Summa technologiae

[peskanov]

Uhm... I must admit, that maybe I just quit them to easily. (I specialize in different things).  I was shown the (mathematical) structure of them (during just one lecture), and what, I think, appears to You - the simplicity of the network - was for me rejecting. I just lacked respect for something that is not more complicated that a set of linear equations. I'm sure you know that... uhm.. that's kind of embarassing to say, mathematicians sometimes tend to ignore too simple things, which is of course wrong... But I understand that I shouldn't criticize the whole range of NN's applications, so maybe I should look it through again few times...

Think about what a modern computern is. The Turing machine, which is extremely simple, can do the same than any modern computer. I will even dare to say that the simple lineal ecuation of the perceptron is more complex than the Turing machine rules, as multiplications are complex beasts.
Looking at the few rules that define a Turing machine, you can not extrapolate marvels like a 3d editor, or videogames, or voice recognition programs...
Have in mind that neural networks are like hardware, being the software the topology of the network and the values of the input coeficients.
The possible applications of neural nets are as much as the computer ones. I know there are limits for what the Turing machine can calculate, which were shown by the mathematicians; however the same limits fits the human mind also!

I just think that NNs cannot solve any problem that cannot be solved by, call them, 'classical' alghoritms. No revolution there.  

As far as we are talking about systems based on finite quantities of discrete values, all of them can be implemented using a digital computer or a Turing machine.
The revolution, or the advance, if you prefer, is the nature of the algorythm in question.
A neural network is one of the (very few) formal systems we have developed which can "learn".
We can use a neural network or an equivalent algorythm to solve "fuzzy" problems by analogy. For example we can train a NN to visually recognize the letter "A" in lots of shapes, in a similar manner than a living being. In that sense, we can solve problems without having to analize them previously, which has been our method until now.
This has an interesting consequence: a NN can solve problems we don't know how to solve. This is especially true when combining NN with genetic algorythms. As far as we know the problem and a possible solution the NN can potentially bridge the gap.

But there's no discovered limit of activity (which, in my understanding, would have to be of the form of some quantitative characteristic of brain) , where "normality" ends, and the genius begins.  That's the simple consequence of the fact, that as You well know, the "normality" is just a statistical median, and nothing more. No limits are well-defined... At least I am not familiar with it.  

Well, there are very clear examples; we have the very famous case of Asperger syndrome's victim Kim Peek:
http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/kimpeek.cfm

Kim Peek habilities are rare or unheard in other humans: allegedly, he can recall 7600 books (word by word) he only read once, read two pages at the same time (using one eye for each page), or add tons of numbers instantly. And his brain is quite different from a normal one.

Aside from that, I understand that you are talking about the ability of any common human to push his intellect very far. Yes, I reckon the brain is very powerful and has, like a muscle, a plastic nature, the capability to get stronger or adapt to different conditions.
However, I am back to my original point: different brains host different minds and different intellects. Some more intelligent than others. If machines obtain the capacity of thinking, I don't see any reason to believe it's intelligence must be as limited as the human one. Our hardware is limited; the machine's one is not.

I once again repeat, that I don't mean to quarell or be sarcastic. I feel I have some lacks of knowledge about the applications of Neural Networks, I'd be happy to change that.  

I have searched for an introductory article that covers a good portion of NN research. As I don't see any, I collected a few links; I hope you will find them interesting:
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html
http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/sophomore-college/projects-00/neural-networks/Applications/
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3765/neural.html

Anyway, a few moments in google will give you a hint about the size, power and huge scope of NN research.

[dzi]

Well now when it comes to genetic algorhitms, than I must say I'm sort of specialist here (lucky me, at last I know what I'm talking about).
Thereby I feel sure to state, that as You know, they are based on trying, trying, trying, and trying... endlessly, unless the certain criterion is fulfilled or closely fulfilled.

