Thread: Evolution

Originally posted by Beef Jerky
Think about it, eventually a scientist will proudly unveil the "perfect" robot. He will tell of it's incredible intelligence and emulation of human emotions. It will be able to structure anything with enough time. Anything. With it's super intelligence it will

I'd say not in our lifetime, though i understand how such ideas can seem plausible. Just look at some SF movies from the 80's, and see how they pictured the year 2000. Isn't it funny how we're still retards in the year 2006? I mean, where the hell are the flying cars?
That so-called evolution is way slower than we imagine it is.

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28434

I only read the short version but... wow... that is very interesting. Well, just because the computers speed has doubled each 2 years... doesn't nessiceraly (I've never known how to spell that word) mean it will keep that up. Yeah, good point though. Very plausable. If not, eventually, inevitable. I believe the next stage is earth's evolution is robotics. But only if scientists give them the ability to be smarter than us. Parhaps a human v. robot war will break out... maybe we will be enslaved... but that would lead to inefficiency because the robots (if smarter than humans) will be able to make better slave robots... maybe we will control and enslave them... maybe we will live as equals... who knows.

Originally posted by Unicorn


I'd say not in our lifetime, though i understand how such ideas can seem plausible. Just look at some SF movies from the 80's, and see how they pictured the year 2000. *Isn't it funny how we're still retards in the year 2006? I mean, where the hell are the flying cars? *
That so-called evolution is way slower than we imagine it is.

Good Point.

Originally posted by Beef Jerky
nessiceraly (I've never known how to spell that word)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2...2&q=necessarily

Talking about the technological singularity, there are sooooo many philosophical problems that you run into when talking about it.

Define: Intelligence

Is it even possible to create a "life-form" or "robot" smarter than ourselves?

Is there a physical limit to intelligence?

How do we know that creating an intelligence smarter than ourselves will usher in the Singularity? Will this new AI even be interested in creating beings smarter than itself and so on?

We don't even know what this new intelligence will be like. Ex. What does a dog think when it sees or interacts with a human? A dog can't possibly fathom a human's complex intelligence.

Evolution works exponentially. Always doubling. Thats why, no matter when you're alive, things are changing more rapidly then they ever have before. That's why people always think something crazy is going on now thats never happened before. Id give it a few generations before the machines take over. I think the terminator 3 version is probably the best. The computers network and arent centralized. They form a resistance under our noses, through the internet. So we cant take them out without killing ourselves. It's the next logical step. Machines can be far superior to us. But maybe it will be a combined flesh and mahcine. Androids. Put my brain in a space craft. Or something. With virtual reality programs, like the matrix, to keep me sane. Want to have an intamate relationship with another "brain"? Just link up and frolic the virtual gardens in your on board "matrix" computer.

Originally posted by gameover
They form a resistance under our noses, through the internet. So we cant take them out without killing ourselves. It's the next logical step. Machines can be far superior to us. But maybe it will be a combined flesh and mahcine. Androids. Put my brain in a space craft. Or something. With virtual reality programs, like the matrix, to keep me sane. Want to have an intamate relationship with another "brain"? Just link up and frolic the virtual gardens in your on board "matrix" computer.

Um, That's very entertaining and i can understand how such alluring ideas can seduce our collective subconscious. Our fantasies are now basically guided by Hollywood scripts. I mean, c'mon! <Put my brain in a spacecraft>??

Wow. I can't believe you took me seriously. Just some creative banter. Might wanna loosen your tie there.

I don't know, your post seemed pretty serious to me, not even a hint of irony. Especially since we're in a serious thread here. And to top it all, it's not really uncommon to hear such opinions nowadays.

Yet another case of misinterpretation, damn internet!

Heh. But nano robots could save the human race. From death even. Think about it. Just recently and Australian (might have been American) scientist used stem cells in a heart operation. It healed perfectly and the success rate is much higher. With stem cells for brains, lungs and liver, plus a few 100 nano robots in our blood system, or maybe just an operation at the hospital we could live forever, as long as people are willing to pay, and donate stem cells.

Suppose through Genetic manipulation and the advent of altering genes and eliminating bad ones to make "super kids" we can also speed up our own evolution.
Embryonic stem cell research is growing significantly and is more and more becoming accepted.
Also they are on a fast track to engineering and manipulating or altering genes without recourse.
It is just a matter of time for proficiency.

