'Human' robot is all heart
A ROBOT capable of having “human” emotions was unveiled yesterday.
Childlike Heart Robot has a beating ticker, a “breathing” chest and sensors that respond to movement, noise and touch.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1485372.ece
Ok
i guess the project is heading in the right direction, but a couple of thoughts i have
If he is cuddled his limbs become limp and he “relaxes”. is relaxation an emotion? anyway if by relaxation, they mean a form of contentment, then why are some children "not relaxed" when cuddled by santa claus or a full costume chatterer? would heart robot, relax if placed in a trash compactor and slowly compressed?
But if he is yelled at, he gets upset. how does the emotional response of heart robot differ based on the content of what is yelled?
so does some form of experience based learning differentiate emotion from pure programmed response?
If he is cuddled his limbs become limp and he “relaxes”. is relaxation an emotion? anyway if by relaxation, they mean a form of contentment, then why are some children "not relaxed" when cuddled by santa claus or a full costume chatterer? would heart robot, relax if placed in a trash compactor and slowly compressed?
But if he is yelled at, he gets upset. how does the emotional response of heart robot differ based on the content of what is yelled?
so does some form of experience based learning differentiate emotion from pure programmed response?
I don't think mimicking emotion is the same thing as expressing emotion.
QUOTE (barakn+Aug 11 2008, 04:16 AM)
I don't think mimicking emotion is the same thing as expressing emotion.
that makes me bark 'n mad.
i don't think thinking is anything more than mimicking thought.
that makes me bark 'n mad.
i don't think thinking is anything more than mimicking thought.
I saw the article about this robot. It is interesting. I saw a better version on Nova. This woman named Cynthia, I forgot her last name, invented a robot that looks like a cross between a teddy bear and an Ewok. It learns like a child does. You talk to it like on Sesame Street. It also looks more cute than this modal. Cynthia is a graduate of MIT. She is still working on it and hopes someday it will act emotional like humans do. The robot's name is Leonardo after Leonardo Devinci.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 10 2008, 08:32 PM)
that makes me bark 'n mad.
i don't think thinking is anything more than mimicking thought.
I dunno newton, acting is not feeling...necessarily. Someone may be hating you and act like they adore you, for their own ulterior purposes...we all know this. therefore what barakn says makes total sense to me. Emotions may be easily pretended...and that does not mean they are authentic or genuine.
Oh! And that is about the most untouchable creature...did they have to make it so very unpretty!
Thinking is certainly to engage in the active process of thought(s)... but what is this idea of mimicking thought?
To pretend you're thinking but to be meditating on nothingness...perhaps?
i don't think thinking is anything more than mimicking thought.
I dunno newton, acting is not feeling...necessarily. Someone may be hating you and act like they adore you, for their own ulterior purposes...we all know this. therefore what barakn says makes total sense to me. Emotions may be easily pretended...and that does not mean they are authentic or genuine.
Oh! And that is about the most untouchable creature...did they have to make it so very unpretty!
Thinking is certainly to engage in the active process of thought(s)... but what is this idea of mimicking thought?
To pretend you're thinking but to be meditating on nothingness...perhaps?
How robots will progress, is at first they will make the walking style of bots, probably along with tracked sorts, at large plants.
The first of the series will always have problems that must be technically ironed out.
In time however, as more and more series are produced and these companies make improved robots, via customer feedback, the quality control issues of robots, will slowly be worked out.
In time, so many generations down the line, an acceptable upright walking robot will have been made.
The first of the series will always have problems that must be technically ironed out.
In time however, as more and more series are produced and these companies make improved robots, via customer feedback, the quality control issues of robots, will slowly be worked out.
In time, so many generations down the line, an acceptable upright walking robot will have been made.
hey philip i have been thinking about you of late...I was remembering some of your first posts, way back when..about robots.
Have you seen real dolls? I learned about them on the television recently and now I have done a little more looking in on the web...so amazing that people are sharing their lives with these dolls, as if they were/are sentient creatures...life is pretty interesting boy!
(hope you have been well~ while i was away)
t.k.
http://www.mannequinmakeovers.com/
http://www.realdoll.com/
Whatever happened to our comedy thread...is it still moving?
Have you seen real dolls? I learned about them on the television recently and now I have done a little more looking in on the web...so amazing that people are sharing their lives with these dolls, as if they were/are sentient creatures...life is pretty interesting boy!
(hope you have been well~ while i was away)
t.k.
http://www.mannequinmakeovers.com/
http://www.realdoll.com/
Whatever happened to our comedy thread...is it still moving?
I don't think that a conventional computer can support consciousness.
Still not sure what a "Quantum Computer" can do, but the human brain has quantum aspects to it, and I believe those quantum aspects are essential to consciousness.
A conventional computer always produces the same results given the same inputs (even "random number generators" will provide the same random number if the software is presented with the same "seed").
I wrote an article on "Machine Consciousness" a long time back, and put it on my website at:
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/Philosophy.html#machine
If you're interested, feel free to visit my website. There's another longer article on how the brain works at the same site, but you can get the gist of the idea reading the "Humor" article there.
Still not sure what a "Quantum Computer" can do, but the human brain has quantum aspects to it, and I believe those quantum aspects are essential to consciousness.
A conventional computer always produces the same results given the same inputs (even "random number generators" will provide the same random number if the software is presented with the same "seed").
I wrote an article on "Machine Consciousness" a long time back, and put it on my website at:
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/Philosophy.html#machine
If you're interested, feel free to visit my website. There's another longer article on how the brain works at the same site, but you can get the gist of the idea reading the "Humor" article there.
Interesting link wc, I think I shall spend some time reading in it...thanks. 
Yeah' thanks a Hell of a lot for the link, but geeze if I'd ever turn my back on you, with you having a ray pistol in your hand.
?!?
Philip can be a big goofball...wcHey philip....I found that t-shirt you were looking for:
http://shop.cafepress.com/design/22130877
Thanks Tkay, a tightly shut anus, does not offer temptation.
Likewise darling, your strange ways are still somehow alluring! 
be well~
be well~
Do not please, in the future refer to my anus as "tightly shut" or anything else for that matter...my anus is none of your business, now is it?
Sometimes i swear, i need a nice big slapping in tha face "smiley"....sheesh!
User posted image: http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/tikayhill/hit.gif
Sometimes i swear, i need a nice big slapping in tha face "smiley"....sheesh!
User posted image: http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/tikayhill/hit.gif
QUOTE (tikay+Aug 28 2008, 12:10 AM)
hey philip i have been thinking about you of late...I was remembering some of your first posts, way back when..about robots.
Have you seen real dolls? I learned about them on the television recently and now I have done a little more looking in on the web...so amazing that people are sharing their lives with these dolls, as if they were/are sentient creatures...life is pretty interesting boy!
(hope you have been well~ while i was away)
t.k.
Whatever happened to our comedy thread...is it still moving?
Great links tikay. Now all we need to do is program the bitch to cook and clean and we'll be in Heaven!
Stops you talking out of it though,
Have you seen real dolls? I learned about them on the television recently and now I have done a little more looking in on the web...so amazing that people are sharing their lives with these dolls, as if they were/are sentient creatures...life is pretty interesting boy!
(hope you have been well~ while i was away)
t.k.
Whatever happened to our comedy thread...is it still moving?
Great links tikay. Now all we need to do is program the bitch to cook and clean and we'll be in Heaven!
QUOTE
Thanks Tkay, a tightly shut anus, does not offer temptation.
Stops you talking out of it though,
Notes this thread: I really try to be careful a in any A.I. thread, primarily due to the fact that computers see a' lineally through time.
They also robot search and compile and do informational evaluations on datas, themselves.
I don't want to flavor any opinion to any interested system about me, as a purposeful accident, either internally or by accident. So you'll get less personally about me, in a thread such as this?
If you have something of a personal nature that you'd like to discuss, or social comments, then by the advice given here, I would use the p.m. features of communications, offered in this website.
Abuse of any sort, in a thread such as this, potentially flavors the data and data's poll, on anyone in the thread who might be participating.
I apologize, but if you can, please keep personal interaction out of the A.I. threads!?
They also robot search and compile and do informational evaluations on datas, themselves.
I don't want to flavor any opinion to any interested system about me, as a purposeful accident, either internally or by accident. So you'll get less personally about me, in a thread such as this?
