Every few years I hear someone claiming weak AI will magically become strong AI

[dfnj]

I was recently arguing about the evolutionary advantages to having an imaginary mind. My argument was there appears to be an evolutionary advantage to being able to visualize sexual activity as a means of always being ready to mate. Plus it's good for figuring out how to trap hard to catch or hard to kill animals.

The discussion went in many directions an eventually became a discussion about artificial intelligence (AI). The person I was arguing with made some rather amazing assumptions given that I happen to know a little bit about the subject of AI:

There are two types of AI systems. There is "weak" artificial intelligence and there is "strong" AI:

Weak AI - Wikipedia

Strong AI - Wikipedia

When I was in college many years ago studying computer science I spent many credits on artificial intelligence. My whole life every few years I hear someone claim weak-AI will someday magically become strong-AI. When I was in college Marvin Minsky Society of the Mind was all the rage. But after reading all the works of John Searle I was convinced his way of thinking was more correct.

Recently, John Searle gave a talk at google about AI. It's funny to see how the engineers respond to his criticisms. They are bunch of immature cry babies as he crushes them with his superior intellect.

John Searl presents an absolutely fascinating argument against strong AI.

I lost interest in AI because weak AI systems are so stupid. I became convinced the human mind is more like a analog TV receiver than a Von-Neuman type computer. The human mind is more like yogurt. We do not synthesize creativity but we grow it through unintended consequences of closely related subjective associations.

I've also been persuaded by the thinking of Rupert Sheldrake. Here is Sheldrakes banned TED talk:

The problem with people who believe strong AI is possible is they assume philosophical materialism is an absolute truth. If fact, it's blasphemy to even suggest philosophical materialism is NOT an absolute truth! Most of the evidence suggests materialism is a dogma not supported by scientific evidence. Just google "quantum physics debunks materialism".

 

[David T]

I was recently arguing about the evolutionary advantages to having an imaginary mind. My argument was there appears to be an evolutionary advantage to being able to visualize sexual activity as a means of always being ready to mate. Plus it's good for figuring out how to trap hard to catch or hard to kill animals.

The discussion went in many directions an eventually became a discussion about artificial intelligence (AI). The person I was arguing with made some rather amazing assumptions given that I happen to know a little bit about the subject of AI:

There are two types of AI systems. There is "weak" artificial intelligence and there is "strong" AI:

Weak AI - Wikipedia

Strong AI - Wikipedia

When I was in college many years ago studying computer science I spent many credits on artificial intelligence. My whole life every few years I hear someone claim weak-AI will someday magically become strong-AI. When I was in college Marvin Minsky Society of the Mind was all the rage. But after reading all the works of John Searle I was convinced his way of thinking was more correct.

Recently, John Searle gave a talk at google about AI. It's funny to see how the engineers respond to his criticisms. They are bunch of immature cry babies as he crushes them with his superior intellect.

John Searl presents an absolutely fascinating argument against strong AI.

I lost interest in AI because weak AI systems are so stupid. I became convinced the human mind is more like a analog TV receiver than a Von-Neuman type computer. The human mind is more like yogurt. We do not synthesize creativity but we grow it through unintended consequences of closely related subjective associations.

I've also been persuaded by the thinking of Rupert Sheldrake. Here is Sheldrakes banned TED talk:

The problem with people who believe strong AI is possible is they assume philosophical materialism is an absolute truth. If fact, it's blasphemy to even suggest philosophical materialism is NOT an absolute truth! Most of the evidence suggests materialism is a dogma not supported by scientific evidence. Just google "quantum physics debunks materialism".

In a sense they over ran christianity up through the university system, got math and didnt need god. Its called Reductionism.

In religious drag one can see reductionism at work in YEC and Intelligent design. Both are incredibly stupid, but thats reductionism.

In ancient times say 200 AD reductionism was over running christianity and it was treated as nonsense or heresy. The heresy was anthropormorphising the term god. What was heresy or stupidity is basic to modern christianity.

In Modern AI the same thing happens in projection onto or anthropormorphizing objects we create. In the old testament its called golden calf. It is interesting that the bible can both encapsulate reductionism as it mocks it at the same time.

Imagine being able to write in such a fashion that what you reject is totally embraced by what you reject. We see that occasionally in pop culture. An anti hero of sorts mocks the culture and the culture embraces it.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem with people who believe strong AI is possible is they assume philosophical materialism is an absolute truth. If fact, it's blasphemy to even suggest philosophical materialism is NOT an absolute truth! Most of the evidence suggests materialism is a dogma not supported by scientific evidence. Just google "quantum physics debunks materialism".

