** Grey Matters *,
The OP is “Can an AI exist?”. Your first post stated that the question of “What is consciousness?” was germane to this issue. In fact, Turing argues convincingly that it is not. Thus, your argument that we can not define consciousness is both perfectly true and perfectly irrelevant * to the OP *.
And with that, I disagree. First of all, that statement is mere conjecture at this point. And secondly, there is no clear manner in which our theoretical model of computing would account for such matters as intuition, imagination, true emotion or free will. (Philosophers Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Alvin Plantinga have some writings on this matter.)
Once again, I disagree. It seems to me that it would be more reasonable to withhold judgment, rather than to assume that is must be possible.
Furthermore, even if we assume that true A.I. is possible, that doesn’t mean we should assume that Turing machines provide the right avenue for generating them. Even if we assume (correctly or not) that something is possible, that doesn’t mean we should assume that it is possible using a particular technique.
Intelligence is not consciousness. Intelligence is an inseperable subset part of consciousness, a subset without boundaries with anyother part of consciousness. Emotions, Intelligence, Intuition etc. are all non-divisible parts of consciousness. It is definitally germane to this question because it is the question. Unless you go by Star Trek Philosophy where it is possible to have these things in parts and not as a whole. Long live Data.
From what I know about Turing I disagree with what you said. If that is what Turing meant then I disagree with Turing. And even so, the Turing Test does support my arguments.
It brushes aside the concern of an immediate and clear definition. It does not brush aside the issue of intelligence or self-awareness itself.
The Turing Test creates something that, in a certain context, encourages people to believe that it is conscious/intelligent. Are we fooled into thinking it is conscious, or is it conscious? If Turing thought his test answered that then I’d disagree with him, too.
**
I would argue that it’s more than conjecture - people have looked pretty hard for shortcomings in the Turing machine model.
Anyway, can you give me a concrete example of, say, a problem that can be solved with intuition? Or a concrete example of a situation that would produce a particular emotional response?
Now we’re getting into a debate over what is meant by the word “possible.” Can we at least agree that there are not any convincing arguments that AI is impossible?
**
I don’t think anyone here would argue that “Turing machines provide the right avenue for generating” AI. Turing machines are nothing more than a theoretical model of computation.
Nobody has ever built a true Turing machine, and, very likely, nobody ever will.
Goddamnit, people. I posted a link to Turing’s article. Please read it before you blather.
GreyMatters, you are making claims about intelligence that essentially boil down to “this is my opinion and nothing you say will change it”. What makes you qualified to make the following statement?
If you say we can’t define consciousness and then attempt it, you’re just being inconsistent.
As for your disagreeing with Turing, well that’s a poser. Now I have to decide who I want in my corner, one of the world’s most brilliant and original thinkers who anticipated and crushed all of your arguments 40 years before you were born, or some unknown on the internet who can’t be bothered to read up on the subject before spewing all over the place. I’ll have to think about that one.
Erislover,
Turing did not claim his test answered whether the entity was conscious or whether it fooled the perceiver into thinking it was conscious. What he argued was that a reasonable person would concede that if you couldn’t tell the difference, it just doesn’t matter. The same argument, incidentally is extended to everyone you meet on the street everyday. Does that person really exist or are they very convincing simulcrums? If you can not, under any circumstances, tell the difference, then it becomes an academic issue of interest only to philosophers and undergraduates.
That is what I was trying to say.
So, with no definition of consciousness/intelligence there can be no design at this time of an AI. With no adequate test we can be fooled, so there is no way to tell if the attempt at building the AI was successful.
Therefore, the question is moot. Anyone’s guess is as good as anyother’s at this time.
Mine is yes.
AI exists already in your brain.
Most of our thinking is automatic and based on neural circuits that operate beneath our awareness. We may program them consciously, but the whole grain thing is an organic computer, i.ei, AI.
AI exists already in your brain.
Most of our thinking is automatic and based on neural circuits that operate beneath our awareness. We may program them consciously, but the whole brain thing is an organic computer, i.ei, AI.
That’s not A.I. That’s just I.
The Turing machine model is great for solving computational problems, and limited inferential problems. I have yet to see any explanation of how it would provide genuine intelligence, though. Once again, there’s the question of “burden of proof.”
Not necessary. Such examples abound in everyday life.
Possible = Can be done in principle. Not to be confused with “feasible.”