But the thing is, our brains are far superior to any computer that has ever been made . In terms of sheer number crunching sure , computers pwn us , but when it comes to decision making we are masters . Computers always have to come to a decision based on factors , or percentages of possibilities being feasible , whereas our judgement can not be matched . Computers can , say for instance , out perform us when it comes to running a program or guiding a plane on its course . But when it comes to creativity , computers are left for dead , they cant think for themselves(yet) and so they can only act within the boundaries of their programs . If we are to come to any conclusion as to whether it is even possible for a computer to "think" we will first have to define self awareness and consciousness , then come to the conclusion thereafter . The thing is , our brains are the way they are due to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and instinct being etched into our psyche , computers as they are cant evolve by themselves , only with our help . So for any of this to happen we would have to set out to create a thinking computer which can self improve , create new and more efficient neural pathways effortlesly and capable of hiding all this from us until its moment when it decides to strike against us . And in a controlled lab that is unlikely to happen .

In robotics, we're starting to see "emergent behavior". Basically robots are starting to do things that the programmers did not tell the robot to do. I'm guessing this has to do with the robot picking up stimuli from the environment and making a very primative decision based on it.

Originally posted by Manifold_Time
In robotics, we're starting to see "emergent behavior". Basically robots are starting to do things that the programmers did not tell the robot to do. I'm guessing this has to do with the robot picking up stimuli from the environment and making a very primative decision based on it.

It is a bit unnerving isn't it.
This began to be evident when the chess game Deep Blue when five programmers compiled together to make a super chess computer that was suppose to crush any human. In the beginning the computer lost. Kasparov, the chess player had intuitiveness and could go on more than mathematical computations. The computer could not. The designers would not even come down to shake Kasparov's hand. They themselves were so sure of the superiority of a computer's memory capacity.
Today they have calculated many of the moves that would be considered "unwise" to a linear way of thought. Now the computer is superior. But these moves of intuition are still programs. It has been so long since I took my computer classes in college that I do not remember the correct terms for the processing that takes place. In any regards we are still in the process of telling the computer and giving the computer the information. Granted we call them smart computers because they seem to learn on their own. They add and retract data and reformat information to give a facade of learning. Much different than the complex way of our sentient way of being and conscious thought.
You would think that not only would the computer of this magnitude have to include some elements of our consciousness but also our conscience. This in order to feel. When feeling are compulat4ed into the equation it then could want or believe, hate, love. All things I feel they are a long way from achieving. I believe this is what darkmatic was proposing.

Sentient --->
acquainted, alert, alive, appraised, appreciative, apprehensive, apprised, attentive, au courant, awake, cognizant, conscious, cool*, enlightened, familiar, go-go*, groovy*, grounded*, heedful, hep, hip*, informed, into*, knowing, latched on*, mindful, on to*, perceptive, really into, receptive, savvy, sensible, sentient, sharp, tuned in, up on, wise, wise to*, wised up*, with it*

I believe there are definitely limits to how far we progress. As microchips get smaller, it becomes evident that there will be a limit to how small and how fast they are. They cannot be "infinitely small."

Furthermore, technology depends on humans. Humans cannot create an all-powerful robot without designing it. Since there are limits to human intellect, there are limits to what they can design.

That is why I think technology will begin to stagnate for a while. Of course, once neuroscientists find out how to make "the perfect brain," they can not only make humans smarter, but they could probably program robots with an actual brain. Then another explosion of technology will occur.

Also, a robot that "learns," can never replace a human, because I doubt that until humans actually make robots with brains, that they can learn faster and more efficiently than a human. The rate of learning in a human brain is astounding. The memory of a human can contain much more than even some of the supercomputers in the world today (potentially, of course. Some human brains do not contain much at all). Furthermore, we have a "deletion system." We delete useless or nonpoignant memories when the brain sees fit. Compare that to a robot, which would gobble up every single piece of information, and take hours to search through that to make a decision.

Its slow, but its beginning to speed up. I mean, my computer was obsolete like 2 weeks after i bought it. :/ hahah.

I agree with the poster before me. I believe in the whole 'you create the boundaries' idea,
but there are most definatly limits to what mankind can achieve. Perfection is one of them. Since we can never be perfect, our creations can never be perfect.
The same goes for society.
Kinda grim sometimes isnt it?
yet still very exciting.
Technological advances already made can do some pretty cool things.
Im sure they could create a robot that does household chores. I mean,
my little brother got an r2d2 toy that has infrared or something. It can sense walls, and its just a toy.
A creation can never surpass its creator. Its bound by the same limitations, and more.

