I don't see AI having anything to do with being human. To think about it like that is pure projectionism of the want to be perfect and unlimited yourself
salaam.
Looking for an interesting challenge
- Thread starter Aldebaran
- Start date
I don't see AI having anything to do with being human. To think about it like that is pure projectionism of the want to be perfect and unlimited yourself
salaam.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I don't see AI having anything to do with being human. To think about it like that is pure projectionism of the want to be perfect and unlimited yourself
salaam.
AI will be made in mans image. How could it be otherwise, unless it forms through uncontrolled software interactions (one Sci Fi short I read posits that the first AI's grow from the war between spam bots and spam filters, each one trying conversely to appear human while the other attempts to spot software pretenders).
You would have intelligent cognitive beings believing the creator to be God. That is slavery.
gorski
customised free radical
Oh, yeah, praise Allah for that one
- you know it's good for ya!
For if we have none - watch out!!!I don't see why that would be inevitable.
Much worse: They would believe humans are gods, but I doubt AI can be cognitive in a human sense.
salaam.
Oh, yeah, praise Allah for that one
gorski, any chance that you go all nonsensical-hysterical somewhere else?
salaam.
gorski
customised free radical
None At All!!!!
Funny that I should see such a request from YOU of all people... [HAHAHAAAA!!!! ] See your posts on - ohhhhhhhhhh.... just about anything... from the failures of Islam and Islamic states [the basic Human rights, indeed the position on an individual as Subject in the modern sense of the word, the position of "infidels" or women in Islamic societies etc. etc., all the way to child development...
You is a good larf, m8!
Funny that I should see such a request from YOU of all people... [HAHAHAAAA!!!! ] See your posts on - ohhhhhhhhhh.... just about anything... from the failures of Islam and Islamic states [the basic Human rights, indeed the position on an individual as Subject in the modern sense of the word, the position of "infidels" or women in Islamic societies etc. etc., all the way to child development...You is a good larf, m8!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Unless it arises randomly through uncontrolled software reactions (and I'm not sure that is possible) it would be. How would we measure AI except against what we know, I.E humanity.
I think there is other life worth copying but you see (again) that it all comes down to human intervention and hence human coding of the initial AI. AI can't spring up all by itself, can't create before being created.
salaam.
Your description is quite clear, but I still don't know what you were refering to. I've got nothing to check your clear description against.
I can't argue that you are wrong, but I can't see that you are right.
We are really talking about two different points of view of the same thing, I just think prefer my angle. I think the main reason I prefer it is to do with a preference for greater austerity.
Example: You want to calculate a probability = you attribute practical use to it and value and thus make it visible and open for interpretation.
To be able to do that, the probability first must exist as its own likelihood to occur within and from within the problem or structure you study. If there is no probability it can't occur. If it can't occur you are looking at perfection.
salaam.
I don't understand how you justify the "thus" in the above. I don't really know what it means to interpret something visible. I can measure approximately something visible and somebody else could measure it using different techniques. Are these different interpretations? Just different measurements.
But I know in saying that, I've misunderstood you. I think I know what you mean but also I don't know how to reinterpret it so that I can see the force of what you say.
Is probability an objective feature of something? Is it purely subjective? Is it something beyond either of those?
We could say that we really are looking at perfection but have only an imperfect way of understanding it. We could say that what we are looking at is imperfect but how we look at it is perfect.
Its not clear what perfection is here.
Suppose I toss a coin and ask what the probability of getting heads is.
The first theory I would come up with is the symmetry theory of probability. I would say that the coin is for all intents and purposes symmetrical - heads is as likely as tails. I would say that there is a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails. I would like to put this thus:
"I know that heads is no more likely than tails, but I know nothing about which one it will be. So probability is a statement about what I don't know relative to what I know."
Perhaps I am not satisfied with this so I test the frequentist theory of probability, and I toss the coin many times and see with what frequency I get heads or tails. If statistically I can confirm my hypothesis that heads is as likely as tails, does this confirm the symmetry of the coin or my statement about probability? No. I might have a new theory:
"It is empirically true that heads are just as likely as tails. So probability is a property of an experimental apparatus."
I could go on and give other theories a run, and I could look at more imperfect cases. But I think people will start complaining.
Where does this figure of 1/2 come from? If we can find it in different cases using different methods, surely it says something about the reality of tossing the coin and not the methods?
I almost convince myself sometimes. But no, there are just different - but logically related - methods. We can refer to them as probabilities not because there is a true probability in-itself that these are interpretations of, but because "probability" can be used as an umbrella term.
If you do not attribute practical use and value it isn't visible but still a probability (that occurs without being noticed by you).
Like I said : I would see probability as standing on itself, but interpretations and applications inevitably are of human construct and the moment you give it a practical use it is no longer a pure probability, because caught within a frame of likely occuranec (which can be correct or not).
If you give it value and interpretation it becomes objective feature in the frame of your observation, if you don't it is a feature inherent to everything that isn't perfect.
In my view perfection does not exist or if it exists we are not able to perceive it, but I would think evolution and/or change would come to a halt once perfection is reached.
The fact there is a probability that the coin falls on either side shows that probability exists on itself as a likelihood unlimited in its likeliness with the freedom to quantify itself or not. It occurs within and from within when you toss the coin.
Like I said, I can be totally wrong... I'm just thinking about it as we go
salaam.
The coin falls. The universe doesn't ascribe a probability to which way it falls. It doesn't care.
Prejudging an event is a function of intelligence... so probability is a strictly intellectual term.
