Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/30/07 01:51 PM, XeroXTC wrote: God kills to make an example out of someone.

Is that not how we learn?

If we do this, that is what will happen.

ah, yes. because every gay, murderer, polytheist, thief, vandal and people god just hates have been killed by a random bolt of lightning or were swallowed by the earth or something like that. yeah that's your benevolent and loving god at work.

i think god is an asshole. the best example I can think of outside of the book of jobe is when he tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowlage. either he wanted to make sure that nobody would ever become anything more than animals or he was planning for them to eat it and punished the snake for doing exactly what he wanted. for those of you who don't know, god took away the snake's limbs and replaced it's voice with hissing and spitting.

Lemme put it like this.

Everything has a creator. The creator helps the process of evolution, after the created feel it is smart enough establish autonomy it rids itself of the slightest thought of a creator.

At 12/31/07 12:49 PM, XeroXTC wrote: Everything has a creator. The creator helps the process of evolution

Some stupid creator he is then. Evolution is extremely inefficient. If a creator was really powerful enough to make the entire universe, one would think that he could develop a method of creation that doesn't require billions of years, countless random mutations and the extinction of 99% of all species that ever lived on earth.

At 12/31/07 12:49 PM, XeroXTC wrote: Lemme put it like this.

Everything has a creator. The creator helps the process of evolution, after the created feel it is smart enough establish autonomy it rids itself of the slightest thought of a creator.

To just say that there is this magical thing called creators just doesn't make sense.

At 12/31/07 07:56 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/31/07 12:49 PM, XeroXTC wrote: Lemme put it like this.

Everything has a creator. The creator helps the process of evolution, after the created feel it is smart enough establish autonomy it rids itself of the slightest thought of a creator.

To just say that there is this magical thing called creators just doesn't make sense.

I know it's completely stupid. Seriously Humans assisting in the evolution of computers and giving them their own AI so they can think on their own. That's completely stupid. Only because are not magical. Pretty soon the computers will be able to establish their own rule and see us as the insufficient ones. But you are right. That is completely ridiculous. We aren't doing that now. That's just completely idiotic to think that.

At 12/31/07 09:31 PM, XeroXTC wrote: I know it's completely stupid. Seriously Humans assisting in the evolution of computers and giving them their own AI so they can think on their own. That's completely stupid.

Bad analogy, because humans are not omnipotent.

You know,I'm pretty scared of death.Cuz we never know the results...If theres no heaven...

We wont see We wont hear
We wont remember We wont feel
we wont even think...
I'm not sure how it would be knowing that you will vanish into nothingness right then.
Leaving your life behind,and stepping into a void of less than oblivion.
Now that is a wonder...

At 12/31/07 11:00 PM, killslasher wrote: You know,I'm pretty scared of death.Cuz we never know the results...If theres no heaven...

Just because X is comforting has no bearing on whether or not X is true.

At 12/31/07 10:20 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/31/07 09:31 PM, XeroXTC wrote: I know it's completely stupid. Seriously Humans assisting in the evolution of computers and giving them their own AI so they can think on their own. That's completely stupid.

Bad analogy, because humans are not omnipotent.

So? What dose that matter? We are doing it. Get over it.

At 1/1/08 01:49 AM, XeroXTC wrote:

At 12/31/07 10:20 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/31/07 09:31 PM, XeroXTC wrote: I know it's completely stupid. Seriously Humans assisting in the evolution of computers and giving them their own AI so they can think on their own. That's completely stupid.

Bad analogy, because humans are not omnipotent.

So? What dose that matter? We are doing it. Get over it.

No, it's still a bad analogy. The computers can see us, and talk to us.

This analogy would only be good if the earth was built by giant titans, which we could see and interact with on an everyday basis.

At 1/1/08 08:25 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/1/08 01:49 AM, XeroXTC wrote:

At 12/31/07 10:20 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/31/07 09:31 PM, XeroXTC wrote: I know it's completely stupid. Seriously Humans assisting in the evolution of computers and giving them their own AI so they can think on their own. That's completely stupid.