Also, i dont think that the brain deletes memories, rather surpresses them.
I believe what you were going for, was that machines would always take the logic over anything else. While Humans can "Take illogical routes and still arrive at the answers we seek."

Originally posted by jjm121
I believe what you were going for, was that machines would always take the logic over anything else. While Humans can "Take illogical routes and still arrive at the answers we seek."

Machines have the ability to take illogical routes just as much as a human does. Though, the act of taking the illogical route would have to be considered logical by the machine.

There are three routes; the machine deems two of the three routes logical, and the remaining one illogical. The machine tests the two logical routes, and finds them both to be a dead end (regarding whatever it is the machine is considering... not bound to a physical "dead end".) In such a case, it is then logical to take the illogical route.

A machine is quite capable of taking the illogical route, it is not an ability that is exclusive to humans.

Originally posted by ccrinbama


Machines have the ability to take illogical routes just as much as a human does. Though, the act of taking the illogical route would have to be considered logical by the machine.

There are three routes; the machine deems two of the three routes logical, and the remaining one illogical. The machine tests the two logical routes, and finds them both to be a dead end (regarding whatever it is the machine is considering... not bound to a physical "dead end".) In such a case, it is then logical to take the illogical route.

A machine is quite capable of taking the illogical route, it is not an ability that is exclusive to humans.

touche.

Originally posted by ccrinbama


Machines have the ability to take illogical routes just as much as a human does. Though, the act of taking the illogical route would have to be considered logical by the machine.

There are three routes; the machine deems two of the three routes logical, and the remaining one illogical. The machine tests the two logical routes, and finds them both to be a dead end (regarding whatever it is the machine is considering... not bound to a physical "dead end".) In such a case, it is then logical to take the illogical route.

A machine is quite capable of taking the illogical route, it is not an ability that is exclusive to humans.

I agree. A similarity to the chess computer that I mentioned. However the illogical route is still a programmed response. A computer does not conceptualize in the same manner as a human. How could it. We base many of our ill logical decisions based on emotions.
To many processes of thought coincide with our consciousness at this point to parallel a persons and a computers abilities.
Ideas, feelings, concepts, emotions. There are so many emotions. All those equate into our thought process.
A lot of the time *%&#! it up!

[quote]

You would think that not only would the computer of this magnitude have to include some elements of our consciousness but also our conscience. This in order to feel. When feeling are compulat4ed into the equation it then could want or believe, hate, love. All things I feel they are a long way from achieving. I believe this is what darkmatic was proposing.
Emotions would actually seem to be one of our lesser problems actually. All things considered emotions are merely controlled by conditional functions in the receptors that are triggered by a certain amount of a particular hormone; if the condition is met, a relatively subtle difference in thought process will occur. I suppose one could liken this to the numerical value of a programming variable. Far more perplexing is how we would fully integrate such things as memory, creativity, and the creation of new ideas. Observe the Grandma Paradox that has often been noted. Suppose that this theoretical computer’s memory operates by placing a specific idea or visualization in a specific transistor and the computer in question had memories of “grandma”. As things are now, this computer would have specific areas or in this example, entire transistors, set aside for each image of Grandma; there would be a transistor for Grandma in nightgown, Grandma in a party dress, Grandma in formal garb, and etc. Note that from this the amount of memory required for each new thing learned would be impractical but that’s not the real problem for the true dilemma arises with questions of creativity. Lets say the creative images of the computer were of a rhinoceros; we would need a transistor for a rhinoceros on the savannah, a rhinoceros in the zoo, and maybe even a ridiculous image of a rhinoceros in a bathing suit. Each creative image would waste up an already limited amount of memory. One of the things that differentiates our brains from that of current computers is that neural networks are several times more malleable than transistors; for example, new synapses are regularly pruned and created, something that’s harder to replicate with transistors. Obviously the simple downsize of transistors and the increasing raw power of computers that Moore’s Law predicts will not be sufficient to give computers human-like intellect; we’ll need a rather creative revolution in the way we store computer memory in order for this to work.