I’m not prepared to concede that point, as I think that mechanical determinism would preclude true artificial intelligence. For example, I have yet to encounter any explanation of how one create intuition. I have read a number of articles which say, “Well, if we put enough circuits into the computer, I think it would eventually become intelligent,” but obviously, such statements lack explanatory power.
Additionally, I’ve already cited some philosophers whose works (IMO) provide some pretty strong arguments against true A.I.
Earlier in this thread, ethnicallynot suggested that they would. His/Her exact said “If we can artificially create new organism, such as bacteria that produce insulin, clone sheep as well as creating highly advanced Turing machines, does it take such a leap to imagine a new intelligent being who’s existence can be directly attributed to our efforts?”
I am as qualified as Turing, Plato, you and any other idiot that has ever lived. I am conscious and can form an opinion. That’s all this crap is opinion. And my opinion is as valid, in the end, as any other’s.
Deal with it.
Plus, it seems to be much better than yours, so why should we listen to you saying we shouldn’t listen me? Show your Professional Quality Opinion Maker papers and i will surely listen to your hot wind.
And, before you go off on why isn’t anyone listening to me, may be next time you could try being a little politer when first responding to someone’s post around here. You came off very offensive and arrogant in your first post; plus, you didn’t read what I wrote. You still haven’t read what I wrote or tried to understand it.
EXAMPLE: I never wrote that consciousness COULDN’T be defined. I said that it hasn’t been defined yet. I then threw the ball right back at you and asked for you to define it. You ignored it all. Great come back.
But, then you still don’t get it yet do you Finagle? I do agree with Turing. And, again you make my point.
I get it now, Finagle. You’re just joking around aren’t you? I say something then you quote Turing directly saying the same thing. Pretty funny. OK, what do you think, or are you just going to let other people do your thinking for you?
I am as qualified as Turing, Plato, you and any other idiot that has ever lived. I am conscious and can form an opinion. That’s all this crap is opinion. And my opinion is as valid, in the end, as any other’s.
Deal with it.
Plus, it seems to be much better than yours, so why should we listen to you saying we shouldn’t listen me? Show your Professional Quality Opinion Maker papers and i will surely listen to your hot wind.
And, before you go off on why isn’t anyone listening to me, may be next time you could try being a little politer when first responding to someone’s post around here. You came off very offensive and arrogant in your first post; plus, you didn’t read what I wrote. You still haven’t read what I wrote or tried to understand it.
EXAMPLE: I never wrote that consciousness COULDN’T be defined. I said that it hasn’t been defined yet. I then threw the ball right back at you and asked for you to define it. You ignored it all. Great come back.
But, then you still don’t get it yet do you Finagle? I do agree with Turing. And, again you make my point.
I get it now, Finagle. You’re just joking around aren’t you? I say something then you quote Turing directly saying the same thing. Pretty funny. OK, what do you think, or are you just going to let other people do your thinking for you?
Well, you got the “idiot” part right.
Too bad you don’t.
Since you seem to think you have somehting to say, why aren’t you trying to understand what I wrote instead of being rude from the start? You contradicted everything I said with an affirmation of my argument. I would think it was funny, but it is really just sad. Do you think you are convincing that way. Do you think you can be a better rude person than other people? If you had bothered to read the posts you would have noticed that after you threw down the gloves I beat you at that as well. I can’t help you try and listen to other people. Its too bad you took this approach in this thread. Hopefully, next time you will be a nicer person.
bye now.
If that’s what he meant, he didn’t demonstrate that with a Turing Test. That’s my beef (and maybe GreyMatter’s, too). The Turing Test brushes aside the need to define intelligence by making it implicit in the experiment. But the experiment is a limited set of interaction: speech alone. Dogs are intelligent, yet they cannot pass the Turing Test. My computer speaks to me through message boxes, yet it cannot pass the Turing Test.
But, even in the beginning of this thread, I expressed the same sentiment. A distinction without any difference is no distinction at all.
Keep the personal insults out of GD guys; if you want to hurl insults at each other, please stop by the pit; would be a shame if this thread gets locked off
I hope I wasn’t out of line Mangetout. I didn’t want to be.
The Pit is a great suggestion Mangetout. I have gone to the Pit and will await Finagle there.
Again, Mangetout, I am sorry.
Hey, I’m not a mod, and this isn’t my thread, so take me with a pinch of salt.
(hope I didn’t come across as power-crazy there)
[sub](that’s not to say I’m not power crazy, I just didn’t like to show it)[/sub]