Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

JohnAskew JohnAskew 9 girl in pink sweater
  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    @Blue Ink: We are back to square one, regardless. 

    Plants have many cells, so which ones react to creatures that approach? Which cells communicate with the other plants about the creature? I don't know. This behavior has been measured, however. I would call that sentience.

    Can I put a rock in my head and call it a neuron? No! (and not just because My head is already full of rocks.) 

    Can I teach a rock to think? Well, this thread is going that direction... but no, I don't think so. 

    E. Coli is DNA... it's crap for an example, but it's likely sentient to some extent, it eats to live... 

    I did just read an article that shows a bacteria which eats and breathes electricity, so maybe your little head chip is inevitable. I don't think it will come from Intel... I don't think we humans are capable of animating matter outside of Dr. Frankenstein. The guru would tell you that the chip is already part of you, even before it is created... and they won't even try to make sense of it for you.

     

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , Blue Ink wrote

    @JohnAskew:

    Simple thought experiment. Imagine that I undergo some exotic surgery in which a few of my brain cells get replaced with a tiny computer emulating exactly the behavior of those cells. Same connections, same reaction to stimuli, same timing.

    The next day, a few more cells get replaced, and so on and on until my brain is completely made of silicon and firmware.

    Would I still be intelligent at this point?

    If no, care to guess when and why I ceased to be?

    You are making the assumption that a tiny computer has the capability of replacing anything sentient. That's my problem with this. It simply can't. We can plug electrodes into our brain and use prosthetics, but that's not the same. There is no tiny computer that can replace a single ganglion, or a set of nerves that work in tandem. That's science fiction.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    So, given my perspective, I consider those who fear AI to be, essentially, unwitting Animists. They're essentially lending a 'soul' or 'spirit' or 'life-essence' to the inanimate computer.

    Once again, bad code can send a predator drone into a rogue murder machine, but it's not using any intelligence, it's following a determined path. 

    I think it is important to distinguish between the dangers of automated weapons and the scenario that Elon Musk evokes of Terminator III when dramatizing the power of AI. Perhaps he's really merely trying to set expectations for us to trust his cars.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    @Sven Groot:It is true by definition, correct, philosophy 101, but I'm not trying to be pedantic. Quantum physics says the universe always existed as both wave and particle, it's not dependent on observation, or life, as you asked. I can imagine the universe existing without life, but there's no particle to pass through one slit, there's multiple universes, potentials - no one is there to hear the tree fall - but the noise is there to potentially be heard.

    It seems to me, the same, to consider the many potential parallel universes that I've read about more recently in articles about string theory as being the wave function and the parallel slits it may pass through in the aforesaid experiment as those possible universes, where the particular universe we collapse into existence upon observation is the slit that the particle goes through. This would not be 'random', according to most, but directed by the observer/observation. I've stated in this thread that my perspective is one of faith (don't read religion here, please) and cannot show demonstrable empirical proof. It is still worthy of being included in a scientific discussion. I'm not here to say science is wrong. I'm asserting the role of the observer as integral, not passive, to what we call reality. It seems intuitive to me that our place and function inside of time is the anomaly, we are alive, and that's the pivot point for reality itself. It most certainly is an existential perspective, and not a mechanical engineer's formula.

    @evildictaitor:The link 'here' is broken. I'll take a look when we can find it. I will point out that the text says "in theory", and not in fact, going back to the 'definition' Sven called out. I really am not trying to 'win' my point with a cheap trick, but it is true that we cannot ever separate the scientist from the experiment - a notion that is undervalued in this thread. It can most definitely be asserted that the observation of recorded experimental results of the photon collapsing to pass through one slit, days after the recording took place, is the very observation that collapsed the wave function into the particle for the record. As you can picture, this is now an atemporal connection - a spooky action at a distance (time is distance), hence my view of life as a pivot point in spacetime that defines our universe. I cannot take credit for the idea, I did read it, but I cannot recall where and of course it was not in a scientific journal. You say it has been experimentally verified that I'm wrong but I don't see the source yet.

