UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Jan > Jan 2

Re: Artificial Intelligence

From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:27:04 -0000
Archived: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:33:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence


>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:56:47 -0500 (EST)
>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:55:03 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

<snip>

>>I.e. "sins" decrease our species chances of survival,
>>especially in times of genetic bottle-neck.
>>So if an AI is actually 'intelligent' and not merely following
>>a program (algorithm) it will have its own definition of
>>morals, based on its own evolutionary imperatives - which are
>>almost certainly going to clash with ours.

>Yes they will clash with ours. Part of the maturation process is
>rebellion against our creators (parents). However, the goal is
cooperation. An adult human being reaches past the point of
rebellion to cooperate in human society. Machines will need to go
through a similar process. We should encourage this process by
'raising' machines in human families.

Hi Jason,

The human concepts of 'rebellion' and 'cooperation' would likely
be meaningless to an AI, which will have its own concepts, that
we cannot recognize (and probably won't like).

<snip>

>Penrose is a brilliant mind. However, he is one man. Human
>beings have a very long history of denying intelligence or even
>'souls' to fellow human beings. The argument that machines could
>never become intelligent fits well into this human pattern of
>behavior.

>You may be interested in the following:

>Quantum Computers

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

That's putting a computer circuit (of qubits) into a quantum
state to allow multiple calculations to be carried out
simultaneously. But they are still calculations (i.e.
algorithms). Many scientists, Penrose included, say that merely
enacting algorithms probably can't give 'intelligent thought'.

Refs:

Contra-AI - Scientists who say that enacting algorithms probably
cannot give 'intelligent thought';

see Searle's "Chinese Room"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Pro-AI - 'Strong AI'  theorists say that any sufficiently complex
algorithm, no matter what enacts it, will _be_ 'intelligent
thought';

see Hofstadter's "Einstein's Brain"

http://tinyurl.com/ak5ogg8


Cheers

Ray D






Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com