 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big recycle ...and 411 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614083 Today 3 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, i know everyone is having a good time discussing this hypothetical situation of robots and autonomy and evolution and consciousness, but alas i must interject this tiny fact once more to be sure you're all still grounded... oil. it takes millions of years to evolve, even if these "robots" (hypothetically, of course) were to do so expoonentially, it would have to be done, starting now, in less than 50 years. since we've reached the point of "peak oil" already, consumption and extraction have outpaced the production of new oil reserves because it's a geological process which takes millions of years. and so far, all the "alternatives" to oil, use more energy from... duh, oil, to even manufacture, than the amount of energy the alternative produced with it, makes. right now the demand for alternatives is not yet at the point to facilitate a need for a larger infrastructure required to quell are insatiable thirst for power. the likes of such infrastructure will take several decades to even begin to match the point we are at now with "crude" oil. even at that time, given the rate of growth for demand, estimates on production will reach 98.3 million barrels a day by 2030, an increase of world consumption by 25%. reserves that are declared by oil producing nations has not changed (decreased, for that matter) even with the continual rate of manufacturing so many barrels every year, in order to keep up with the limits placed by opec on the ratio of reserves to the number of barrels that can be made. that way they wont lose the money they have grown to depend on from their certain allotted amounts of oil exports. robots? LOLOLOL!!! more like, humans? HAHAHA!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've been reading about this some today. According to here: 'Coal is especially abundant and by itself can sustain the current energy consumption of the entire planet for 600 years.' Bill Joy says green technology will be the next opportunity for google- like success. Anyway, something significant is going to happen to humanity relatively soon. It's not like we're in the paleozoic age and have a huge glacial time period of relatively static paleozoic ahead of us. One of the few reasons I want to live is to see how fucked up everything will get and how soon, so I can laugh at humanity and be glad I didn't participate much in it. There are other problems like how medical technology and our world dominance have largely stopped the healthy process of natural selection. The vast majority of genetic mutations are for the worse, so if you inherit something like dwarfism you will probably survive and be able to reproduce copies that also have it. I don't mean to pick on anyone and there is a vast number of other genetic problems, but the point is the normal mutation process continues yet everything (except immediately fatal) gets selected instead of the traits that are fit for the environment. And on top of that our environment is fucked to hell anyway. My brain feels like I should be swinging from trees among a small group population of 20 or something, not belonging in this nightmare of a mess caused by humanity's attempt to cheat nature. It was probably just inevitable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what makes you so sure those estimates are correct? i've had the same discussion with people who'd worked at shell (on interim basis, so they weren't tied to the company) and according to them this problem is way more overhyped than it should be. and come to think of it, it would be a pretty easy way for the oil-business to keep the prices high. furthermore, countries are buying oil like madmen. just in case the resources do dry out, or more probable, when there's a new crisis. so by the time we run out of resources, there's probably already a bunch of smart droids on the loose shooting our asses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Where do people get the idea that robots will have the ability to evolve from? It really doesn't make much sense if you think about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why not? If a robot could develop its own 'thoughts'. Develop new theories. Why couldn't it evolve? Creating better versions of itself. And other the other hand there's something like artificial life. To a certain extent there are already robots which are evolving. Is the notion of evolving robots really that farfetched? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think so far it is based on memetics and is in its infancy. Biological evolution is based on replicating genes, and all the complexity of life came about as a side product just because something had the property of replicating (since mutations occur and more fit versions replicate faster/more frequently/etc and so become more numerous passing on those mutations). The meme theory is that this eventually resulted in human brains which paved the way for a new replicator, which is information- in brains and things that brains build such as computers/books/etc. There have been criticisms of it being quite different from genetics but is only meant as an analogy I think. Right now the next super computer will probably be fairly similar to the last one, maybe because it'd be too hard to drastically change the concept/idea of it aside from a small mutation. Perhaps some completely different design would be superior but we never discovered it because we are evolving along this particular direction in biomorph land. Gene's environment is other genes so the ones that are selected are ones that work together with others (sharp teeth genes go with genes for stomache that can digest meat) and their information codes for such physical structures through embryonic development as I understand, to enhance the survival of the genes. Memes don't seem to code for stuff in an organized way like this, but maybe are currently in an early stage of their evolution (they're already replicating/ maybe just havn't built their phenotype yet). All these humorous youtubes and stuff have high replication success just because they entertain us; this lame reason might result in the emergence of something that takes some complex path of its own. But if we build AI that passes us it could possibly build or augment its own AI, possibly using evolution as a tool or maybe even something we'd never understand that is superior to evolution. Maybe it can just create exactly what it wants from atoms or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Eh.. why would it develop thoughts (that's part of the question "why would it evolve," so the answer doesn't hold up)? Do you think thoughts somehow automatically appear if there's just enough information available? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