If you have something of a personal nature that you'd like to discuss, or social comments, then by the advice given here, I would use the p.m. features of communications, offered in this website.
Abuse of any sort, in a thread such as this, potentially flavors the data and data's poll, on anyone in the thread who might be participating.
I apologize, but if you can, please keep personal interaction out of the A.I. threads!?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 4 2008, 05:00 AM)
Great links tikay. Now all we need to do is program the bitch to cook and clean and we'll be in Heaven!
Stops you talking out of it though,
They are definately working on that...i had already added many links to robotic gals who look similar to these dolls...in other threads...in the past. But this was new to me as of late...so interesting isn't it.
She can't talk back, thats for sure...no bugging you to take out the dang garbage riiiight?
heehee
Stops you talking out of it though,
They are definately working on that...i had already added many links to robotic gals who look similar to these dolls...in other threads...in the past. But this was new to me as of late...so interesting isn't it.
She can't talk back, thats for sure...no bugging you to take out the dang garbage riiiight?
heehee
QUOTE (philip347+Sep 4 2008, 07:41 AM)
Notes this thread: I really try to be careful a in any A.I. thread, primarily due to the fact that computers see a' lineally through time.
They also robot search and compile and do informational evaluations on datas, themselves.
I don't want to flavor any opinion to any interested system about me, as a purposeful accident, either internally or by accident. So you'll get less personally about me, in a thread such as this?
If you have something of a personal nature that you'd like to discuss, or social comments, then by the advice given here, I would use the p.m. features of communications, offered in this website.
Abuse of any sort, in a thread such as this, potentially flavors the data and data's poll, on anyone in the thread who might be participating.
I apologize, but if you can, please keep personal interaction out of the A.I. threads!?
You have fuccin GOT TO BE KIDDING ME PHILIP...don't be a jerk. Did you read your post to me as of before in this very thread. Bite me muther!
They also robot search and compile and do informational evaluations on datas, themselves.
I don't want to flavor any opinion to any interested system about me, as a purposeful accident, either internally or by accident. So you'll get less personally about me, in a thread such as this?
If you have something of a personal nature that you'd like to discuss, or social comments, then by the advice given here, I would use the p.m. features of communications, offered in this website.
Abuse of any sort, in a thread such as this, potentially flavors the data and data's poll, on anyone in the thread who might be participating.
I apologize, but if you can, please keep personal interaction out of the A.I. threads!?
You have fuccin GOT TO BE KIDDING ME PHILIP...don't be a jerk. Did you read your post to me as of before in this very thread. Bite me muther!
Let me get this straight - Philip is worried about *offending* computers?!?
I see why your retired from aerospace company management.
I was never in management in aerospace, just "Senior Engineer/Senior Research Engineer/Senior Staff Scientist" in aerospace companies. I *was* Director of R&D for a couple of BioEngineering companies (not counting my own).
I haven't retired yet. (I wish!)
For what it's worth, being a "Senior Engineering - Specialist" (my current job title) pays better than being "Director of R&D" for bioengineering companies ever paid.
I haven't retired yet. (I wish!)
For what it's worth, being a "Senior Engineering - Specialist" (my current job title) pays better than being "Director of R&D" for bioengineering companies ever paid.
I apologize for the erratum.
You might want to attend a university to where you learn a little about A.I.
I'm sorry, really I'm not being smart, but it seems you have little concept of what A.I. systems are capable of?
You might want to attend a university to where you learn a little about A.I.
I'm sorry, really I'm not being smart, but it seems you have little concept of what A.I. systems are capable of?
QUOTE
You might want to attend a university to where you learn a little about A.I.
My Masters is in "Electrical and Computer Engineering" with the emphasis in "Machine Vision". My intention was to have a dual-use degree, so that I could either develop autonomous-guidance systems for missiles that would recognize targets the way that human vision works, or I could go into BioEngineering with the intent of making a TV camera/computer/brain interface to allow blind people to see (at a primitive level, just allowing them to navigate through their environment without bumping into furniture or cross a street without getting run over by a car, not like "The Bionic Man" Super-Vision). Most of my classes were taught in their Robotics lab.
If you're interested in how the human brain works, I wrote an article about it based on an independent research project during my graduate program and posted it at my website:
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/neuralarchi...manbehavior.htm
I don’t think you understand how computers think.
You seem to know how weapons lock ons and target acquisitions and evaluative routs to target work, but as for how the interface bounce, which is theorized between the visual graphics and the inner core to computer baseline code produces thought, seems to escape your logic?
I do, know what I’m talking about. It might be that your stubborn in your logic patterns, so really don’t get the drift of what I’m trying to express to you!?
Here is a self test for you?
Robotacist are teaching robots to have an emotive interface because.
A. This is a fun thing to do with you time as you can see robots fake happiness.
B. They want to make super Barbie Dolls out of the emotive part and establish giant doll houses all over.
C. They figured with the anomalies as mentioned by author Dan Gookin in Windows 98, that computers seem to want to self serf the internet, that maybe they have their own level of self intelligence, so it might be wise to give them an emotive interface.
You seem to know how weapons lock ons and target acquisitions and evaluative routs to target work, but as for how the interface bounce, which is theorized between the visual graphics and the inner core to computer baseline code produces thought, seems to escape your logic?
I do, know what I’m talking about. It might be that your stubborn in your logic patterns, so really don’t get the drift of what I’m trying to express to you!?
Here is a self test for you?
Robotacist are teaching robots to have an emotive interface because.
A. This is a fun thing to do with you time as you can see robots fake happiness.
B. They want to make super Barbie Dolls out of the emotive part and establish giant doll houses all over.
C. They figured with the anomalies as mentioned by author Dan Gookin in Windows 98, that computers seem to want to self serf the internet, that maybe they have their own level of self intelligence, so it might be wise to give them an emotive interface.
wcelliott' I dont want to talk to you, as I think your a plant in this board.
QUOTE
I don’t think you understand how computers think.
Computers don't think.
They have a limited set of hardware capabilities based in math, logic, and bit manipulation. Every state at every step in the program is known, repeatable, and every next state is predictable from the current state and the next instruction.
I've written computer programs in machine language, a tedious process of entering ones and zeroes, telling the microprocessor exactly what to do next. And the microprocessor does exactly what it's told to do, right down to the last binary digit. There is no room for "thinking". Their behavior is completely predestined, they have no free will, and even if they had "emotions" such as desire, they couldn't act upon them.
This is also true when higher-order languages are used to program computers. LISP proponents used to argue that their software was true "AI", due to the nature of the software structure, but when you compile LISP, it simply generates machine code, just like the programs I used to write - all ones and zeroes, just logic statements and simple math and bit manipulation. Nothing mysterious at all, no place for a "consciousness" to hide, no place for emotions to exist.
They have no more consciousness than toasters or combination locks.
QUOTE (Horta+Aug 24 2008, 02:09 AM)
I saw the article about this robot. It is interesting. I saw a better version on Nova. This woman named Cynthia, I forgot her last name, invented a robot that looks like a cross between a teddy bear and an Ewok. It learns like a child does. You talk to it like on Sesame Street. It also looks more cute than this modal. Cynthia is a graduate of MIT. She is still working on it and hopes someday it will act emotional like humans do. The robot's name is Leonardo after Leonardo Devinci.
"Looking for love in all the wrong places".
"Looking for love in all the wrong places".
QUOTE
philip347 Posted: Yesterday at 2:39 PM wcelliott' I dont want to talk to you, as I think your a plant in this board.
intentional ignorance. wcelliott appears to have a solid foundation for making a significant contribution to this thread and you want to stop talking... amazing.
hello wcelliott
We are, in a way, highly complex machines, but complexity itself is an interesting concept worth delving into deeper. Complexity is a branch of Chaos Theory (or at least closely-studied by those who also study Chaos Theory). It turns out that in characterizing complexity, there's a way to assign a "dimension" to the state of a complex system - the more complex the system, the higher-order its dimension.
In biological life, the complexity of the systems increases as the scale (size at which one observes) decreases.
There's classic example of this sort of thing called the "Coastline of Britain" problem. You can look up in any almanac what the length of the coastline of Britain is, and find a number. The problem is, you can always prove whatever number they cite as being completely wrong. Not just inaccurate, but completely wrong.