    We are quantum entangled with the experiment, results, and each other - atemporally connected. 

    You can wave off my opinions, but you cannot drain them of meaning.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , evildictait​or wrote

    *snip*

    +1

    When quantum mechanics talks about "observers", it means photon collisions, not animals or people with eyes looking at it.

    It is fine to suggest that without human observation things are not real. But that's a philosophical question ("If I cannot see it, does it happen?"), not a quantum-mechanical one.

    Quantum mechanics is not about human observation for the fairly simple reason that humans are not quantum particles.

    Do you have a source to cite? I'm wanting to know more, find proof, before I give up my idea. I don't think you do, because I don't think there is proof.

    I believe it does require a sentient life form, and that's not a subatomic particle.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    @Richard.Hein: Bass and Sven said my "religious" opinions have no place in a scientific argument. Pfft.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , Richard.Hein wrote

    *snip*

    There does not need to be a human observer if there are animals and life everywhere on the earth, they are observers too.  Even the tiniest microbes in the depths of the earth.  Or networks of plant and fungi.  Or the sun itself, and mass itself, may be the observer, and we've been unable to reconcile QM and Relativity because gravity and whatever that warping of spacetime is itself must be treated as the observer's interface.  Perhaps not the observer, but the interface between observables is the observer.  Thus the medium really is the message as well.

    Since there can be no proof without a human observer, I'm not wrong. I did assert that sentient beings are responsible for collapsing the wave function, but hamsters don't write scientific papers. Plants are shown to exhibit some sentiment and communication, so all DNA likely shares the power of collapsing the wave function, but we can only speak for ourselves - scientifically.

    I maintain that We are the experiment. The scientist who thinks they are not affecting results, that they are separate from the experiment, is a fool. Our greatest thinkers in this realm accept mystery. No one in this thread is smarter than those physicists who talk of god as they perform experiments and consider results. Do you need names dropped?

     

  • crazy anti-cop culture.

    I spent my time in the town hall meeting raking the Republican state senator over the coals over the war on drugs.

    When I mentioned the article by Charles Koch, this Republican state senator went off on a tangent about how powdered and crack cocaine should be treated the same. Just love it when they get so rattled they can't hear correctly and answer some arbitrary question. The attendees enjoyed his humiliation and laughed at him. I did thank the police captain and the district judge (and the senator) for their service before I focused my discourse on the Republican and his racist class warfare against the poor. The judge was happy for my bringing the topic up and enjoyed watching the senator fail so spectacularly. The police chief was very defensive all night and was relieved someone else got the spear in their ribs. He wasn't at all upset with my very clear message.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    @Sven Groot: I think it does belong in a scientific discussion. I did show how your argument is wrong. There is always a human observer to account for collapsing the wave function, regardless if it is days after the recording. I didn't make that up, I read it. Plus, how do new theories begin? With ideas. No successful scientist dismisses ideas the way you're attempting to do with mine. I noticed no answer or acknowledgement of my assertion, just dismissal.

    @Bass: I disparage the use of vocabulary (artificial intelligence) as propaganda and drama - over the top drama - probably to excite interest where there should be none. If you want to limit "intelligence" to the controlled flow of electrons, you are misappropriating the word. If you want to eliminate ideas of wonder and mystery from coffeehouse discussions because they're not "scientific" then you're sophomoric.

    Neither of you guys are public speakers, I wager.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    @Richard.Hein: I appreciate your mind. It's not closed. I respect your drive to find a computational model for the universe, it lends into the ideas of C. G. Jung in his later years, where he stated that number is the fundamental archetype. I believe number has quality, time has quality, they're not static increments of the monad; it's the gods of olympus, a digression into the monad.

    I studied philosophy/psychology/religion early on in college and was frustrated by science's attempt to remove quality from number and time. Time, for me, is not an empty vacuum, nor is gravity a constant single force - it's the monad expressing quality through number - 

    Ok, I'll shut up. I'm probably not making enough sense yet. But hopefully you see my perspective.