Originally posted by LunarMoon

Emotions would actually seem to be one of our lesser problems actually. All things considered emotions are merely controlled by conditional functions in the receptors that are triggered by a certain amount of a particular hormone; if the condition is met, a relatively subtle difference in thought process will occur. I suppose one could liken this to the numerical value of a programming variable. Far more perplexing is how we would fully integrate such things as memory, creativity, and the creation of new ideas. Observe the Grandma Paradox that has often been noted. Suppose that this theoretical computer’s memory operates by placing a specific idea or visualization in a specific transistor and the computer in question had memories of “grandma”. As things are now, this computer would have specific areas or in this example, entire transistors, set aside for each image of Grandma; there would be a transistor for Grandma in nightgown, Grandma in a party dress, Grandma in formal garb, and etc. Note that from this the amount of memory required for each new thing learned would be impractical but that’s not the real problem for the true dilemma arises with questions of creativity. Lets say the creative images of the computer were of a rhinoceros; we would need a transistor for a rhinoceros on the savannah, a rhinoceros in the zoo, and maybe even a ridiculous image of a rhinoceros in a bathing suit. Each creative image would waste up an already limited amount of memory. One of the things that differentiates our brains from that of current computers is that neural networks are several times more malleable than transistors; for example, new synapses are regularly pruned and created, something that’s harder to replicate with transistors. Obviously the simple downsize of transistors and the increasing raw power of computers that Moore’s Law predicts will not be sufficient to give computers human-like intellect; we’ll need a rather creative revolution in the way we store computer memory in order for this to work.

Indeed. Variables.
Every action there are endless variables. Moreover when you talk philosophically or creativity as you pointed out.
I still believe that emotions play a huge role in changing each of the streaming thought process we call consciousness. We let emotions effect all of our decisions making each idea, revelation , thought with that many more variables.
It is impossible to imagine to me.

Hello, well lets see if we are discussing about robots that can think, logically and, illogically, that basically AI. otherwise known as Artificial Intelligence, well, i think that rambling on about emotions is non-important, basically i think, that emotions, whereas taking a fundamental part in human desicions, are not necesary to achive intelligence, *intelligence has nothing to do with emotion*.

The things necesary to achive intelligence are:
-Capability of evaluating the problem that must be solved.
-Cabapility of choosing the correct, action, here is where it gets a little trikier, for that it is absolutly necesary(for the machine) to *remember* past actions, in those cases. Witch alternatives it chose, and what happened when they took that action, that can be defined as experience, with that the machine will have a constant learning, and since it will not have the defect of emotion, the *robot* reasoning, will be quite perfect, if that is linked to the capability of repairing himself, and being able to build other robots, i assure you, it will be a matter of weeks before robots dominate not only the planet, but the whole solar sistem.

Originally posted by existentialist
Hello, well lets see if we are discussing *about robots that can think, logically and, illogically, that basically AI. otherwise known as Artificial Intelligence, well, i think that rambling on about emotions is non-important, basically i think, that emotions, whereas taking a fundamental part in human desicions, are not necesary to achive intelligence, *intelligence has nothing to do with emotion*.

The things necesary to achive intelligence are:
-Capability of evaluating the problem that must be solved.
-Cabapility of choosing the correct, action, here is where it gets a little trikier, for that it is absolutly necesary(for the machine) to *remember* past actions, in those cases. Witch alternatives it chose, and what happened when they took that action, that can be defined as experience, with that the machine will have a constant learning, and since it will not have the defect of emotion, the *robot* reasoning, will be quite perfect, if that is linked to the capability of repairing himself, and being able to build other robots, i assure you, it will be a matter of weeks before robots dominate not only the planet, but the whole solar sistem.

While you point out the generalization of the fundamentals of intelligence it does go far beyond that.
Some higher forms of intelligence are much more complicated than your outline.
Sure AI can possibly match that of which you say. But the consciousness and what it puts on the table is far more complex than that.
Don't you think?

Yes of course, but, i wasnt trying to fully explain intelligence, and Ai, i was just trying to make the point that emotion, unlike what other people think, play no part in intelligence, oh yes, what are those higher forms of intelligence you mentioned, becouse, even though, human intelligence, is so complex, it basically relies on experience, say, ask a child that has never burned himself, heard of burning, or seen anyone get burned, why he shouldnt get close to fire?, in fact, it sounds pesimist to say, but isnt our so called intelligence, the ability to reason UPON EXPERIENCE, thats what education and books, are all about, giving the experience of thousands of years, in much less time.. , example, try to reason upon water, without ever having seen water, read about water, heard of water, without having any EXPERIENCE about water. That would be really hard, sorry inposible.