# Artificial Intelligence for Beginners **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2003, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414 "2003-04-27T00:46:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/41 "2003-04-29T22:33:06Z")
Why in the world would we want to prevent the eventual destruction of the human race? ---
**Author:** ![mrsface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@mrsface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsface)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/42 "2003-04-29T22:36:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > \*\*what’s so scary about a lack of “free will”? > > what is there to cause belief in “free will” and what makes a determinate universe incompatible with our concept that we cause our own actions? > > also, there are more than one experiment. the one already spoken of, and another in which neurons were stimulated to direct motion in a muscle, and the patient thought that he (she?) voluntarily moved the muscle. \*\* Until I read about the Libet experiments I’d had no problem with a ‘determinate universe’ in the sense that everything has a cause, and I’d had no trouble reconciling this with freewill (quite the opposite, because understanding determinants increases freedom to act). But Libet’s findings suggest that the “will” to act, or take a decision, is an illusion - the subjects were reporting conscious decisions _after_ unconscious processes in the brain (‘readiness potentials’) had been recorded. What’s scary? Well perhaps nothing if you’ve been working with these ideas for a while, but having come across them very recently, I admit I find them deeply disturbing. They undermine just about every intuitive theory about human agency, and contradict subjective experience of willed action. Consciousness begins to look like a consolation prize - the illusion of being in charge. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/43 "2003-04-29T22:45:37Z")
I see. Or rather I don’t - I can’t see the use of that kind of (concept of) free will. I’d expect a ‘real’ AI (leaving aside for a moment the problem of how we would know it is ‘real’) to have freewill in that it ought to be able to think for itself, come to conclusions that were not forseen by its creators, invent novelties; ‘think outside the box’ (as it were). Reason doesn’t necessarily force us down a rut. ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/44 "2003-04-29T22:45:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Why in the world would we want to prevent the eventual destruction of the human race? To calm down the paranoid lunatics until robots are seamlessly integrated in our society, of course. By then it’ll be too late to stop them. ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/45 "2003-04-29T22:52:37Z")
> [@](#): > > They undermine just about every intuitive theory about human agency, and contradict subjective experience of willed action. Consciousness begins to look like a consolation prize - the illusion of being in charge. Not really. Perhaps you consciously decided to act beforehand, and only later on wrote it down as such- “Tuesday, 10 pm. I decided to push the light.” Or perhaps the “conscious decision” represents only the final choice out of several possibilities - just cuz potential was there doesn’t mean you were going to do it. In any case, there a re dozens of theories about what might really be going on. The experiments by themselves don’t prove anything. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/46 "2003-04-29T23:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrsface \* > \*\*Until I read about the Libet experiments I’d had no problem with a ‘determinate universe’ in the sense that everything has a cause, and I’d had no trouble reconciling this with freewill (quite the opposite, because understanding determinants increases freedom to act). But Libet’s findings suggest that the “will” to act, or take a decision, is an illusion - the subjects were reporting conscious decisions _after_ unconscious processes in the brain (‘readiness potentials’) had been recorded. > > What’s scary? Well perhaps nothing if you’ve been working with these ideas for a while, but having come across them very recently, I admit I find them deeply disturbing. They undermine just about every intuitive theory about human agency, and contradict subjective experience of willed action. Consciousness begins to look like a consolation prize - the illusion of being in charge. \*\* I’m curious as to the conditions under which these effects occur; is it being suggested that _all_ conscious acts are merely illusion? ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/47 "2003-04-29T23:14:40Z")
InquisitiveIdiot: > [@](#): > > No - There is evidence that consciousness may be, at least in certain circumstances, an illusion added in later to preserve continuity. Experiments with motor neuron activation vs the conscious decision to act shows that neuron activation occurred some time ahead of the time that the individual registered as the conscious decision to act. In short, you were already moving before you decided to. First of all, thanks for all the insights. Secondly, could you expand upon these “certain circumstances” a bit? It would make sense that certain reflexive actions would be justified after-the-fact. However, I can sit motionless, and think, “In 5 second, I’m going to lift my hand.” Then, 5 seconds later, I lift my hand. Certainly, my sensation of making a conscious decision to lift my hand preceded the actual lifting. What, exactly, were these “certain circumstances”? As to your treatise on how to save the humans from The Matrix, go for it. I’ll read it. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/48 "2003-04-29T23:19:05Z")
In brief: the activation patterns associated with planning and motor control were manifested by your brain shortly _before_ you had the experience of thinking “in five seconds, I’m going to lift my hand”. Or so I would presume: the original experiment dealt with choice and decision-making, not planning. ---