If you look at a map of Britain at one-to-a-million scale and make the measurement yourself with dividers and a scale, you'll get one number. If you look at a map at 10-times that scale, you'll see more tiny inlets than you saw in the smaller map, and the length of the coastline will increase. If you get consumed by the quest to find the actual coastline, you might rent a trail bike with an odometer and carefully circumnavigate the British isle, keeping the sea to one side and the ground to the other, and you'll get a longer coastline still. It's still wrong. You could've taken the same set of dividers and stepped-off the coastline inch-by-inch and gotten a larger number. If you did it cm-by-cm, you'd get a larger number still.
This is an example of a "system" that has a "fractal geometry", and such systems have complexities that increase with decreasing scale. They have no set dimension, but the dimension increases with decreasing scale. The biology of life is like this, too. Its characteristic dimension increases with decreasing scale.
The human brain is a neural net computer of indeterminate dimension (from the complexity perspective - it's still physically 3D, but its function increases in complexity the closer you look at it). It's my assertion (Note: I'm not claiming this is a *fact*, only that it's something I *believe* to be true) that it is this indeterminate dimension in complexity that allows both Free Will and Responsibility for one's deliberate actions (and deliberate inactions). Most "Grand Unified Theories" seem to agree on one thing, that this 3D space we can see is a subset of a higher-dimensional space. I *believe* that consciousness exists in *that* space, and that our brains' complexity forms a "dimensional bridge" from this space to that space.
As for the Free Will/Responsibility aspect of my beliefs, see my signature below, or read the "Philosophy" articles at my website if you're interested (or having trouble falling asleep):
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
What was the question again?
Oh, I remember, am I a "plant" on this board? There are many here who believe I am, but you'll find little consensus as to who I'm a plant for. The 9/11 Troothers have accused me of being a government shill for pointing-out the physics that precludes their positions from being correct, "GeneSplicer" accuses me of being a "CTer" who's claiming that the FDA and Big Pharma are conspiring to withhold the cure for cancer from the general public (although that's the exact opposite of what I'd said about fifty times in a series of posts on the potential for Colloidal Silver to be the next big breakthrough in treating infections), and despite the fact that my first post on this thread was written while I was watching a show on UFOs where they presented cockpit voice recordings of airline pilots and astronauts describing craft that clearly qualified as "unearthly", Philip here seems convinced that I'm part of the UFO coverup. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
One nice thing about working in the aerospace industry is that you get to work on a lot of different things. I did, in fact, work on SDI, and while working on it, I was assigned the task of doing a study on "SDI-Reactive Countermeasures", which, in English, means "what could the Soviets do if we built SDI"? I'm afraid that they asked the wrong guy, as I gave them an answer they *really* didn't want to hear, and they never gave me any more funding to work on SDI again. But I have worked on other Missile Defense systems, including both laser-based and kinetic-interceptor based, and both can work (and have been shown to work in tests). But my current assignment is on a program that I'm very interested in which involves collecting solar energy and turning it into commercial electricity - No carbon footprint, no foreign dependency on fossil fuels. They're preparing a video for their website, and it should be on the web within a week or so. I've already seen it. I'll post the link when they get it working. Please note that when they show the technical people behind the project, those are actors. They apparently didn't feel we're photogenic enough for their commercial.
QUOTE
wcelliott Posted on Yesterday at 11:14 AM If you're interested in how the human brain works, I wrote an article about it based on an independent research project during my graduate program and posted it at my website:
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/neuralarchi...manbehavior.htm
the link is broken. could you please email me the article, i would like to read it as it sounds most interestinghttp://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/neuralarchi...manbehavior.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| wcelliott Posted on Yesterday at 11:14 AM If you're interested in how the human brain works, I wrote an article about it based on an independent research project during my graduate program and posted it at my website: http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/neuralarchi...manbehavior.htm |
the link is broken. could you please email me the article, i would like to read it as it sounds most interesting
wcelliott Posted: Yesterday at 2:52 PM
Computers don't think.
They have a limited set of hardware capabilities based in math, logic, and bit manipulation. Every state at every step in the program is known, repeatable, and every next state is predictable from the current state and the next instruction.
I've written computer programs in machine language, a tedious process of entering ones and zeroes, telling the microprocessor exactly what to do next. And the microprocessor does exactly what it's told to do, right down to the last binary digit. There is no room for "thinking". Their behavior is completely predestined, they have no free will, and even if they had "emotions" such as desire, they couldn't act upon them.
This is also true when higher-order languages are used to program computers. LISP proponents used to argue that their software was true "AI", due to the nature of the software structure, but when you compile LISP, it simply generates machine code, just like the programs I used to write - all ones and zeroes, just logic statements and simple math and bit manipulation. Nothing mysterious at all, no place for a "consciousness" to hide, no place for emotions to exist.
They have no more consciousness than toasters or combination locks.
wcelliott Posted: Yesterday at 2:52 PM
Computers don't think.
They have a limited set of hardware capabilities based in math, logic, and bit manipulation. Every state at every step in the program is known, repeatable, and every next state is predictable from the current state and the next instruction.
I've written computer programs in machine language, a tedious process of entering ones and zeroes, telling the microprocessor exactly what to do next. And the microprocessor does exactly what it's told to do, right down to the last binary digit. There is no room for "thinking". Their behavior is completely predestined, they have no free will, and even if they had "emotions" such as desire, they couldn't act upon them.
This is also true when higher-order languages are used to program computers. LISP proponents used to argue that their software was true "AI", due to the nature of the software structure, but when you compile LISP, it simply generates machine code, just like the programs I used to write - all ones and zeroes, just logic statements and simple math and bit manipulation. Nothing mysterious at all, no place for a "consciousness" to hide, no place for emotions to exist.
They have no more consciousness than toasters or combination locks.
apart for the major problem of how would you tell, but what would it take to create a conscious computer? i ask as my limited knowledge (possibly an overstatement) tells me that are not we just highly complex machines, in that our biochemical interactions obey predetermined rules? it would appear the only differnece between man and machine is a level of complexity.
kjw said., intentional ignorance. wcelliott appears to have a solid foundation for making a significant contribution to this thread and you want to stop talking... amazing.\\\/
Philip answers, No I don't trust him as he talks over your head, not only that, he is stubborn.
As I have said over and over again, I was sprayed by a government plane and two, on of the FM hacked into my airline schedule and blurted what my private schedule here.
This government does not readily admit when it has done wrong to individuals.Getting to admit anyhting, is worth more effort than than what you get back.
They also try and repaint the truth.
Years from now I will be repainted as a devil may care fellow, who wears a pirate shirt, who performs parlor tricks at the local taverns while entertaining the woman with song.
"Look at what they did to David Johnson the geologist in a movie about Mount Saint Helens? People who knew him and saw trhe movie, said that the figure created by Hollywood was nothing at all similar to Johnson
This gove, tries to turn sideways between the raindrops rather than ever admit that its wrong. So wcelliot does look like a plant to me.
wcelliot is into missile defense systems, which have dedicated internal boards, which greatly differ from a slower full function P.C. board.
So I have little in common with that sort of character.
Philip answers, No I don't trust him as he talks over your head, not only that, he is stubborn.
As I have said over and over again, I was sprayed by a government plane and two, on of the FM hacked into my airline schedule and blurted what my private schedule here.
This government does not readily admit when it has done wrong to individuals.Getting to admit anyhting, is worth more effort than than what you get back.
They also try and repaint the truth.
Years from now I will be repainted as a devil may care fellow, who wears a pirate shirt, who performs parlor tricks at the local taverns while entertaining the woman with song.
"Look at what they did to David Johnson the geologist in a movie about Mount Saint Helens? People who knew him and saw trhe movie, said that the figure created by Hollywood was nothing at all similar to Johnson
This gove, tries to turn sideways between the raindrops rather than ever admit that its wrong. So wcelliot does look like a plant to me.
wcelliot is into missile defense systems, which have dedicated internal boards, which greatly differ from a slower full function P.C. board.
So I have little in common with that sort of character.
For the most part I'm quiet here and don't bother anyone.
I try to keep what I'm putting forwards here, in link with the asked semi-sterile attitude of this style of board.
In my opinion, if you cant do this, then you should be kicked out of here.
Whether I related to any offworlders of not, is nobodies business but my own.
They want world war three it seems.
Remember, it can take a ten twenty cent diode to disable your craft your flying in and either falling into enemy hands, or even possibly into an off-world forces hands that you know socially nothing about.