Bad analogy, because humans are not omnipotent.

So? What dose that matter? We are doing it. Get over it.

No, it's still a bad analogy. The computers can see us, and talk to us.

This analogy would only be good if the earth was built by giant titans, which we could see and interact with on an everyday basis.

We. Are. Doing. It. We. Are. The. Computers'. Creators. Point is: they are now able to think and talk on their own or evolving to that stage.

Think. Of. It. Like. This.

Think of a pitre dish, you put some bacteria in there with some life sustaining elements, close it up and come back later to a flourishing colony of bacteria.

They have no clue how they got there, or why they exist, also their creator is so large that they cannot perceive it.

At 1/1/08 02:11 PM, XeroXTC wrote:
We. Are. Doing. It. We. Are. The. Computers'. Creators. Point is: they are now able to think and talk on their own or evolving to that stage.

Think. Of. It. Like. This.

Think of a pitre dish, you put some bacteria in there with some life sustaining elements, close it up and come back later to a flourishing colony of bacteria.

They have no clue how they got there, or why they exist, also their creator is so large that they cannot perceive it.

Yes, but we are not in that position. If God was a really really big being, we would be able to detect him in various ways.

Likewise, the bacteria would if they had technology like we have.

Comparing our "evolving" technology the evolution of humans is idiotic.

1) computers are not sentient beings
2) computers evolve because humans continue to improve on them, they cant evolve on their own. Humans however do evolve on their own, this is a fact.

God created everything.

'nuff said.

computers aint sentient now but how do know they will stay that way it might get a matrix affect only i think we would win

go science!

At 1/1/08 02:42 PM, Musician wrote: Comparing our "evolving" technology the evolution of humans is idiotic.

1) computers are not sentient beings
2) computers evolve because humans continue to improve on them, they cant evolve on their own. Humans however do evolve on their own, this is a fact.

They are not sentient beings now. But at the rate we are going they will be soon. We are giving them more and more intelligence every year. Would computers have evolved this far without human aid? No they would not. But now we are giving them algorithms to think on their own. Pretty soon they will be able to have moral values differentiate between what is wrong and what is right.

Much like us. We depended on a higher being until we established self-sufficiency. As they, the computers, are doing; depending on us.

At 1/1/08 04:00 PM, XeroXTC wrote: They are not sentient beings now. But at the rate we are going they will be soon.

No...

We are giving them more and more intelligence every year. Would computers have evolved this far without human aid? No they would not. But now we are giving them algorithms to think on their own.

No we're not, we've given them logic, logic that is hardcoded into the computers by HUMANS.

if(Keyispressed("D")){
Print("D");
}

That's all it is, LOGIC. They are not learning to think on their own. There have been some programs that have been programmed to learn, but even then they are still confined to what the HUMAN has programmed them to learned.

Pretty soon they will be able to have moral values differentiate between what is wrong and what is right.

computers will never have moral values, the closest thing they can ever have is the APPEARANCE of morals.

Much like us. We depended on a higher being until we established self-sufficiency.

haha, no we didn't.

As they, the computers, are doing; depending on us.

They aren't living, and they will never be sentient. computers are tools, not sentient beings.

At 1/1/08 04:26 PM, Musician wrote: That's all it is, LOGIC. They are not learning to think on their own. There have been some programs that have been programmed to learn, but even then they are still confined to what the HUMAN has programmed them to learned.

learn*

At 1/1/08 04:26 PM, Musician wrote:

At 1/1/08 04:00 PM, XeroXTC wrote: They are not sentient beings now. But at the rate we are going they will be soon.

No...

I have to side with XeroXTC here, at the rate we are going sentient machines are like to exist with in our lifetime.

We are giving them more and more intelligence every year. Would computers have evolved this far without human aid? No they would not. But now we are giving them algorithms to think on their own.