Despite your imaginary assertions and those of your references Quantum physics does not debunk materialism. It is simply materialism on the micro scale of quanta.

No magic involved.

 

[bobhikes]

I was recently arguing about the evolutionary advantages to having an imaginary mind. My argument was there appears to be an evolutionary advantage to being able to visualize sexual activity as a means of always being ready to mate. Plus it's good for figuring out how to trap hard to catch or hard to kill animals.

The discussion went in many directions an eventually became a discussion about artificial intelligence (AI). The person I was arguing with made some rather amazing assumptions given that I happen to know a little bit about the subject of AI:

There are two types of AI systems. There is "weak" artificial intelligence and there is "strong" AI:

Weak AI - Wikipedia

Strong AI - Wikipedia
.

Weak AI or Strong AI the problem is man's reliance and trust of computer systems. Computer's basically can fly planes, drive car's, run nuclear plants and etc. Man is left as an overseer but as the computer's get better man becomes an expensive overseer and we use other computer systems to monitor each other. One glitch, one virus, one good hacker or perhaps a major power outage and humans are done.

AI is not the problem but the drive to replace human's because of cost is.

 

[dfnj]

Despite your imaginary assertions and those of your references Quantum physics does not debunk materialism. It is simply materialism on the micro scale of quanta.

No magic involved.

Of course it's magic. There's no way to predict where the next convergence of rogue waves will result in changes of behavior at the macro level. The fact that experimental error exists at all is evidence of something going on that you are simply unwilling to accept. So it is you who is clinging to an imaginary way that you want the Universe to be. Where as I am not ignoring the evidence that what is going on cannot be understood with taking everything into account.

 

[dfnj]

Weak AI or Strong AI the problem is man's reliance and trust of computer systems. Computer's basically can fly planes, drive car's, run nuclear plants and etc. Man is left as an overseer but as the computer's get better man becomes an expensive overseer and we use other computer systems to monitor each other. One glitch, one virus, one good hacker or perhaps a major power outage and humans are done.

AI is not the problem but the drive to replace human's because of cost is.

You talk as if strong AI has been successfully created. Strong AI has never been created.

 

[dfnj]

Despite your imaginary assertions and those of your references Quantum physics does not debunk materialism. It is simply materialism on the micro scale of quanta.

No magic involved.

Maybe you will listen to Richard Feynman:

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/classics/Feynman.pdf

I'm researching this topic again. I found this interesting video:

 

[Twilight Hue]

What I find interesting is giving AI the tools to learn and the ability to use them without programming anything else into the program thereafter.

Welcome to the world of self learning AI.

It can be rather frightening when you think about it.

I think even the late Stephen Hawking had expressed concerns about the direction AI can go.

You almost feel like you're playing with fire but at the same time it's so amazing, you just can't stop developing it.

Makes me wonder what the planet would look like a thousand years from now and beyond.

 

[dfnj]

What I find interesting is giving AI the tools to learn and the ability to use them without programming anything else into the program thereafter.

Welcome to the world of self learning AI.

It can be rather frightening when you think about it.

I think even the late Stephen Hawking had expressed concerns about the direction AI can go.

You almost feel like you're playing with fire but at the same time it's so amazing, you just can't stop developing it.

Makes me wonder what the planet would look like a thousand years from now and beyond.

Obviously, you did not watch the video. There has never been a computer program written capable of inventing a solution it was not designed to solve. In other words, computers only do what they are told to do. There's no way for a computer to escape the get-fetch-execute cycle. That's not to say some kind of DNA cyborg thinking brain cannot be living in some kind of vat.

Symbolic instructions have no intrinsic meaning which is probably required by strong AI. What Searle has shown is why strong AI is not possible on the Von Neuman architecture with a get-fetch-execute cycle and execution clock.

 

[bobhikes]

You talk as if strong AI has been successfully created. Strong AI has never been created.

Not at all, I don't believe any real AI system will ever be built but I do believe businesses will and are relying on computers to do more and more everyday and trusting them more and more just to save money. It does not mean I believe any of these computer controls are AI.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course it's magic.

Of course it isn't, it's a theory in physics.

There's no way to predict where the next convergence of rogue waves will result in changes of behavior at the macro level.

A "convergence of rogue waves"? I take it you don't actually know quantum mechanics?

The fact that experimental error exists at all is evidence of something going on that you are simply unwilling to accept.