evol discovers the concept of peak oil. well done evol, well done. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Could you explain to me what you think thoughts are and why an artificial mind wouldn't be able to produce them? My point being: this is an area where there's a lot of discission and hardly any hard evidence. I don't see why you could be that certain as to whether or not things like this could be possible. Are you god, or anything? Are you beyond science? And btw, to a certain extent a chess-computer is already developing its own thoughts. Or any autonomous machine for that matter. By definition, an autonomous machine is a machine which adapts to its environment independently. You may bring counterarguments using concepts like free-will, consciuosness, qualia, intentionality and whatnot. But in the end these concepts themselves are questionable. Even in today's science. Which, i think, leaves more than enough space to make it possible that in the future there will be a possibility of robots developing their own thoughts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Answer my questions. I have no definition for thought, I can just say that each one of us knows what it is. I'm not necessarily saying an artificial mind won't be able to develop thoughts, I'm just saying there's no reason for it to happen, and especially not the way people seem to believe it will (a sudden development in some random robot that starts building its own robots because its immediate thoughts are about reproduction and world domination). Robots will most likely continue to be purpose-built, and that involves giving them a set of instructions and letting them process signals (Chinese room, etc etc). If someone were to build a robot with the specific purpose of making it conscious, how would they go about this? Current robotics development points to that the only way would be to "raise" it like you would a child simply because of the undefinable nature of consciousness and thought (and simpler things like riding a bike). A chess computer is calculating; It doesn't know what a rook is, it just follows algorithms according to values fed to it. And, yes, I may indeed bring counterarguments using consciousness and qualia and all the other things because that is exactly what we're talking about here! If you're removing those things from the discussion, there's nothing more to talk about, not even the possibility of artificial intelligence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What is there to answer? There's no definition of thought, but we all 'know' what they are (just like consciousness, qualia, etc). I'm not removing those things from the argument, I'm just saying that as long as these concepts are not clear, there can't be any definate conclusion in any direction. And that this leaves open the possibility of ai, etc. Which is my only point. I don't know how. I don't know when. But as long as these concepts are as open to discussion as they are now, everything's possible. You say a chess-computer only calculates (like the chinese-room experiment). In what way doesn't the human mind just calculate? You may 'know' it doesn't, but do you have any proof? Or tangentially, is free-will really free-will when a spike of activity can be measured before you're even aware of having made a 'free' choice? We're not going to find answers here, no matter how certain you are of how well you know your own thinking. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There is overwhelming evidence that the human mind doesn't just calculate: We all have intimate experiences of it! When I see something, I immediately know what it is and what I can do with it. In a situation, I present options to myself and deliberate about them. Deliberation may appear similar to calculation, but if you just consider yourself first as deliberating and then as calculating, you see the difference (again to the Chinese room, just imagine someone inside that knows how to do maths. He is fed equations that he solves and puts out on the other side. Even if he actually understands what he's doing, the calculations, that the number 2 is 2, he still isn't really aware of what he is actually calculating: the mathematical 2+2=4 is quite abstract on its own; What things are there first 2 then 2 more of here?). Even some hardcore reductionist has to admit that at least there is a significant qualitative difference here (I also believe there is a structural and intentional difference)! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't see how "intimate experiences" can hold as a scientific proof, leave alone "overwhelming evidence". But I don't want to go into that discussion anyways. Lets say you're right. There is a qualitative difference between the way humans think and AI. Do you think that implies that AI in the sense of The Matrix would be impossible? Or specifically, that we can't develop AI which is able to make political decisions. Does it better than we do. And, finally, we could give the authority to actually tell us what we should do. Assume that we can actually make an AI which is able to make political decisions, even though the qualitative difference you're aiming at. Does the qualitative difference even matter? The only thing that matters is the result. If AI takes over our planet, who's going to care whether or not they're conscious. Whether they feel like we do. Or whether they're able to love. Personally, i think the qualitative discussion is one for philosophers who are walking behind the developments. Thinking they can explain what it all means when in fact, it already doesn't matter anymore. The consequences are already there. The only meaning left is a historical one. Philosophers should walk in front of developments. Discussing the consequences of certain possibilities, not 'proving' whether or not something would be possible. Philosophers can't prove anything. They can only argue. Their task is to pave the way of what could be. Or in this context, explain how we could deal with autonomous machines which can make and break our lives. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If intimate experiences aren't scientific proof, nothing is: The intimate experience of yourself is where you start out. Without this centre or nexus or whatever you want to call it, you have nothing. "Or specifically, that we can't develop AI which is able to make political decisions. Does it better than we do. And, finally, we could give the authority to actually tell us what we should do. " If we manage to create true AI, it will be fallible; AI requires "the third option," the "I don't know;" Intelligence involves learning, and learning is done through failure as well as through success. Calculated failure may be helpful in certain cases ("how much pressure can the hull of this ship take?"), but definitely not in all. And, no. The result isn't all that matters. That's probably one of the main points on which we differ. You believed it would be sufficient if the perpetrator was punished after the crime, I believe his internal motivations and thoughts on what he did are paramount, and that the pre-act projection of himself in the act including all responsibility, all guilt, all those things, will be preventive (unless we're dealing with a psychopath, but pathological cases are exceptions, and most psychopaths aren't born psychopaths, but rather made into psychopaths by both themselves and invariably the people around them). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, in all things, history is present in the present; Issues believed to have been handled sufficiently in the past invariably affects the present, and new developments within "old" fields have effects on those fields currently investigated. A thought doesn't necessarily even relate to time. Now, I've been writing on my paper all morning, it's time to go outside in the sun and buy some vinyl. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On "intimate experiences": Anyone can have pretty intimate experiences when he's or she's on drugs. That doesn't make them true (yeah, it's a cheap argument, i know). But moreover, scientific proofs are about repeatable results. Intimate experiences are, by definition, not repeatable. Sure, science starts with experiences (in the Husserlian sense). But that doesn't imply that the qualitative content of experiences themselves can actually count as scientific proof. If it was, we'd live on a flat world again, where the sun turns around the flat disc we're living on. And our "intimate experiences" - or overwhelming evidence would be the scientific proof. The whole point of science is to marginalise our intimate experiences in the process of explaining the world we live in. On "the result isn't all that matters": Sure, the result isn't all that matters. But, as i tried to explain earlier, things like intentionality are things we can't control. I can tell you I agree with you, but there is no way you can be certain I actually mean it. I can convince you, but you still couldn't be certain (not unless those intimate experiences count as overwhelming and scientific evidence). This is a problem we cannot overcome and that's why, i think, we have to conclude that some things are beyond our control and laws are the -pragmatic- solution to this dilemma. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we dont need to look into this too deeply. arming a robotic sentry would be the same as setting any other kind of trap designed to harm another human being. it is a bad action designed with bad intention. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The effect of drugs has no particular effect on the argument: Drug perception isn't normal experience, and the starting point for all experiences is invariably normal experience; It is from normal experience we believe we can tell the difference (both neurologically and otherwise) between a person on drugs and a person not on drugs. Also, as normal experience is the starting point, we use that as reference point for what's "real": "Did I dream that up, or was it real? I better go check!" Intimate experiences are definitely repeatable, if not continual! It may show itself differently, but you know of the identity flowing through all your experiences of being in love, for instance; Each one is your love. These intimate experiences are also experiences you have a sort of immediate access to; You don't need to experience it through some other thing, but instead it is directly given to you, even more directly than things that are in front of you, that you can see and touch. Of course knowledge about the thing you're experiencing can be expanded upon via other ways of seeing it (natural science; flat vs round earth), but it still remains the fact that this has been experienced by someone, someone you can choose to believe or not to believe. It also remains a fact that reducing mental phenomena to physical properties is bullshit (Of course, it's beneficial for us to study neurology, but if a thought is explained to me as a neurological firing, all meaning is lost unless the description neurological firing has the linguistic function of the words previously used to describe it ("+" means "plus")); natural science isn't the only science (social sciences, human sciences, etc), and natural science can't explain concepts, meanings, etc, whatever you want to call it, and the fact that the other sciences work in different ways from natural sciences doesn't make their theories any less scientific. If so, the metatheories (evolution, for instance) of natural sciences would all be non-scientific. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, there's no way for me to be certain, but since this is on ethics and morals, normative things, I still think one of the most important discussions would be about the attitudes and intentions of those involved and about enlightenment (making sure people actually understand their responsibility). Ethical issues are not, they should be, so an ethical discussion won't be about how it is, but about how people should act, and if it is about how it is, it is this in a purely critical way, in that it will be a critique (or applauding) of current affairs, usually aiming at a should. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would it? That's not necessarily how the people doing it are seeing it, nor how the Others are necessarily seeing it. A bit of a silly example, but in robocop, either the series or the movies, I can't remember, when robocop "goes berserk" (of course, he had a good reason to), the police department treat him as a criminal, not as something deployed by them. If the robot is considered a moral agent, you run into a whole lot of problems. I find it less likely that anyone will call a mine a moral agent, or that someone would blame the kid for having been so stupid, stepping on a mine. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The illusion of self in a human mind is just a biologically evolved computer running in parallel as opposed to largely sequential computers. 'The meme machine' paints a brainfuck of a picture about how a 'selfplex' is just an accumulated 'story' of memes relating to a brain and its body. I don't think there's anything magic in human thought. When we see a mask from the back side (inverted face) it pops out as a normal 3d face just as if one of the optimizers of the information fail in that instance or something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