No we're not, we've given them logic, logic that is hardcoded into the computers by HUMANS.

And your point? The universe works through very deterministic laws, which are them self's limited to logical construction. The human mind is nothing more then a multiple of synapse connections, which are on an individual level very well understood structures, which can and have been duplicated with computers.

Given a powerful enough computation system the entire neocortex of a human could be duplicated, once that's done the computer will be as sentient as we are. Now if you want to argue if humans are truly sentient creatures...

if(Keyispressed("D")){
Print("D");
}

That's all it is, LOGIC.

The law of electro static attraction states that F = (q_1 * q_2)/(r^2), that's all it is, LOGIC, yet it's fundamental to the conduction of electrical signals in the brain.

Your brain is run by the physical laws of our universe, as such I have to ask, what is so different between physics which is it self bound by logic, and the mathematical logic which binds a computer?

They are not learning to think on their own. There have been some programs that have been programmed to learn, but even then they are still confined to what the HUMAN has programmed them to learned.

Not necessarily. A program which is fully capable of learning is also capable of altering it's own thinking patterns. As such it would be capable of think out side the bounds of it's initial programming

Pretty soon they will be able to have moral values differentiate between what is wrong and what is right.

computers will never have moral values, the closest thing they can ever have is the APPEARANCE of morals.

And what's the difference? If something is capable of mimicry to such a degree that it's indistinguishable from that which it's mimicking, literally to the point by which there is no physical observation which can separate the two how can you call the two different?

There is a point at which two things become similar enough to be effectively the same.

As they, the computers, are doing; depending on us.

They aren't living, and they will never be sentient. computers are tools, not sentient beings.

There's very little difference between the mathematical theorems a computer uses and the physical theories behind the human neuron. The only thing we are currently incapable of is the necessary computation power to simulate a neural net the size of our own. The day will come when this is no longer the case, and I dare say it's just around the next decade. At most we will have to wait for quantum computers to come around.

Well who really cares what other ppl think or believe in. I don't/can't believe in god for personal reasons but that shouldn't effect you in any way. I mean, to me beliveing in God is like believing in Santa. But sometimes people make bielieving in no God worse than believing in a differnet God. And then you have to be classified into a group called atheist(the name doesn't even sound cool). Why can't we just be normal people. Believe in what ever you want cause at the end of the day, who cares? No one really. When I see a jewish guy on the the street, I don't know he's jewish, I just know he's a person walking down the street.

XeroXTC, EVEN IF we deduce that a creator must have been responsible, what does that have to do with your religion more than any other?

At 1/1/08 05:26 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: I have to side with XeroXTC here, at the rate we are going sentient machines are like to exist with in our lifetime.

Well I'd say you're wrong

And your point? The universe works through very deterministic laws, which are them self's limited to logical construction. The human mind is nothing more then a multiple of synapse connections, which are on an individual level very well understood structures, which can and have been duplicated with computers.

Not really, even if you program a computer to be able to see with a camera and be able to determine what it's looking at, even if you program it to hear with a microphone and understand what it's hearing, even if you somehow are able to create a monster processor capable of calculating everything that a human mind does you still won't have a sentient being. Know why? because machines are driven purely by logic, Humans are driven by emotion. You can't make a machine feel emotion, it's not possible.

Given a powerful enough computation system the entire neocortex of a human could be duplicated, once that's done the computer will be as sentient as we are. Now if you want to argue if humans are truly sentient creatures...

They would have the appearance of sentience, not actually sentience.

The law of electro static attraction states that F = (q_1 * q_2)/(r^2), that's all it is, LOGIC, yet it's fundamental to the conduction of electrical signals in the brain.

Your brain is run by the physical laws of our universe, as such I have to ask, what is so different between physics which is it self bound by logic, and the mathematical logic which binds a computer?

It just is, the logic we use to program computers isn't as advanced as the physics that govern the universe.