Just like NNs, but instead of trying, trying and trying we have learning, learning and learning.
Heuristics is same BTW, it's just cutting, cutting and cutting

As for the rest of the rest of the discussion I'll just make a statement to feel excused that I not take a part in it And I don't want to take a part because:
- I talked a lot or even too much about in in the Polish section and talking English makes me even more tired
- there is no sense to talk about because the problem can be simplified to few possible roads for which we have to wait, and the roads are:
1. simulation of human brain (read previous posts)
2. algoritmisation of thinking, meaning, finding out what is our thinking about, and "copying" it on anything

for now we are too far to start thinking about any of the ways so I'll just wait few years and then talk about it

[peskanov]

dzi, let me ask you a question:
When the topic we are discussing is raised, usually people groups on two camps:

- Materialist: the materialist does assume the mind is an emergent phenomena of the brain, but nothing special; not a category apart in the nature. Therefore, the obvious consequence is that another object (computer or whatever) can show similar or superior attributes.

- Not-materialist: all those who are skepticals about materialism tenets. Intuition makes the materialism stance about the mind very dificult to digest. How could consciousness not be a "thing" in itself, but only a particular configuration or dynamic of the electric charges moving in the brain? In this groups we find people who favours dualism, idealism, or even mysterianism.

My question is: in the polish groups, which stance is prefered?
I would say that in Spain the not-materialist stance would be more popular. I am interested about the Polish forum because, in one hand, Poland is very christian-catholic, and in the other, this is a forum about  S. Lem, notorious pragmatic materialist...So I am very intrigued about people's opinion.

[dzi]

You forgot about third group: people who know that they don't know what is intelligence about.
As for the Polish part I didn't analysed it in this way but I didn't see any majority. But that can be caused by my "ignorrant" attitude to the subject, maybe Term will be more objective. Term?
Oh and as for the dividing You make, that's happening not only on forums, but generally in all AI philosophy.
Note also, we don't even have any phisical ways to explain free will so how can we discuss AI theories at all? I mean except the brain simulation, it could be possibly made without phisical knowledge... however...

[peskanov]

Hi dzi,
This woul not be a third group. Both groups ignore what the mind is, but materialist assumes is an physical activity of the brain. Materialism is a metaphysical stance. You support it or not.
BTW, maybe you are not aware, but we are ignorant about everything, not just the mind. For example, do you really know what an atom is? How do you know an atom does not hide lots of attributes to us? And what's energy?
We ignore a lot about the mind; but we also know a lot, just by living it: think about it...

Oh and as for the dividing You make, that's happening not only on forums, but generally in all AI philosophy.

Of course, that's the reason I said "in Spain[...]", because I was talking about eveybody here (in Spain).

Note also, we don't even have any phisical ways to explain free will so how can we discuss AI theories at all? I mean except the brain simulation, it could be possibly made without phisical knowledge... however...

I am no sure what do you mean about physical ways of explaining free will. Imo, "free will" is possibly one of the weakest philosophical discussions remaining. What's special about the fact that a person or animal takes a decission?
Do you think the motivations of any human decission is a fundamental mistery of the universe?
If you don't know why your computer made an action (which happens all time), do you call a physicist?
If a physicist shows you all decissions taken by a computer are strictly deterministic, does it change the fact that you don't always know what a computer is going to do next?

I have always been unable to see the mystery in free will. When I take a decission, I usually can remenber most of the motivations which took part in it. And when I do some light-headed action, like a scratching my leg, I simply guess some mechanism which scapes my awareness worked there....

[Terminus]

So what You're trying to say is that there's no such thing as choice?

Man, You should talk with Chuck C Kaiser, he resides on 'There are no answers. There are only choices" topic. Have fun, and good luck. You're gonna need it.

[peskanov]

errr...no, I am mostly a materialist.
Of course there are choices.
A computer makes choices, and nobody sees any mistery in it. And as far as I know a brain is a computer also.

(Btw, I already crossed a pair of posts with our resident solispsyst. He is a genuine one, he preferes to discuss with himself )

[dzi]

I'm not ignorrant to humans brain or thinking but ignorant to making discussions about it. Why? Because it's like discussing if there is life on an undiscovered planet. We don't know ANYTHING about our thinking or intelligence. We don't even have a deffinition of inteligence or a way to prove that something has conscience. So what are we talking about?