It would be miraculous if there wasn't experimental error.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe you will listen to Richard Feynman:

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/classics/Feynman.pdf

I'm researching this topic again. I found this interesting video:

Interesting, but nonetheless the materialist view does not consider the universe as a clock work Newtonian universe based on the physics of the macro world and acknowledges the Quantum nature of the micro world which is the foundation of the macro world.

 

[Nous]

I was recently arguing about the evolutionary advantages to having an imaginary mind. My argument was there appears to be an evolutionary advantage to being able to visualize sexual activity as a means of always being ready to mate. Plus it's good for figuring out how to trap hard to catch or hard to kill animals.

The discussion went in many directions an eventually became a discussion about artificial intelligence (AI). The person I was arguing with made some rather amazing assumptions given that I happen to know a little bit about the subject of AI:

There are two types of AI systems. There is "weak" artificial intelligence and there is "strong" AI:

Weak AI - Wikipedia

Strong AI - Wikipedia

I would say that defining “strong AI” as “the ability to do anything that a human can do” and attempting some argument that human-made machines will eventually exhibit strong AI is an example of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi in more than one way. Among these ways are that: (1) any machine that exhibits the intelligence that humans exhibit only do so by following the program that humans have created and made the computer to follow; (2) we cannot say what humans can do with respect to “intelligence”; (3) humans may not exhibit “strong AI” in comparison to some other intelligent being.

I didn't watch the video of Searle's talk, but I agree with much of his criticism of AI, especially his Chinese room argument (which could be distilled from my (1) example of ignoratio elenchi above).

I do not know of any sound argument by which to conclude that Searle's thesis of "biological naturalism" (defined on his Wikipedia page as "consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain") is true. There is no rational reason to conclude that any "physical processes" located in the brains logically create conscious experience or volition. All known "physical processes" that occur in brain matter also occur outside of brains, and thereby, if "biological naturalism" were true, implicate the thesis of panpsychism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course it's magic. There's no way to predict where the next convergence of rogue waves will result in changes of behavior at the macro level. The fact that experimental error exists at all is evidence of something going on that you are simply unwilling to accept. So it is you who is clinging to an imaginary way that you want the Universe to be. Where as I am not ignoring the evidence that what is going on cannot be understood with taking everything into account.

Does not makes sense at all in terms of science. Science simple observes how science is naturally in both the macro world and the micro world of Quantum Mechanics without extraneous metaphysical assumptions.

By the way I am not a materialist, but neither would I except your strange view of science and materialism.

 

[Nous]

Does not makes sense at all in terms of science. Science simple observes how science is naturally in both the macro world and the micro world of Quantum Mechanics without extraneous metaphysical assumptions.

By the way I am not a materialist, but neither would I except your strange view of science and materialism.

On a recent thread,I asked for sound arguments by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism or materialism is true: Arguments for Materialism/Physicalism You will see that no one was able to state any such sound argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

On a recent thread,I asked for sound arguments by which to conclude that the thesis of physicalism or materialism is true: Arguments for Materialism/Physicalism You will see that no one was able to state any such sound argument.

You did not present a coherent argument that this was not the case. You simply made repeated incoherent assertions as in many previous threads based on your agenda.

Physicalism and/or materialism is simply based on the conclusions of the Methodological Naturalism,and the objective verifiable evidence independent.of Metaphysical beliefs of worlds beyond our physical world

Whether they are true or not is based on the assumption of Ontological Naturalism which cannot be falsified one way or another.

I do not believe arguments are well grounded in whether physicalism or Materialism is true or not, which cannot be falsified one way or the other based on the evidence. The problems with your argument involve problematic assertions concerning the nature and relationship between Quantum World and the Macro World.

 

[Nous]

You did not present a coherent argument that this was not the case.

I didn't present any argument that the thesis or materialism or physicalism is not true. As the OP makes clear, the thread was (is) for sound arguments for the thesis of materialism or physicalism, and critiques thereof.

You simply made repeated incoherent assertions as in many previous threads based on your agenda.

Quote the "incoherent assertions" you are referring to.

Physicalism and/or materialism is simply based on the conclusions of the Methodological Naturalism,and the objective verifiable evidence independent.of Metaphysical beliefs of worlds beyond our physical world

Then you should have no problem stating a sound argument that concludes that materialism/physicalism is true. Why don't you do so? Perhaps you should do so on the thread I created for that purpose, rather than derailing this thread.

The problems with your argument involve problematic assertions concerning the nature and relationship between Quantum World and the Macro World.

WTF are you babbling about? Be sure to define all your terms that are not found in a dictionary.