Not necessarily. A program which is fully capable of learning is also capable of altering it's own thinking patterns. As such it would be capable of think out side the bounds of it's initial programming

Name one example of a machine that actually overwrites its original source code while it's running. You wont find one, because all programs (even the ones programmed to learn) will always be confined to what they have hardcoded into them.

And what's the difference? If something is capable of mimicry to such a degree that it's indistinguishable from that which it's mimicking, literally to the point by which there is no physical observation which can separate the two how can you call the two different?

Because that's just what it is, mimicry. The closest we can ever come to making computers into sentient beings is to have them mimic sentient beings. It's not the same as being one.

There is a point at which two things become similar enough to be effectively the same.

Not true.

There's very little difference between the mathematical theorems a computer uses and the physical theories behind the human neuron.

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be

The only thing we are currently incapable of is the necessary computation power to simulate a neural net the size of our own. The day will come when this is no longer the case, and I dare say it's just around the next decade. At most we will have to wait for quantum computers to come around.

At 1/2/08 02:05 AM, Musician wrote: You can't make a machine feel emotion, it's not possible.

Why not? By what standards do you say that programed emotions aren't possible?

They would have the appearance of sentience, not actually sentience.

And what's the difference if you can't tell the difference?

It just is, the logic we use to program computers isn't as advanced as the physics that govern the universe.

...yet.

Name one example of a machine that actually overwrites its original source code while it's running. You wont find one, because all programs (even the ones programmed to learn) will always be confined to what they have hardcoded into them.

Much like humans. You don't see significant base personality changes in people without some damage to the "OS". We don't/can't "overwrite our original source code" anymore than machines can. Show me one example of a person who can alter his own DNA.

Because that's just what it is, mimicry. The closest we can ever come to making computers into sentient beings is to have them mimic sentient beings. It's not the same as being one.

If the "mimicry" is perfect, then why not?

At 1/2/08 02:05 AM, Musician wrote:

At 1/1/08 05:26 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Well I'd say you're wrong

OK, why am I wrong?

And your point? The universe works through very deterministic laws, which are them self's limited to logical construction. The human mind is nothing more then a multiple of synapse connections, which are on an individual level very well understood structures, which can and have been duplicated with computers.

Not really, even if you program a computer to be able to see with a camera and be able to determine what it's looking at, even if you program it to hear with a microphone and understand what it's hearing, even if you somehow are able to create a monster processor capable of calculating everything that a human mind does you still won't have a sentient being. Know why? because machines are driven purely by logic, Humans are driven by emotion. You can't make a machine feel emotion, it's not possible.

That doesn't make any sense. Emotion is caused by specific neurons firing in the presence of various hormonal compounds. This can be easily modeled (at lest on a small scale) by even your home computer. Given enough time we could simulate an entire brain, thought this admittedly a brute force method it would work.

What your describing here is complete BS with out any kind of scientific or mathematical backing, at best your trying to push the argument into the realm of the supernatural and you'll have to excuse my bluntness, but very poorly at that.

They would have the appearance of sentience, not actually sentience.

Again what is the difference? Your claiming that a massive simulation of a phenomenon which it self is nothing more then a massive simulation aren't equivalent, why?

The law of electro static attraction states that F = (q_1 * q_2)/(r^2), that's all it is, LOGIC, yet it's fundamental to the conduction of electrical signals in the brain.

Your brain is run by the physical laws of our universe, as such I have to ask, what is so different between physics which is it self bound by logic, and the mathematical logic which binds a computer?

It just is, the logic we use to program computers isn't as advanced as the physics that govern the universe.

"It just is" isn't an answer, and your wrong. We use computer to simulate atomic and sub atomic interaction, we can simulate large clusters of cells. On a fundamental level there is no difference, if you truly disagree then show me evidence that it's not, a paper or text book on the subject.

Not necessarily. A program which is fully capable of learning is also capable of altering it's own thinking patterns. As such it would be capable of think out side the bounds of it's initial programming

Name one example of a machine that actually overwrites its original source code while it's running.