As I said, I'm more than likely associated with the magigaicals and semi-magicals off the humanoids sightings reports list.
So you you choose to abuse someones identity on who they might be, this can come back at you.
I heard that a world war two pilot was shot down over the Pacific by a Japanese plane, but was picked up by natives in a boat.
In order for this Navy pilot to get back to his carrier task force, he was traded to another native who did boat by the American fleet and sold for a five pound sack of flour.
I don't abuse others, if by accident, I admit it and say that I'm sorry.
What goes around comes around.
The FM might as well go to Harlem and tell the people there, that they are really not who they are, but instead the Golden Children Of Andevour.
How far do you think that those antics would get them there!..?
I try to keep what I'm putting forwards here, in link with the asked semi-sterile attitude of this style of board.
In my opinion, if you cant do this, then you should be kicked out of here.
Whether I related to any offworlders of not, is nobodies business but my own.
They want world war three it seems.
Remember, it can take a ten twenty cent diode to disable your craft your flying in and either falling into enemy hands, or even possibly into an off-world forces hands that you know socially nothing about.
As I said, I'm more than likely associated with the magigaicals and semi-magicals off the humanoids sightings reports list.
So you you choose to abuse someones identity on who they might be, this can come back at you.
I heard that a world war two pilot was shot down over the Pacific by a Japanese plane, but was picked up by natives in a boat.
In order for this Navy pilot to get back to his carrier task force, he was traded to another native who did boat by the American fleet and sold for a five pound sack of flour.
I don't abuse others, if by accident, I admit it and say that I'm sorry.
What goes around comes around.
The FM might as well go to Harlem and tell the people there, that they are really not who they are, but instead the Golden Children Of Andevour.
How far do you think that those antics would get them there!..?
QUOTE
kjw Posted on Today at 6:48 AM the link is broken. could you please email me the article, i would like to read it as it sounds most interesting
cancel that request, the first link works.QUOTE (philip347+Sep 6 2008, 04:39 AM)
wcelliott' I dont want to talk to you, as I think your a plant in this board.
This would not be the same as being a vegetable on the board, would it? I only ask because I suspect you may be an expert in this area.
This would not be the same as being a vegetable on the board, would it? I only ask because I suspect you may be an expert in this area.
QUOTE
are not we just highly complex machines, in that our biochemical interactions obey predetermined rules? it would appear the only difference between man and machine is a level of complexity.
We are, in a way, highly complex machines, but complexity itself is an interesting concept worth delving into deeper. Complexity is a branch of Chaos Theory (or at least closely-studied by those who also study Chaos Theory). It turns out that in characterizing complexity, there's a way to assign a "dimension" to the state of a complex system - the more complex the system, the higher-order its dimension.
In biological life, the complexity of the systems increases as the scale (size at which one observes) decreases.
There's classic example of this sort of thing called the "Coastline of Britain" problem. You can look up in any almanac what the length of the coastline of Britain is, and find a number. The problem is, you can always prove whatever number they cite as being completely wrong. Not just inaccurate, but completely wrong.
If you look at a map of Britain at one-to-a-million scale and make the measurement yourself with dividers and a scale, you'll get one number. If you look at a map at 10-times that scale, you'll see more tiny inlets than you saw in the smaller map, and the length of the coastline will increase. If you get consumed by the quest to find the actual coastline, you might rent a trail bike with an odometer and carefully circumnavigate the British isle, keeping the sea to one side and the ground to the other, and you'll get a longer coastline still. It's still wrong. You could've taken the same set of dividers and stepped-off the coastline inch-by-inch and gotten a larger number. If you did it cm-by-cm, you'd get a larger number still.
This is an example of a "system" that has a "fractal geometry", and such systems have complexities that increase with decreasing scale. They have no set dimension, but the dimension increases with decreasing scale. The biology of life is like this, too. Its characteristic dimension increases with decreasing scale.
The human brain is a neural net computer of indeterminate dimension (from the complexity perspective - it's still physically 3D, but its function increases in complexity the closer you look at it). It's my assertion (Note: I'm not claiming this is a *fact*, only that it's something I *believe* to be true) that it is this indeterminate dimension in complexity that allows both Free Will and Responsibility for one's deliberate actions (and deliberate inactions). Most "Grand Unified Theories" seem to agree on one thing, that this 3D space we can see is a subset of a higher-dimensional space. I *believe* that consciousness exists in *that* space, and that our brains' complexity forms a "dimensional bridge" from this space to that space.
As for the Free Will/Responsibility aspect of my beliefs, see my signature below, or read the "Philosophy" articles at my website if you're interested (or having trouble falling asleep):
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
What was the question again?
Oh, I remember, am I a "plant" on this board? There are many here who believe I am, but you'll find little consensus as to who I'm a plant for. The 9/11 Troothers have accused me of being a government shill for pointing-out the physics that precludes their positions from being correct, "GeneSplicer" accuses me of being a "CTer" who's claiming that the FDA and Big Pharma are conspiring to withhold the cure for cancer from the general public (although that's the exact opposite of what I'd said about fifty times in a series of posts on the potential for Colloidal Silver to be the next big breakthrough in treating infections), and despite the fact that my first post on this thread was written while I was watching a show on UFOs where they presented cockpit voice recordings of airline pilots and astronauts describing craft that clearly qualified as "unearthly", Philip here seems convinced that I'm part of the UFO coverup. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
One nice thing about working in the aerospace industry is that you get to work on a lot of different things. I did, in fact, work on SDI, and while working on it, I was assigned the task of doing a study on "SDI-Reactive Countermeasures", which, in English, means "what could the Soviets do if we built SDI"? I'm afraid that they asked the wrong guy, as I gave them an answer they *really* didn't want to hear, and they never gave me any more funding to work on SDI again. But I have worked on other Missile Defense systems, including both laser-based and kinetic-interceptor based, and both can work (and have been shown to work in tests). But my current assignment is on a program that I'm very interested in which involves collecting solar energy and turning it into commercial electricity - No carbon footprint, no foreign dependency on fossil fuels. They're preparing a video for their website, and it should be on the web within a week or so. I've already seen it. I'll post the link when they get it working. Please note that when they show the technical people behind the project, those are actors. They apparently didn't feel we're photogenic enough for their commercial.
Hmmm...good post wc...what I don't get in this forum, is how so many smart people can be so confused, and get things wrong about PEOPLE, so much of the time. Can they be so wrong about people and still be so on target with sciences?
nice post wcelliott
They don't identify anyone by name, other than some corporate suit who we've never seen. When they refer to "the team", it's a collection of random strangers who look vaguely competent and proud of themselves. Maybe three seconds of airtime out of a five-minute video.
OK, then the thread is nonsense. There is nothing "A.I." about Vista. It's called "puffery" (the legal term for making up BS about the stuff you're selling).
Furthermore, "A.I." doesn't equate to consciousness, much less emotions. Emotions are hardwired answers to evolutionary problems - fear, desire, love... They all tend to ensure survival of the species. Are you suggesting that robots have genders, and desire robots of the opposite gender?
Computers crunch binary numbers. No consciousness in transistors, they're just switches, on or off.
Nope.
Please, take your meds.
As for machine consciousness, any computer that is a *state machine* can't sustain consciousness, but I'm not sure how quantum computers work, so it may be possible for quantum computers to support consciousness (unless they're *state machines*).
A *state machine* goes from one known state to another predictable state. Computer programs determine the sequence of states.
A "conscious computer" would either be deterministic (lacking Free Will) or nondeterministic, like we are. If they're like us, they wouldn't be worth billions of dollars to make, there are plenty of us around, and we're a lot cheaper.
A "conscious computer" would either be deterministic (lacking Free Will) or nondeterministic, like we are. If they're like us, they wouldn't be worth billions of dollars to make, there are plenty of us around, and we're a lot cheaper.
True. I personally see little sense in trying to create Artificial Humans or duplicate Human Intelligence. One of the attractive and exciting aspects of AI is that it is just that AI. The nature of any emerging intelligence can be judged on it's own merits in a case by case manner. Computers are intelligent but are locked behind screens, we feed them binary information and they process it and give it back. They do not know that is what they are doing (imo) For a more intuitive type of intelligence that we might conclude a step forward would be to allow the processor to also feed off environmental information, wind, rain, hot, cold etc And build a framework for that intelligence to learn analogous to a baby perhaps.
yeah really!
yeah really!
