start an arguement, I choose the harder to defend side after the argument has begun.

its not a usual thing for people to do, because it has nothing to do with being argumentative.

what? setting a handicap?

of course its a mannerism, I do it all the time.

it shouldnt be, you are the one to begin everything.


take for instance the argument with karma, I set my restrictions so high that he should have been able to exploit and obliterate me with that. Its a concious choice to step beyond what I have to when I'm constructing a point.

I'm going to make just a few points for all these know-it-alls out there who seem to think they know exactly how the mind works. The fact of the matter is, nobody knows how the mind works. There is absolutely no certainty on this matter whatsoever. There is plenty of conjecture that the neocortex processes information in parallel and replies via some sort of association (that is to say, the mind doesn't deal with raw information. It doesn't store data as ones and zeros. It stores information as broken up patterns of neural activity that (and this is the important bit) is recalled due to incoming stimulus and is RECONSTRUCTED through a natural intuition that we don't quite understand). Now, far be it from me to lay down any supposed facts on this matter, because none of you will listen anyways you're all too busy throwing about rhetoric like pies at a county fair, but there is zero evidence that the 'Mind is a Computer' analogy is correct. Or even sound. Hell, the fact of the matter is computers work in serial and minds do not. Minds work by a highly complex and often dubious parallel and spontaneous process, although thoughts and memories seem to be stored as serial information. Even if you stuffed a billion processors together into a computer or used a quantum processor to process trillions of strings of information simultaneously, these fancy-pants computers will still be restrained by the fact that the code written for them is in serial and must be read as such. That's a human fault, we see everything serialized and we recall everything serialized.

I don't think much will come out of the Artificial Intelligence movement. If people really want an intelligent machine, they'll go about designing something that has real Intelligence. That is to say, it doesn't attempt to simulate a response to a stimulus by tricky code, but instead intuits a response. Intelligence is less processing power, memory, and the ability to change an internal state based on input, but instead the ability to change an internal input without external stimulus. At least, that's the closest definition we can get to humanlike thought. Like I said in the beginning, nobody has an inkling of a clue of how the mind really works beyond some limited physics, and there certainly isn't a unified theory of Mind floating about.Just keep that in mind (har har) when you argue about this stuff, because as soon as you start assuming you know something about it, you're showing that you don't really know anything at all.

I'd go further into what i'm getting at, but this post is getting long and boring and nobody will be interested in hearing the rest anyways. Please proceed antagonizing each-other.

I couldnt care less than about the attention of a few twenty-somewhats and a gaggle of teenagers.

when your points are usually extremely controversial, and/or say "come and get me" (topic thread) you see what happens.
actually he didnt do too bad, he noticed the gap and was trying to use it, but he never got around to actually pointing it out sufficiently.

either way misusing a point has nothing to do with my abilities, its simply an example.

I take offense at this, we know plenty about the brain. we just dont know anything in comparison to what there is to know.

we've had parallel code for decades... mostly used for super computers...

currently no. But the point is that our brains aren't doubling in processing power every 18 months... our computer are... Furthermore our understanding of AI is progressing very quickly compared to natural evolution. Evolution is VERY VERY SLOW... so lets say it takes us another 1000 years to crack sentient AI... so what?... 1000 years is no time at all in the scheme of things. Even if it took us 10,000 years it would many times faster then any natural process.


Our brains are the third revolution in evolution.


First random mutation.
Second sex.
Third direct intelligent manipulation (also known as Intelligent Design... or playing God... because someone's got to.).


beyond that we might become completely artificial... as in no natural components.

Who says the AI has to be the same size as the human brain? We weren't talking about making human sized brains we were talking about making computers that are as powerful or more powerful then the human brain with sentient consciousness.


As to them being made smaller, pay attention... computer processing density... that is processing power by area required to make it happen has been MASSIVELY miniturized. If hte same process continues we could make the human intelligence computer the size of the human brain... and then smaller.


Don't count the powersupply and mother board etc being the same size as the brain. Remember I'm not including the whole human nervous system or the heart and lungs. Skull v CPU size. Currently I think we could build a human intelligence computer... it would be the size of a house... but that halves in size every 18 months... so that won't take long to squeeze into a skull.



I agree, I've said as much several times already. However, AI is also progressing quickly.



You're done because you're wrong. You're trying to say something is impossible when you cannot make the claim. It's not credible. Period.

I cannot stress enough: rules created in the first 30 years of the genesis of computers can hardly be considered remotely valid for the next decade, let alone for millenia afterwards.

again, how do you create something that thinks when all you know about its base is that it exists?

you're asking people to shoot in the dark for a target that may be in this room, or may be in the next room, or the next, or the next throughout several realities of this world.

sentience is not something that you stumble upon by chance.

then your computer is 1/3 as useful and will still be 1/8 fallible.

its simply not feasible to work on such a system, wave property of matter keeps us from getting too small. the only reason our brain can work on taht scale is because its specialized, it passes the data through neurons and specific systems which keep it compact.

think of a computer like a line of people in a hallway all going to different places, they bunch up, communicate, forget where they're supposed to go. the brain on the other hand is like people each in opaque phone booths that pass through without ever seeing the person in front of them, they can rarely communicate or mess with each otehr because they have blockages between them. not to mention how data is mostly transmitted using atoms and potentiality rather than simply electrons.

agh, my metaphor is breaking down, but let me try and make this simple:
our brain works by isolating information and keeping its wave property down to a minimum by using atomic particles, computers do not isolate information, but pass them along primative wires without anything keeping data from one wire passing to the other, in ADDITION they use mostly electrons as their form of passing data, who's wave property is much larger than atomic particles and, as thus, it is far more prone to being easily influenced and interacted with.

I know our brains use electromagnetic potential to still move information at speed of light, but they use the emag of atoms, not of electrons, so inteference is FAR more difficult.