Viruses are a good example, ever hear of Polymorphic code or Self-modifying code?

You wont find one, because all programs (even the ones programmed to learn) will always be confined to what they have hardcoded into them.

Most programs are, but not all. Self learning programs do modify them selfs, they have to other wise they couldn't learn. I'll give you that very few actually modify there executable code, but that's cause they don't have to. Most run on top of some type of scripting language or in some kind of sand box. It is with in this frame work that things are change and modified, not usually the code it self.

Because that's just what it is, mimicry. The closest we can ever come to making computers into sentient beings is to have them mimic sentient beings. It's not the same as being one.

So basically we could duplicate every interaction in the human brain; Every neuron, cell, and hell even every atomic interaction, and yet it still wouldn't be sentience? I have to ask why? What exactly do you think sentience is, because your effectively giving it a supernatural component which is fundamentally beyond the scope of logic and reality. I'd like an explanation, if you can give me one.

Not true.

Yes it is. If you mimicry something down to it's smallest component it stops being mere mimicry and actually becomes a physical duplicate of the object.

There's very little difference between the mathematical theorems a computer uses and the physical theories behind the human neuron.

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be

That's fine you don't have to be, I am how ever curious why? Forgive me but I found your answer lacking in substance. Why can't a computer simulate a human like brain, especially when it's possible to simulate the most fundamental part of it, i.e. The neuron.

At 1/1/08 09:06 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: XeroXTC, EVEN IF we deduce that a creator must have been responsible, what does that have to do with your religion more than any other?

Who cares about that question, I want to talk about whether robots have souls, because I tenuously linked it to evolution a while back

The problem is that you seem to believe that humans are sentient beings. First of all define a sentient being... Is it a being that can think for itself, a being with emotions? It is possible to make a machine have emotions as well. They can learn to be sad when people are angry with them. It's pretty hard, but done before...

We humans think we are different from machines since we have emotions. The fact is that emotions are nothing more than the result of our hormones, created by something that happens in our surrounds(input). The only thing the brain does is respond in the way it has learned. If you learn a baby to cry when there are no hard noises around it, it will cry whenever it is not shouted to. This is a matter of programming. The same can be done with computers. Emotions are nothing more than the result of years of programming to the standards of society.

19th century writers were already very interested in this subject. If you havent yet, read Kipling's Jungle Book where a child raised by wolfs will act as a wolf (and not as a "ruler of all beings" as Adam was supposed to be in the bible). The big difference between computers and cellular organisms(except for the materials they were built from) is that cellular organisms are self-sustaining. I don't know wheter there are any computers that can repair themselves, but as far as I know it would be possible, but not economically profitable.

At 1/2/08 02:05 AM, Musician wrote: blah blah blah

And why can't we create intelligent robots? ON a purely philisophical vein, we will create robots with human values in 20 years (max). Once done with that, we'll work on emotion.

Since both logic and emotion are purely functions of random nervous functions, there's no reason we cant make that mathmatically in a robot.

At 1/2/08 08:00 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 1/1/08 09:06 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: XeroXTC, EVEN IF we deduce that a creator must have been responsible, what does that have to do with your religion more than any other?

Who cares about that question, I want to talk about whether robots have souls, because I tenuously linked it to evolution a while back

I think I made a thread about that a long time ago. Can't remember exactly though. Got some interesting replies, I think.

Alright Omega two things:

1. A computer cannot make mistakes - A computer can be programmed in such a way that it appears to be making a mistake, however that is really only the mistake of the programmer.

2. A computer is incapable of being self aware - a computer can only relay the actions that it has programmed into it, it is never subject to it's own thought.

an interesting example regarding my argument is the chinese room. The Chinese room describes an example where a computer actually completely mimics human behavior, Searle however argues that although the machines mimicry is perfect, it is not conscious of what it is doing. All the machine is doing is manipulating what it sees as meaningless symbols, it does not actually understand chinese.