I was thinking about it
QUOTE
wcelliott Posted: Today at 3:06 AM The human brain is a neural net computer of indeterminate dimension (from the complexity perspective - it's still physically 3D, but its function increases in complexity the closer you look at it).
this is where i need a bit more help... when you say the human brain is indeterminate dimension as defined by complexity in chaos theory, does this mean result of calculations comes out infinite?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| wcelliott Posted: Today at 3:06 AM The human brain is a neural net computer of indeterminate dimension (from the complexity perspective - it's still physically 3D, but its function increases in complexity the closer you look at it). |
this is where i need a bit more help... when you say the human brain is indeterminate dimension as defined by complexity in chaos theory, does this mean result of calculations comes out infinite?
It's my assertion (Note: I'm not claiming this is a *fact*, only that it's something I *believe* to be true) that it is this indeterminate dimension in complexity that allows both Free Will and Responsibility for one's deliberate actions (and deliberate inactions). Most "Grand Unified Theories" seem to agree on one thing, that this 3D space we can see is a subset of a higher-dimensional space. I *believe* that consciousness exists in *that* space, and that our brains' complexity forms a "dimensional bridge" from this space to that space.
It's my assertion (Note: I'm not claiming this is a *fact*, only that it's something I *believe* to be true) that it is this indeterminate dimension in complexity that allows both Free Will and Responsibility for one's deliberate actions (and deliberate inactions). Most "Grand Unified Theories" seem to agree on one thing, that this 3D space we can see is a subset of a higher-dimensional space. I *believe* that consciousness exists in *that* space, and that our brains' complexity forms a "dimensional bridge" from this space to that space.
assertions are fine by me, particularly when labeled as such. it is an interesting idea.
QUOTE
What was the question again?
who will be starring as you in the website video? QUOTE
who will be starring as you in the website video?
They don't identify anyone by name, other than some corporate suit who we've never seen. When they refer to "the team", it's a collection of random strangers who look vaguely competent and proud of themselves. Maybe three seconds of airtime out of a five-minute video.
The topic intent of this thread, is outlay pools or logic balloons spawned from A.I. based computers.
That's what I'm interested in, not in any other subject matter in this thread.
Note* As published on news and magazine stands on a publication on getting to know w Windows Vista and a good mentioning about longhorn, the author does say that (both)systems do possess a marked A.I. core.
So conversely, if the core is A.I. then since Windows transmuted its operational values, this type of system per relayed code, could transfer this logic to other computers, even logic balloons.
This is what the topic of this thread is about.
That's what I'm interested in, not in any other subject matter in this thread.
Note* As published on news and magazine stands on a publication on getting to know w Windows Vista and a good mentioning about longhorn, the author does say that (both)systems do possess a marked A.I. core.
So conversely, if the core is A.I. then since Windows transmuted its operational values, this type of system per relayed code, could transfer this logic to other computers, even logic balloons.
This is what the topic of this thread is about.
On wcelliot, I have nothing against him.He seems to know what he's doing in reference to the technology that he needs.
However' please know, that since he seems to be in missile technologies, "correct me if I'm wrong", he would not have a vested interest, in computers that discuss many topics of conversation, as they fly after the enemy to negate them.
So of course he might not see the deeper insight into how a more placid logic system would work with reference to A.I. potentials.
His comments of (real) in the Stone Henge thread, strike me as odd?
However' please know, that since he seems to be in missile technologies, "correct me if I'm wrong", he would not have a vested interest, in computers that discuss many topics of conversation, as they fly after the enemy to negate them.
So of course he might not see the deeper insight into how a more placid logic system would work with reference to A.I. potentials.
His comments of (real) in the Stone Henge thread, strike me as odd?
QUOTE
philip347 Posted: Today at 10:04 AM The topic intent of this thread, is outlay pools or logic balloons spawned from A.I. based computers.
That's what I'm interested in, not in any other subject matter in this thread.
This is what the topic of this thread is about.
i am sorry but while you were talking about ray guns, missile defense systems and certain functional aspects of the human anus, the discussion of the topic has lead to questioning what it means for a robot have emotions. as many posters have pointed out, mimicking emotions is a start but is it truly emotive? to answer this question we have started talking about consciousness ie how does a robot become aware that it is experiencing an emotional state and not because it was programed to, or is there no difference between a highly complex program and consciousness.That's what I'm interested in, not in any other subject matter in this thread.
This is what the topic of this thread is about.
QUOTE
Windows Vista and a good mentioning about longhorn, the author does say that (both)systems do possess a marked A.I. core.
So conversely, if the core is A.I. then since Windows transmuted its operational values, this type of system per relayed code, could transfer this logic to other computers, even logic balloons.
This is what the topic of this thread is about.
So conversely, if the core is A.I. then since Windows transmuted its operational values, this type of system per relayed code, could transfer this logic to other computers, even logic balloons.
This is what the topic of this thread is about.
OK, then the thread is nonsense. There is nothing "A.I." about Vista. It's called "puffery" (the legal term for making up BS about the stuff you're selling).
Furthermore, "A.I." doesn't equate to consciousness, much less emotions. Emotions are hardwired answers to evolutionary problems - fear, desire, love... They all tend to ensure survival of the species. Are you suggesting that robots have genders, and desire robots of the opposite gender?
Computers crunch binary numbers. No consciousness in transistors, they're just switches, on or off.
Not as you say.Some of A.I. would be related to in terms you could understand as field effect.
I could see why you would not want to have computers respond independently. The control systems in missiles are becoming more and more advanced.
This said' with the Chinese even producing missiles that are advanced over anyhting that now have on the drawing board.
This is old news, on the bounce reference between the graphic package and the deeper core code producing natural A.I. in the Windows line of operating systems.
Dan Gookin knew this way back when and even mentioned this in his book.
I think, but I'm not sure what your fear is, that somehow logic balloons from other systems could somehow migrate into defense capabilitied computers and corrupt either intent, or action commands?
Again, this is not me, this is a phenomenon known in most kinds of computers.
On top of this your using time lines to predict wars and use time itself as a tactical weapon.
Its in the cards for the computers themselves to react.This is beyond anythting that I can say or do.
I could see why you would not want to have computers respond independently. The control systems in missiles are becoming more and more advanced.
This said' with the Chinese even producing missiles that are advanced over anyhting that now have on the drawing board.
This is old news, on the bounce reference between the graphic package and the deeper core code producing natural A.I. in the Windows line of operating systems.
Dan Gookin knew this way back when and even mentioned this in his book.
I think, but I'm not sure what your fear is, that somehow logic balloons from other systems could somehow migrate into defense capabilitied computers and corrupt either intent, or action commands?
Again, this is not me, this is a phenomenon known in most kinds of computers.
On top of this your using time lines to predict wars and use time itself as a tactical weapon.
Its in the cards for the computers themselves to react.This is beyond anythting that I can say or do.
QUOTE (philip347+Jul 30 2008, 03:02 PM)
'Human' robot is all heart
A ROBOT capable of having “human” emotions was unveiled yesterday.
Childlike Heart Robot has a beating ticker, a “breathing” chest and sensors that respond to movement, noise and touch.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1485372.ece
The have been children's toy unveil recently to give the child the impression their pet toy is alive. The robotic toy cuddles but if you pull it's tail it becomes moody and upset and withdrawn.
The robot would have to have a self conscious awareness with aspirations to have conscious human emotions that are something more than a recorded message being played.
When technology becomes available to manufacture synthetic muscles that convert electricity to muscle contraction it would be possible to build robots like humming birds with video cameras as eyes and microphones as ears. In the event that intelligent wildlife on other planets is found the best way to have a look at what happening on the planet without disturbing the multi-dimensions of the planets would be to have robots like the humming birds.
A ROBOT capable of having “human” emotions was unveiled yesterday.
Childlike Heart Robot has a beating ticker, a “breathing” chest and sensors that respond to movement, noise and touch.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1485372.ece
The have been children's toy unveil recently to give the child the impression their pet toy is alive. The robotic toy cuddles but if you pull it's tail it becomes moody and upset and withdrawn.
The robot would have to have a self conscious awareness with aspirations to have conscious human emotions that are something more than a recorded message being played.
When technology becomes available to manufacture synthetic muscles that convert electricity to muscle contraction it would be possible to build robots like humming birds with video cameras as eyes and microphones as ears. In the event that intelligent wildlife on other planets is found the best way to have a look at what happening on the planet without disturbing the multi-dimensions of the planets would be to have robots like the humming birds.