**Author:** ![mrsface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@mrsface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsface)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/49 "2003-04-29T23:41:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > \*\* > However, I can sit motionless, and think, “In 5 second, I’m going to lift my hand.” Then, 5 seconds later, I lift my hand. Certainly, my sensation of making a conscious decision to lift my hand preceded the actual lifting. What, exactly, were these “certain circumstances”? > > \*\* Sorry to butt in, I know your post was directed at Inquisitive Idiot, but Libet’s experiments seemed to show that the your sensation of making a conscious decision that you will move your hand in 5 secs is actually preceded by the preparatory brain activation necessary to move your hand. So your “decision” was not the cause of the action. Deciding to move your hand in 5 secs may not be on a level with deciding to post on the SDMB or get married, but it is just these very basic “free acts” that IMO we use to reassure ourselves about free will. I always remember the anecdote about philosopher JP Sartre deliberately breaking a Ming vase as a child and congratulating himself that a thousand years of history had ended in his freely-chosen act of vandalism…but I digress as usual… ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/50 "2003-04-29T23:49:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Deciding to move your hand in 5 secs may not be on a level with deciding to post on the SDMB or get married You consider the two of comprable importance? Wow, you care far more than I do. ---
**Author:** ![mrsface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a9adbd/32.png) [@mrsface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrsface)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/51 "2003-04-29T23:56:20Z")
It’s three, and of course the hand wave is the most important 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/52 "2003-04-30T04:16:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot \* > Not really. Perhaps you consciously decided to act beforehand, and only later on wrote it down as such this is a very good point, and one i hadn’t thought of. or at least reading it made me think of the position in a different light. you move your hand. then you decide you want your hand moved. if a movement requires a decision, then the decision was made, and most likely by you. the fact that you aren’t conscious of the decision until after you make it does not mean that it wasn’t your decision. stick your hand in fire. you reflexively pull it back. cuz it hurt like hell. physiology class teaches us that this response doesn’t even come from the brain, but gets sent out from the spinal cord when the appropriate stimulus reaches it. it certainly seems, though, that you want to pull your hand back. your body just did it preemptively. but is it not _your_ body? is your brain (and presumably your consciousness) not also part of your body? ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/53 "2003-04-30T08:11:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot \* > \*\*[hijack] > As a small survey, would anyone here care to hear my idea for a self-governing robotic society that would (ideally) prevent robotic uprisals and eventual destruction of the human race? I’d volunteer it as a thread, but it’s very long and I wouldn’t want to waste the effort of typing it in if there isn’t an audience for it. > [/hijack] \*\* Certainly… just the sort of thing I love. * * * Sci-fi worldbuilding at [http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html](http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/54 "2003-04-30T12:11:50Z")
Libet’s work and a possible explanation in terms of [backwards time referral](http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/New/Time_Flies/Time_Flies.htm). Many other respected authors (Hammerhoff & Penrose are somewhat maverick in reputation) see consciousness, free will and the “flow of time” as being an _illusion_ to some extent. The question here surely is, \*what else in the world might **share** this illusion? ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/55 "2003-04-30T15:37:05Z")
Um… there is no spoon? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/56 "2003-04-30T16:27:42Z")
Correct… there is no spoon. It is, however, important to realize that the illusion of the spoon is real. ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/57 "2003-05-01T15:33:30Z")
But if the illusion is real, then you can’t bend the illusion, so you have to realize that there IS no illusion. Circular arguments are fun. ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/58 "2003-05-01T17:51:00Z")
The computers we use today are almost all von Neumann machines. They store SYMBOLS in the form of electrical states and manipulate the symbols according to a PROGRAM. INTELLIGENT human beings must create the programs to manipulate the symbols. The trick is that the humans UNDERSTAND the symbols but the computer DOES NOT. The computer can manipulate more symbols far faster than a human being. To the uninitiated the computer appears to understand but it doesn’t. Some computer people want to keep the ignorant in awe. Beware of computer priesthoods. I prefer the term SIMULATED INTELLIGENCE. They will have a hard time convincing me a machine is intelligent, but they make for great sci-fi stories. Dal Timgar ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/59 "2003-05-01T18:09:45Z")
Well, I’m a neural networks man myself, so I think symbolic computing is a complete waste of time. Sure the computer can process symbols, but good luck getting it to generate its own, or formulate rules relating them. > [@](#): > > Some computer people want to keep the ignorant in awe. Nah, they’re just trying to show off. No one really believes the computers we have today are intelligent. We’re just trying to get rid of our own ignorance before we can work on everyone else’s. It’ll come, it’ll come. And call it what you will. Doesn’t really matter. No one neuron in your brain is intelligent, but somehow they all work together to make you. Likewise, an intelligent computer will probably be the same. Wait. You’re talking about a religion forming around the claim that computers themselves are inherently intelligent. The only people who make that claim, as far as I know, are either nutcases or Amish. No one in their right mind would place computers as smarter than some reptiles. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414/60 "2003-05-02T05:46:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > The computer can manipulate more symbols far faster than a human being. this isn’t exactly true. the computer can maniuplate symbols faster than a neural pathway. the human brain has (last i heard) about 10^8 more computing power than a digital computer. mostly because there are 10^14 neurons all capable of firing at once, but only once cpu in a computer. > [@](#): > > The trick is that the humans UNDERSTAND the symbols but the computer DOES NOT. this sorta sounds to me like the same stuff searle was pushing. how can you tell the computer doesn’t “understand”? how can you tell the thermostat doesn’t “believe” the room should be warmer? or, to put it another way, what do you mean by “understand”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/artificial-intelligence-for-beginners/171414.md?page=4)