Optimistic

So far, scienctific advancement has been completely subject to our ability to adapt with the universe. We test its physics and exploit them to whatever great extents they deem possible, creating what we call: technology. The technology we possess was acquired by connecting the dots and every dot currently has been stolen from the universe. What I'm trying to zone in on is one dot, the goal of true A.I. The concept of a highly complicate creature similiar or exactly like ourselves created by ourselves. That dot, the one which without our own existence to serve example of would never have exposed itself as a possibility. Since we need trend setters to authoritate our advancement, is A.I. that's above our mentality humanly possible without an illustration of something greater than ourselves?

Can a slice of bread make a wedding cake? Will we ever hone our natural ability to fabricate gaps so well that anything and everything can be envisioned and achieved? <~ Is that even possible?

excuse me if this has already be approached, please forward me to wherever's appropriate if it has been.

tronvillain

Well, the description "greater than ourselves" is extremely vague? Still, I see no inherent obstacle to the creation of one.

Plump-DJ

Ok. Maybe we should agree on what conciousness is before we can say wether or not it can be created in a lab? (or *real* A.I) Many of the debates and discussions on conciousness around here leave me feeling confused and skeptical about our ability to understand it and thus leave me feeling skeptical about our ability to duplicate it with machines.

Optimistic

As my first post stated, our scientific ideas aren't spawned from our heads from nothing. We rely on the universe to give us examples. Without an example greater than ourselves (say, extraterrestrial) it's (IMHO) impossible for us to conceptualize how something greater than ourselves would work (before creation, you need conception). By greater than ourselves, I mean, a greater mentality.

A.I. (with a greater mentality) is possible through a mistake, I suppose.

tronvillain

We do not rely on the universe to give us examples, we rely on the universe to give us general principles and information. If we can discern the general principles behind intelligence, then I see no obstacle to constructing something more intelligent than ourselves.

Optimistic

A crime is as perfect as the mind that created it, cliché. Of course there are always fortunate accidents that the criminal does not intend. But the motive behind true A.I. right now is something that will be in our image. Though, I guess this arguement is like the "can god (if he were to exist) create a rock heavier than he can lift?". It probably won't go anywhere except circular.

tronvillain

This argument is nothing like the "Can god (if he were to exist) create a rock heavier than he can lift?" question. You seem to be claiming that it is not possible for something to make something more intelligent than itself, with no apparent justification. Why should we consider this any different than the assertion "It is not possible for something to make something stronger than itself." or "It is not possible for something to make something faster than itself."? Only general principles, not actual examples, are required.

Liquidrage

Optimistic is overlooking several pieces IMO..

First and foremost is that many people could contibute to a project that could build something more intelligent that any of the individual team members.

The second fact is that trial and error could allow a lesser intelligence to create a greater intelligence.

Arguing that humanity couldn't create anything more intelligent then itself is like arguing that evolution always decreases intelligence.

Ierrellus

Optimistic,

I believe it was McGinn(?) who proposed the idea that nothing can be realized as greater than itself if the itself is doing the realizing. I tend to agree. All human inventions are extensions of human functions, specifically of sensory and brain correlating functions.

Of course a computer can do math better than I, but can it cry?

Ierrellus
PAX

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

MadMordigan

Of course a computer can do math better than I, but can it cry?

So now we have two examples of why AI is already better than humans.

Cars go faster than humans. Cranes lift more than humans. Computers already count FAR faster than humans. We can concieve of a mentality equal to the smartest human (M). I see no reason why we cannot make a machine that is M+1.