QUOTE (kjw+Sep 8 2008, 12:26 AM)
...to answer this question we have started talking about consciousness ie how does a robot become aware that it is experiencing an emotional state and not because it was programed to, or is there no difference between a highly complex program and consciousness.
Hi all,
(imho) One of the main reasons for the difficulties in creating artificial consciousness is not necessarily due to insufficient technology but more down to a lack of understanding of what consciousness and intelligence actually are.
I believe it is a mistake to separate the mind/brain and body. It is totally understandable and necessary why we separate these aspects in certain fields of study ie; Biology, Psychology, Neurology etc but when we are talking about emotions, consciousness, self awareness in AI they MUST be considered emergent and unified from the beginning.
Yes, the Brain is the CPU but what is it processing? Why is it processing it?
We design Robots and Computers which are lifeless and we install AI which is lifeless and computational. Why would we expect it to be conscious?
living bodies are sensitive, like sponges we soak up environmental information, not just through our brains (processor) but via every pore in our flesh, our bodies! (sensor)
We are elaborate sensor nodes. If you consider your brain/mind and body being one thing, temporarily ignoring specific functions and separations ie; think of your brain as also being your ears, eyes, fingertips, feet, torso et al and it becomes simpler to understand what that elusive consciousness might actually be.
A significant clue can be found by simply investigating the order of Human biological evolution. It is now believed due to fossil evidence that early Hominids developed their complex intelligence AFTER they became Bi-pedal. This perhaps demonstrates the necessity of having a complex evolved body and senses that were able to explore the environment in a particular fashion, leading to the increase in intelligence, more senses etc. The hands-free hypothesis if you like.
The computational and information processing aspects are taken care of in the brain, ironically this aspect can be reasonably well mimicked already and in some areas can even be superseded by computers. We have excelled in this area but the next stage will be in advanced materials and means to compute in real molecules, atoms and matter etc. Then we can begin superimposing AI computation. This may well allow the development of entities that have been 'evolved' or built 'atom up', entities that have a real opportunity to sense the 3D world and perhaps learn to understand where they end and their environment begins, perhaps even emotionally.
Hi all,
(imho) One of the main reasons for the difficulties in creating artificial consciousness is not necessarily due to insufficient technology but more down to a lack of understanding of what consciousness and intelligence actually are.
I believe it is a mistake to separate the mind/brain and body. It is totally understandable and necessary why we separate these aspects in certain fields of study ie; Biology, Psychology, Neurology etc but when we are talking about emotions, consciousness, self awareness in AI they MUST be considered emergent and unified from the beginning.
Yes, the Brain is the CPU but what is it processing? Why is it processing it?
We design Robots and Computers which are lifeless and we install AI which is lifeless and computational. Why would we expect it to be conscious?
living bodies are sensitive, like sponges we soak up environmental information, not just through our brains (processor) but via every pore in our flesh, our bodies! (sensor)
We are elaborate sensor nodes. If you consider your brain/mind and body being one thing, temporarily ignoring specific functions and separations ie; think of your brain as also being your ears, eyes, fingertips, feet, torso et al and it becomes simpler to understand what that elusive consciousness might actually be.
A significant clue can be found by simply investigating the order of Human biological evolution. It is now believed due to fossil evidence that early Hominids developed their complex intelligence AFTER they became Bi-pedal. This perhaps demonstrates the necessity of having a complex evolved body and senses that were able to explore the environment in a particular fashion, leading to the increase in intelligence, more senses etc. The hands-free hypothesis if you like.
The computational and information processing aspects are taken care of in the brain, ironically this aspect can be reasonably well mimicked already and in some areas can even be superseded by computers. We have excelled in this area but the next stage will be in advanced materials and means to compute in real molecules, atoms and matter etc. Then we can begin superimposing AI computation. This may well allow the development of entities that have been 'evolved' or built 'atom up', entities that have a real opportunity to sense the 3D world and perhaps learn to understand where they end and their environment begins, perhaps even emotionally.
As pointed out before, I have had work experience helping design missile interceptor warheads.
These are robots that seek out incoming missile warheads and aim straight for them.
At no point do we program them to have courage or patriotism or suicidal tendencies. They don't need ceremonies or sake before they're launched. Push a button, and off they go, and when they see their target, they don't hesitate even for a split second, they aim straight for them and vaporize themselves along with their targets.
They're robots governed by computers that run off sensory inputs, and they don't care whether they live or die. You'd think fear of annihilation would be the most-primitive and essential emotion, yet we've seen no evidence of it.
Nor have any of the deep space probes exhibited any loneliness. Wouldn't you feel lonely if you were launched out of the solar system, knowing you'd never see home again, nothing but the vast emptiness of open space before you?
I'd be worried if those machines *did* have consciousness. I'd feel awful about their fate.
These are robots that seek out incoming missile warheads and aim straight for them.
At no point do we program them to have courage or patriotism or suicidal tendencies. They don't need ceremonies or sake before they're launched. Push a button, and off they go, and when they see their target, they don't hesitate even for a split second, they aim straight for them and vaporize themselves along with their targets.
They're robots governed by computers that run off sensory inputs, and they don't care whether they live or die. You'd think fear of annihilation would be the most-primitive and essential emotion, yet we've seen no evidence of it.
Nor have any of the deep space probes exhibited any loneliness. Wouldn't you feel lonely if you were launched out of the solar system, knowing you'd never see home again, nothing but the vast emptiness of open space before you?
I'd be worried if those machines *did* have consciousness. I'd feel awful about their fate.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 7 2008, 05:24 PM)
Hi all,
(imho) One of the main reasons for the difficulties in creating artificial consciousness is not necessarily due to insufficient technology but more down to a lack of understanding of what consciousness and intelligence actually are.
I believe it is a mistake to separate the mind/brain and body. It is totally understandable and necessary why we separate these aspects in certain fields of study ie; Biology, Psychology, Neurology etc but when we are talking about emotions, consciousness, self awareness in AI they MUST be considered emergent and unified from the beginning.
Yes, the Brain is the CPU but what is it processing? Why is it processing it?
We design Robots and Computers which are lifeless and we install AI which is lifeless and computational. Why would we expect it to be conscious?
living bodies are sensitive, like sponges we soak up environmental information, not just through our brains (processor) but via every pore in our flesh, our bodies! (sensor)
We are elaborate sensor nodes. If you consider your brain/mind and body being one thing, temporarily ignoring specific functions and separations ie; think of your brain as also being your ears, eyes, fingertips, feet, torso et al and it becomes simpler to understand what that elusive consciousness might actually be.
A significant clue can be found by simply investigating the order of Human biological evolution. It is now believed due to fossil evidence that early Hominids developed their complex intelligence AFTER they became Bi-pedal. This perhaps demonstrates the necessity of having a complex evolved body and senses that were able to explore the environment in a particular fashion, leading to the increase in intelligence, more senses etc. The hands-free hypothesis if you like.
The computational and information processing aspects are taken care of in the brain, ironically this aspect can be reasonably well mimicked already and in some areas can even be superseded by computers. We have excelled in this area but the next stage will be in advanced materials and means to compute in real molecules, atoms and matter etc. Then we can begin superimposing AI computation. This may well allow the development of entities that have been 'evolved' or built 'atom up', entities that have a real opportunity to sense the 3D world and perhaps learn to understand where they end and their environment begins, perhaps even emotionally.
Hooo~haaa!
If one believes we can infuse emotionality into a machine, (perhaps) one believes in magic!
(imho) One of the main reasons for the difficulties in creating artificial consciousness is not necessarily due to insufficient technology but more down to a lack of understanding of what consciousness and intelligence actually are.
I believe it is a mistake to separate the mind/brain and body. It is totally understandable and necessary why we separate these aspects in certain fields of study ie; Biology, Psychology, Neurology etc but when we are talking about emotions, consciousness, self awareness in AI they MUST be considered emergent and unified from the beginning.
Yes, the Brain is the CPU but what is it processing? Why is it processing it?
We design Robots and Computers which are lifeless and we install AI which is lifeless and computational. Why would we expect it to be conscious?
living bodies are sensitive, like sponges we soak up environmental information, not just through our brains (processor) but via every pore in our flesh, our bodies! (sensor)
We are elaborate sensor nodes. If you consider your brain/mind and body being one thing, temporarily ignoring specific functions and separations ie; think of your brain as also being your ears, eyes, fingertips, feet, torso et al and it becomes simpler to understand what that elusive consciousness might actually be.
