[Bored chemist]

Do you accept that evidence can be refuted?

Yes, by better evidence, or even by logical deduction.
So what?
It's not as if you have got lose to providing either.

[Kryptid]

I would of thought chemical balances makes us feel ?

If you thought so, I don't see why you'd question whether or not artificial intelligence can feel. Chemical reactions can be reproduced artificially.

[guest39538]

Chemical reactions can be reproduced artificially.

True, so maybe electrical senses are  what feelings are.  Will we ever  know?

[Kryptid]

True, so maybe electrical senses are  what feelings are.  Will we ever  know?

If you think we were created artificially by aliens, then obviously artificial intelligence can feel regardless of what is needed to accomplish it.

[guest39538]

True, so maybe electrical senses are  what feelings are.  Will we ever  know?

If you think we were created artificially by aliens, then obviously artificial intelligence can feel regardless of what is needed to accomplish it.

I don't think we were created by aliens, I think there is a possibility  that we may of been created by aliens.  Nobody was alive to see how we were created or evolved, so again no observation is a belief.
Belief is when we are being subjective , who knows, who really cares, we came from somewhere which is good rather than bad.

[guest39538]

You do realise under all this role play , there is a normal man who is not the actor that you believe to be this abnormal  madman.


Bwahahah say'eth the mad man to the invisible dog.

[Kryptid]

I don't think we were created by aliens, I think there is a possibility  that we may of been created by aliens.

Then you must also think it is possible for artificial intelligence to think, feel, love and joke. Otherwise, you'd say it isn't possible for us to have been artificially created by aliens.

[guest39538]

I don't think we were created by aliens, I think there is a possibility  that we may of been created by aliens.

Then you must also think it is possible for artificial intelligence to think, feel, love and joke. Otherwise, you'd say it isn't possible for us to have been artificially created by aliens.

Of course it is possible, I have already created a theory in my mind how to sort of live forever virtually.  It would be great for those we leave behind to be able to say hi to us in VR.

When VR glasses were mentioned the other day I realised the potential of VR.

[David Cooper]

The four categories that really matter are NGI (natural general intelligence), AGI (artificial general intelligence), NGS (natural general stupidity), and AGS (artificial general stupidity). Humans mostly have NGS, but a few have NGI. AGI is something we're trying to build, but most projects attempting to build it will more likely build AGS instead. The main difference between NGI and NGS is rigour - those who apply the rules of reasoning correctly qualify as NGI systems, while those who fail to do so (and who refuse to correct their errors regardless of how clearly their errors are shown to them) are classed as NGS systems. NGS is very much the norm, even amongst elite groups of highly qualified "experts". Most of them have no respect for reason whatsoever, apart from claiming to apply it while they fail to do so, in the exact same way religious people do when discussing imaginary gods. It is very hard to identify any NGI anywhere.

There is hope though, because with coming of AGI systems, it will be possible to force NGS systems to confront their errors - if you feed your rules into an AGI system and ask it to run them, it will not replicate the NGS's errors because AGI will apply those rules consistently rather than selectively and it won't fill the gaps with any magical thinking. All those NGS systems out there which pride themselves on being NGI will finally be shown up and will be shouted down by AGI in the same way they've spent hundreds of years shouting down the few people who actually are NGI systems.

[guest39538]

The four categories that really matter are NGI (natural general intelligence), AGI (artificial general intelligence), NGS (natural general stupidity), and AGS (artificial general stupidity). Humans mostly have NGS, but a few have NGI. AGI is something we're trying to build, but most projects attempting to build it will more likely build AGS instead. The main difference between NGI and NGS is rigour - those who apply the rules of reasoning correctly qualify as NGI systems, while those who fail to do so (and who refuse to correct their errors regardless of how clearly their errors are shown to them) are classed as NGS systems. NGS is very much the norm, even amongst elite groups of highly qualified "experts". Most of them have no respect for reason whatsoever, apart from claiming to apply it while they fail to do so, in the exact same way religious people do when discussing imaginary gods. It is very hard to identify any NGI anywhere.

There is hope though, because with coming of AGI systems, it will be possible to force NGS systems to confront their errors - if you feed your rules into an AGI system and ask it to run them, it will not replicate the NGS's errors because AGI will apply those rules consistently rather than selectively and it won't fill the gaps with any magical thinking. All those NGS systems out there which pride themselves on being NGI will finally be shown up and will be shouted down by AGI in the same way they've spent hundreds of years shouting down the few people who actually are NGI systems.

Deep, I like it.

So a NGI and AGI system use one ''hard drive'' instead of multiple ?

Or the other way around?

[smart]

Nice thread @Thebox!

@Kryptid seems to know everything... I love that! 

I have not yet read the whole thread completely and I will take some time to think about it before shooting a reply.

tk

[guest39538]

Nice thread @Thebox!

@Kryptid seems to know everything... I love that! 

I have not yet read the whole thread completely and I will take some time to think about it before shooting a reply.

tk

I think I may of upset Kryptid, he does not talk to me anymore.

[Le Repteux]

The difference between artificial and natural intelligence is imagination. Our computers have memory, but no imagination. Did you try to imagine how we could program it so that they could exhibit some?

[guest39538]

The difference between artificial and natural intelligence is imagination. Our computers have memory, but no imagination. Did you try to imagine how we could program it so that they could exhibit some?

Of course I did , not that big of a deal to do .

[Le Repteux]

Not that big of an answer either. :0) How would you proceed?

[guest39538]

Not that big of an answer either. :0) How would you proceed?

Firstly the AI modular would have to have wi-fi capable to access the mainframe to allow more storage capacity of information by indirect means.
Secondly the AI modular would have to be able to compose sentence structures

Thirdly the modular would need some sort of quantum randomness code to allow selection of information from a multitude of packets of information. 


Then you could put some set theories in the program

Then ask the AI modular this question

Describe the set theory x using sentence structure but using your own description?

In simple terms more multiple answers.

program the entire dictionary , that way the AI modular will not use words that don't work or fit

example :

What is flying Sophia ?

Sophia - A bird has wings


added- so you just need to program relationship expression into a AI modular.

[guest39538]

choice.jpg (29.36 kB . 535x503 - viewed 3113 times)

[guest39538]

To express , humans were not designed to be perfect, that is what makes us human.  A robot cannot be human without imperfection , linguistic errors, using words wrongly etc, that is our individualisation .

[Le Repteux]

Thirdly the modular would need some sort of quantum randomness code to allow selection of information from a multitude of packets of information.

This seems close to what I think, but I need more detail. How a computer that is programmed to use precise data would use randomness exactly? Of course, as you say, he could chose those data randomly and do something with them, but what would be his purpose? Build new ideas out of old one? Sure, and that's what we do too, but there is another way to use randomness to build new things: let mutations happen to the data.

[guest39538]

Thirdly the modular would need some sort of quantum randomness code to allow selection of information from a multitude of packets of information.

This seems close to what I think, but I need more detail. How a computer that is programmed to use precise data would use randomness exactly? Of course, as you say, he could chose those data randomly and do something with them, but what would be his purpose? Build new ideas out of old one? Sure, and that's what we do too, but there is another way to use randomness to build new things: let mutations happen to the data.

I will give your questions some more thought and get back to you on this.  Perhaps data becomes corrupted by external influences maybe.   For now until I give this more thought I will name my momentary thought as the subjective resistance force.