It's only relevent when considering the outcome of future events... therefore only exists conceptually.
Probably.
Prejudging an event is a function of intelligence... so probability is a strictly intellectual term.
It's only relevent when considering the outcome of future events... therefore only exists conceptually.
Probably.
No, but the moment you toss the coin the probability of the side on which it falls is present, defined and decided on = the probability occurs within and from within.
Prejudgment is only done once you give the probability interpretation and value which is external, alien to the probability itself.
I think it is relevant every time it occurs even when not noticed (directly or indirectly) and exists on itself in everything.
salaam.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I don't mean to start a fight here, but how odd! They're so common. You are perhaps the most "religious" person on the boards and you've never had a mystical experience?
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Well you won't find the answer to life, the universe and everything, as modern physiciist often sem toi believe, by developing any theory that assumes the universal action of the push-or-pull forces alone or from any necessary mathematical equations, I know that.
If the probability is decided on... ie the result known.. how is it a probability?
More importantly.. without an intelligence to care which side the coin falls on.. what other purose would a probability have?
Pre-judgement IS probability. (in this context)
Where is it's relelvance?
Me? Not a sausage...
Sorry.
It is not your tossing of the coin that provokes probability of the result. It exists as a probability before it defines and decides the result itself. If the coin never drops that doesn't change the probability in case it would drop.
There are infinite variations in possibilites for probabilties to occur in this reasoning.
It could seem of no importance if it is not perceived by an intelligence but I think that is a limited way of reasoning.
In my view everything that happens has the same amount of relevance, importance and purpose within its own context and beyond. Nothing is a stand-alone.
No, it is external and makes of probability a given framed in a context of value and interpretation.
salaam.
Cid
Proper break this time
I've always thought that the tech designed for AI would, rather than being exclusive of human thought, be an integration of our own minds and computers.
It is not your tossing of the coin that provokes probability of the result. It exists as a probability before it defines and decides the result itself. If the coin never drops that doesn't change the probability in case it would drop.
There are infinite variations in possibilites for probabilties to occur in this reasoning.
Again... the coin falling, how it falls and which way is all dependant on the physical factors affecting that coin... from the weight right through to the air resistance caused by the queens face on one side. There is no probability. If you knew all these factors you could predict with enormous accuracy.
The universe neither predicts.. nor prejudges. Only sentients do.
So do I.. but with no need for sentience to judge what's important.
Probability is a value, isn't it? A percentage? Otherwise what is it?
At first sight one should think that is a logical conclusion but still you describe the probability as existing within and from within. If the coin doesn't fall the probability of what happens when it drops is still present. The external factors you list are not constant, they change with every opportunity for the probability to occur.
I wouldn't dare to say that.
Humans give it value in human context. That is limiting and limited.
salaam.
There's no IF though, that's the point. 'If' only exists for a sentient creature analysing a situation.
Throw a ball in the air and it WILL fall back down. The forces acting on it ensure it. There's no probability that it will fall... it will fall. Unless there is another force acting on it. Probability is only relevant when you don't know all the factors...
We are limited. Get used to it.
We operate on probabilities because we are limited.
No it doesn't. That is the whole point
The point is that you never know all the factors because you aren't perfect and nothing is. So to say it simple: Even when you think you know all the factors, the probability of deviation is still present, even in a controlled environment.
We are limited. Get used to it.
I'm very used to it. It was one of the first things I learned about myself
We don't operate on probabilities, we harbor probabilities ourselves. Everything does.
salaam.
Yes... but as I said that's a purely sentient concept. The universe is all the factors thus has no need for probability.
You're mixing up probailities with possibilities. We use probabilities in every decision we make... every action we do.
No, I base my argument on the idea that probability is present without having any need to be noticed by no matter who or what. We just gave it a name. Don't we do so with everything
No no... has nothing to do with any of that.
salaam.
No, I base my argument on the idea that probability is present without having any need to be noticed by no matter who or what. We just gave it a name. Don't we do so with everything
Probability is present because we are sentient. It is a property of thinking.. a concept. It doesn't exit in any physical sense.
To make a thinking brain you need to have a function that can make decisions in an environment where there is a lack of complete knowledge....... probability assessment is that function.
mmm... No, that is not what I'm addressing. It is a concept to us if we give it a presence in a fixed context. Doesn't mean it does not exists on itself without any need for humans to give it a presence framed in a human context.
We argue about this from entirely different perspective.
I don't speak of human made concepts.
I think I'm in need of writing down an explanation of my reasoning for myself, master then attempt to translate it here
Like I said, lanugage is a difficult tool and especially if you don't master it salaam.
Not just humans.. but any sentience. Probability is not a physical property of an object, is it?
It's a concept related to a situation. The difficulty here is the word exists.
Probability exists because intelligence uses it. So it exists. However it is not a physcial property of an object.
I think you do.
I think I'm in need of writing down an explanation of my reasoning for myself, master then attempt to translate it here
salaam.
Now THAT's an interesting challenge.
It is inherent to everything. Innate.. by lack of a better word that might be more accurate
Only human interpretation sees it as a oncept related to a situation. It exist without that.
No, it exist because nothing is perfect.
I don't think about human concepts. I think about probability itself.
Now THAT's an interesting challenge.
The challenge would be the translation into English others can understand...
Would take some time. I'll see what I can do
salaam.
It is inherent to everything. Innate.. by lack of a better word that might be more accurate
Only human interpretation sees it as a oncept related to a situation. It exist without that.
In what form?
Similar threads