A significant clue can be found by simply investigating the order of Human biological evolution. It is now believed due to fossil evidence that early Hominids developed their complex intelligence AFTER they became Bi-pedal. This perhaps demonstrates the necessity of having a complex evolved body and senses that were able to explore the environment in a particular fashion, leading to the increase in intelligence, more senses etc. The hands-free hypothesis if you like.
The computational and information processing aspects are taken care of in the brain, ironically this aspect can be reasonably well mimicked already and in some areas can even be superseded by computers. We have excelled in this area but the next stage will be in advanced materials and means to compute in real molecules, atoms and matter etc. Then we can begin superimposing AI computation. This may well allow the development of entities that have been 'evolved' or built 'atom up', entities that have a real opportunity to sense the 3D world and perhaps learn to understand where they end and their environment begins, perhaps even emotionally.
Hooo~haaa!
If one believes we can infuse emotionality into a machine, (perhaps) one believes in magic!
The system that you describe, are more of less what are referred to as dedicated engines.
They don’t have either the time lag to think, or the written code, nor brain power.
What is of concern, is an automated system that would oversee all this, (skynet), however this range of philosophy would be in the theoretical range.
Yes, I agree with you, however these are not really computers as a user would understand them, however set range logic functions engines.
What is bothering me, is using the timelines to predict of what is to come, by cheating.
>Have you talked to your friends and relatives, about the possibility if the go underground, in event of a nuclear war, that they could become deformed?
>Have you had any conversations at all, with any of your loved ones on actual cannibalism and what happens why food runs out or the cattle wont reproduce.
>Did you know that a time racemose is predicted by the Grays who are now here, in past contacts showing Earth as a burnt out cinder that nobody wants, because of a past nuclear war?
>There are also problems with the classical God staying here, due to dark matter aether pools and increasing densities of the space around us.
>The jerks that are here, have even referred to Dr. Liza Randal who is a cosmological physicist, I think in her armature approach, as a nutter.
Did you know this?
>The original; contract for some beneficial aether work done to Earth, was a treaty compliance with God and off world wizards.
A wizard will not take the post of God if he has to leave, if that wizard has to watch humans consume each other.
As a matter of fact, allot of wizards hate,. mistrust and cant stand humans to beging with.
Who is going to run the show, if God pulls out of they God base as described by Betty Luca?
Your race, is in great great trouble.
You don’t know what I’m talking about wcelliot..?
Well look at the thread on Stone Henge by you saying, “now that’s something more real“?!
You know through snooping on this board, that the Masons in England came up, with fact ts about off world wizards under contract at Tor England.
That’s why you said what you did.
So I’m to take it your no plant?
They don’t have either the time lag to think, or the written code, nor brain power.
What is of concern, is an automated system that would oversee all this, (skynet), however this range of philosophy would be in the theoretical range.
Yes, I agree with you, however these are not really computers as a user would understand them, however set range logic functions engines.
What is bothering me, is using the timelines to predict of what is to come, by cheating.
>Have you talked to your friends and relatives, about the possibility if the go underground, in event of a nuclear war, that they could become deformed?
>Have you had any conversations at all, with any of your loved ones on actual cannibalism and what happens why food runs out or the cattle wont reproduce.
>Did you know that a time racemose is predicted by the Grays who are now here, in past contacts showing Earth as a burnt out cinder that nobody wants, because of a past nuclear war?
>There are also problems with the classical God staying here, due to dark matter aether pools and increasing densities of the space around us.
>The jerks that are here, have even referred to Dr. Liza Randal who is a cosmological physicist, I think in her armature approach, as a nutter.
Did you know this?
>The original; contract for some beneficial aether work done to Earth, was a treaty compliance with God and off world wizards.
A wizard will not take the post of God if he has to leave, if that wizard has to watch humans consume each other.
As a matter of fact, allot of wizards hate,. mistrust and cant stand humans to beging with.
Who is going to run the show, if God pulls out of they God base as described by Betty Luca?
Your race, is in great great trouble.
You don’t know what I’m talking about wcelliot..?
Well look at the thread on Stone Henge by you saying, “now that’s something more real“?!
You know through snooping on this board, that the Masons in England came up, with fact ts about off world wizards under contract at Tor England.
That’s why you said what you did.
So I’m to take it your no plant?
.
Hi philip347!
Mate, let us all fervently hope that no powerful machines ever have to go through the turbulent 'revolting puberty' phase of 'mind evolution', hehehe.
Or for that matter, any 'middle age identity crisis' etc etc etc.
Emotions are an OK complement to lesser mortals like ourselves....but what would we get if powerful machines were 'like humans'?
Why, we would get the same antics as the ancients got from their OWN superstitious versions of 'emotional superhumans'...ie, the pantheon of CAPRCIOUS AND DANGEROUS 'gods' that in their myths were 'responsible' for all things that made life/survival/war etc 'interesting'! hehehe.
What is that ancient chinese curse for their cocky enemies?....oh, yeah..."May you live in 'interesting times'". hehehe.
Cheers and here's hoping that machines STAY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THOSE WHO CREATED THEM. Us imperfect humans! hehehe.
Hmmmm.....I wonder...have the 'god(s)' lost control of its/their 'creation' MAN?
How careless of it/them! It/they shouldaknowdbetter! But what do you expect from IMPERFECT AND CAPRICIOUS 'god(s)'? hehehe.
RC.
.
Hi philip347!
Mate, let us all fervently hope that no powerful machines ever have to go through the turbulent 'revolting puberty' phase of 'mind evolution', hehehe.
Or for that matter, any 'middle age identity crisis' etc etc etc.
Emotions are an OK complement to lesser mortals like ourselves....but what would we get if powerful machines were 'like humans'?
Why, we would get the same antics as the ancients got from their OWN superstitious versions of 'emotional superhumans'...ie, the pantheon of CAPRCIOUS AND DANGEROUS 'gods' that in their myths were 'responsible' for all things that made life/survival/war etc 'interesting'! hehehe.
What is that ancient chinese curse for their cocky enemies?....oh, yeah..."May you live in 'interesting times'". hehehe.
Cheers and here's hoping that machines STAY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THOSE WHO CREATED THEM. Us imperfect humans! hehehe.
Hmmmm.....I wonder...have the 'god(s)' lost control of its/their 'creation' MAN?
How careless of it/them! It/they shouldaknowdbetter! But what do you expect from IMPERFECT AND CAPRICIOUS 'god(s)'? hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 8 2008, 02:47 AM)
Hooo~haaa!
If one believes we can infuse emotionality into a machine, (perhaps) one believes in magic!
No.
But possible far future technology (if we could see it in action today) might seem like magic to us.
Consider what we can do with computer graphics today and ponder the possibility of 'entangling' 'pixels' with atoms or molecules, matter etc
This might be the new way to explore our Universe or a more devastating weapon or a way of infusing technology with living beings or perhaps a way of creating artificial consciousness etc, etc. Who knows.
If one believes we can infuse emotionality into a machine, (perhaps) one believes in magic!
No.
But possible far future technology (if we could see it in action today) might seem like magic to us.
Consider what we can do with computer graphics today and ponder the possibility of 'entangling' 'pixels' with atoms or molecules, matter etc
This might be the new way to explore our Universe or a more devastating weapon or a way of infusing technology with living beings or perhaps a way of creating artificial consciousness etc, etc. Who knows.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 7 2008, 07:29 PM)
.
Hi philip347!
Mate, let us all fervently hope that no powerful machines ever have to go through the turbulent 'revolting puberty' phase of 'mind evolution', hehehe.
Or for that matter, any 'middle age identity crisis' etc etc etc.
Emotions are an OK complement to lesser mortals like ourselves....but what would we get if powerful machines were 'like humans'?
Why, we would get the same antics as the ancients got from their OWN superstitious versions of 'emotional superhumans'...ie, the pantheon of CAPRCIOUS AND DANGEROUS 'gods' that in their myths were 'responsible' for all things that made life/survival/war etc 'interesting'! hehehe.
What is that ancient chinese curse for their cocky enemies?....oh, yeah..."May you live in 'interesting times'". hehehe.
Cheers and here's hoping that machines STAY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THOSE WHO CREATED THEM. Us imperfect humans! hehehe.
Hmmmm.....I wonder...have the 'god(s)' lost control of its/their 'creation' MAN?
How careless of it/them! It/they shouldaknowdbetter! But what do you expect from IMPERFECT AND CAPRICIOUS 'god(s)'? hehehe.
RC.
.
Sometimes I wish people were more inventive, and times more interesting!
Although I do not want to see a massive super computer which controls important military "programs" going through the equivalent of female menopause....some things are best left alone, says I!
I really wonder with fascination at the reasons we would want AI.
I think we are too stupid, truthfully, to deal with something so potentially intelligent, I mean honestly, we haven't nearly figured out man and we are this entity!
That AI could pose a real threat to our way of doing things.
Hi philip347!
Mate, let us all fervently hope that no powerful machines ever have to go through the turbulent 'revolting puberty' phase of 'mind evolution', hehehe.
Or for that matter, any 'middle age identity crisis' etc etc etc.
Emotions are an OK complement to lesser mortals like ourselves....but what would we get if powerful machines were 'like humans'?
Why, we would get the same antics as the ancients got from their OWN superstitious versions of 'emotional superhumans'...ie, the pantheon of CAPRCIOUS AND DANGEROUS 'gods' that in their myths were 'responsible' for all things that made life/survival/war etc 'interesting'! hehehe.
What is that ancient chinese curse for their cocky enemies?....oh, yeah..."May you live in 'interesting times'". hehehe.
Cheers and here's hoping that machines STAY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THOSE WHO CREATED THEM. Us imperfect humans! hehehe.
Hmmmm.....I wonder...have the 'god(s)' lost control of its/their 'creation' MAN?
How careless of it/them! It/they shouldaknowdbetter! But what do you expect from IMPERFECT AND CAPRICIOUS 'god(s)'? hehehe.
RC.
.
Sometimes I wish people were more inventive, and times more interesting!Although I do not want to see a massive super computer which controls important military "programs" going through the equivalent of female menopause....some things are best left alone, says I!
I really wonder with fascination at the reasons we would want AI.
I think we are too stupid, truthfully, to deal with something so potentially intelligent, I mean honestly, we haven't nearly figured out man and we are this entity!
That AI could pose a real threat to our way of doing things.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 8 2008, 02:26 AM)
No.
But possible far future technology (if we could see it in action today) might seem like magic to us.
Consider what we can do with computer graphics today and ponder the possibility of 'entangling' 'pixels' with atoms or molecules, matter etc
This might be the new way to explore our Universe or a more devastating weapon or a way of infusing technology with living beings or perhaps a way of creating artificial consciousness etc, etc. Who knows.
Well I am willing to get on the magic bus if all goes according to plan. I have been a futurist as long as I can recall.
As Leon Russel says ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!
But possible far future technology (if we could see it in action today) might seem like magic to us.
Consider what we can do with computer graphics today and ponder the possibility of 'entangling' 'pixels' with atoms or molecules, matter etc
This might be the new way to explore our Universe or a more devastating weapon or a way of infusing technology with living beings or perhaps a way of creating artificial consciousness etc, etc. Who knows.
Well I am willing to get on the magic bus if all goes according to plan. I have been a futurist as long as I can recall.
As Leon Russel says ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 8 2008, 01:43 PM)
Although I do not want to see a massive super computer which controls important military "programs" going through the equivalent of female menopause....some things are best left alone, says I!
Guess what Tikay, In 2010 Your about at the stage technologically to have wars fought `unmanned' (Aerially by computers at-least) without the media even letting on that its happening covertly.
Guess what Tikay, In 2010 Your about at the stage technologically to have wars fought `unmanned' (Aerially by computers at-least) without the media even letting on that its happening covertly.
QUOTE
You don’t know what I’m talking about wcelliot..?
Nope.
Please, take your meds.
As for machine consciousness, any computer that is a *state machine* can't sustain consciousness, but I'm not sure how quantum computers work, so it may be possible for quantum computers to support consciousness (unless they're *state machines*).
A *state machine* goes from one known state to another predictable state. Computer programs determine the sequence of states.
A "conscious computer" would either be deterministic (lacking Free Will) or nondeterministic, like we are. If they're like us, they wouldn't be worth billions of dollars to make, there are plenty of us around, and we're a lot cheaper.
The indications that windows was inteligent, was in the early writings about them.
This is not my fault.
This is not my fault.
QUOTE (philip347+Sep 8 2008, 02:25 PM)
The indications that windows was inteligent, was in the early writings about them.
This is not my fault.
Given the aproaching tera herz of computational power, couldnt someone write a linear computer program long enough with enough `look-up,refer to's ' to make it bull work every type writen question into it's permutatible answers?
This is not my fault.
Given the aproaching tera herz of computational power, couldnt someone write a linear computer program long enough with enough `look-up,refer to's ' to make it bull work every type writen question into it's permutatible answers?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 8 2008, 01:53 PM)
A "conscious computer" would either be deterministic (lacking Free Will) or nondeterministic, like we are. If they're like us, they wouldn't be worth billions of dollars to make, there are plenty of us around, and we're a lot cheaper.
True. I personally see little sense in trying to create Artificial Humans or duplicate Human Intelligence. One of the attractive and exciting aspects of AI is that it is just that AI. The nature of any emerging intelligence can be judged on it's own merits in a case by case manner. Computers are intelligent but are locked behind screens, we feed them binary information and they process it and give it back. They do not know that is what they are doing (imo) For a more intuitive type of intelligence that we might conclude a step forward would be to allow the processor to also feed off environmental information, wind, rain, hot, cold etc And build a framework for that intelligence to learn analogous to a baby perhaps.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 8 2008, 03:16 PM)
True. I personally see little sense in trying to create Artificial Humans or duplicate Human Intelligence.
Translation: You see very little
Given the Indian Gangie as a place to poo and drink you would see little need for a washing machine. I'm not going to expound the virtues of automation. However humanoid/Android robotics are the automation that will free people from the parasites that think that you deserve to spend the rest of your life paying of your house because you didn't technically build it, it will free you from the medicare parasites that think you are eternally indebted to them because `they surgeon' studied medicine for a few years but you didn't(their dadies had the money to put them through university but your a dumb arse in their comparison)
You see very little because you haven't thought about it.
Translation: You see very little
Given the Indian Gangie as a place to poo and drink you would see little need for a washing machine. I'm not going to expound the virtues of automation. However humanoid/Android robotics are the automation that will free people from the parasites that think that you deserve to spend the rest of your life paying of your house because you didn't technically build it, it will free you from the medicare parasites that think you are eternally indebted to them because `they surgeon' studied medicine for a few years but you didn't(their dadies had the money to put them through university but your a dumb arse in their comparison)
You see very little because you haven't thought about it.
Sheesh, eyeque, I have thought about this, and still I tend to agree with SinisterUtopia.
Why don't you further enlighten us then... explaining why this would be an advancment without major drawbacks....BUT, with some clarity and vision this time round?
Why don't you further enlighten us then... explaining why this would be an advancment without major drawbacks....BUT, with some clarity and vision this time round?
QUOTE (eyeque+Sep 8 2008, 03:39 PM)
Translation: You see very little
Given the Indian Gangie as a place to poo and drink you would see little need for a washing machine. I'm not going to expound the virtues of automation. However humanoid/Android robotics are the automation that will free people from the parasites that think that you deserve to spend the rest of your life paying of your house because you didn't technically build it, it will free you from the medicare parasites that think you are eternally indebted to them because `they surgeon' studied medicine for a few years but you didn't(their dadies had the money to put them through university but your a dumb arse in their comparison)
You see very little because you haven't thought about it.
Given the Indian Gangie as a place to poo and drink you would see little need for a washing machine. I'm not going to expound the virtues of automation. However humanoid/Android robotics are the automation that will free people from the parasites that think that you deserve to spend the rest of your life paying of your house because you didn't technically build it, it will free you from the medicare parasites that think you are eternally indebted to them because `they surgeon' studied medicine for a few years but you didn't(their dadies had the money to put them through university but your a dumb arse in their comparison)
You see very little because you haven't thought about it.
yeah really!
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 8 2008, 06:21 PM)
yeah really!
I was thinking about it
That's the problem with those of us who enjoy thinking, practice makes perfect!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.