As for "the free will mistery". The problem is, that our present phisics says, that a state of any group of molecues (atoms, quarks, whatever - I'm not too god at those names) implicts it's state after some time (for example after 0.001s). According to this, if our brain is made of same molecues as everything, how is it possible that we can choose how to behave, meaning, how is it possible that few ways of thinking are availible. Or maybe it isn't possible and we don't choose and everything is already "prepared" after the Big Bang? I don't know and I won't know for some time. Nobody knows and that's one of our problems according to thinking and to AI.

[Deckert]

Dzi,

We lead this disscussion, 'coz we don't know. A gap in our knowledge requires us to ask questions, and give answers. Since the ancient world, the questions remained the same. And so far, no answers.

At the end you touched the question of fate. That's great, 'coz this is even deeper question than AI and ET together, isn't it?  

[Deckert]

Peskanov,

So we've got Materialists, Non-Materialists, and who are the guys in between. This topic is starting to turn into the one looking remarkably just like the one in polish section about Atheism. Hmmm...

[dzi]

We lead this disscussion, 'coz we don't know. A gap in our knowledge requires us to ask questions, and give answers. Since the ancient world, the questions remained the same. And so far, no answers.

My point is that IMO we are not possible now to get this knowledge, that's why discussing it has no sense.

[Deckert]

So why, you still talk about it, ha?  

[peskanov]

dzi,

I'm not ignorrant to humans brain or thinking but ignorant to making discussions about it. Why? Because it's like discussing if there is life on an undiscovered planet. We don't know ANYTHING about our thinking or intelligence. We don't even have a deffinition of inteligence or a way to prove that something has conscience. So what are we talking about?

You have plenty of knowldege about your mind, and plenty of definitions about intelligence.
I don't understand you negatives.
Do you want a list of things you already know about your mind?
A different question is if we have enough information about it to have fruitful discussion.
 

As for "the free will mistery". The problem is, that our present phisics says, that a state of any group of molecues (atoms, quarks, whatever - I'm not too god at those names) implicts it's state after some time (for example after 0.001s). According to this, if our brain is made of same molecues as everything, how is it possible that we can choose how to behave, meaning, how is it possible that few ways of thinking are availible. Or maybe it isn't possible and we don't choose and everything is already "prepared" after the Big Bang? I don't know and I won't know for some time. Nobody knows and that's one of our problems according to thinking and to AI.

I have participated in several discussions about free will, and all of them finish with the causality argument, which is the one you are suggesting.
If our world is deterministic or causal, as it seems, our will is determined by physical constraints of the brain.
So what? Does this means we are not free?

Let's supose this is the case, so what does mean to be "free"? Try to answer this question in absolute terms, and you will reach a tautology or a paradox.
Being free is a question of degree. The removal of constraints means something or somebody is more free. And viceversa.

The notion of free will comes from the following perception: our capacity for taking decissions is more influenced by internal events (our mind) than external ones.
This perception, which I can accept, does not depend on how the mind works, or if it is causal or not. As far as I take the decisions, I can talk about having free will, independently of the nature of "I".

[peskanov]

So we've got Materialists, Non-Materialists, and who are the guys in between. This topic is starting to turn into the one looking remarkably just like the one in polish section about Atheism. Hmmm...

Is this a question?
Ok, so we have Polish and non-Polish .Who are the guys in between?
Ok, so we have pregnant women and non-pregnant women .Who are the women in between?

See, I could answer myself all 3 questions finding examples which fall in the border of the definitions, but that's not the point.
I established that category because I am interested in knowing the general opinion of the Polish who read Lem. I would like to know if they tend to support materialist views, or, if they are skeptical of materialism.
It is as simple as that.

[dzi]

dzi,
You have plenty of knowldege about your mind, and plenty of definitions about intelligence.
I don't understand you negatives.
Do you want a list of things you already know about your mind?
A different question is if we have enough information about it to have fruitful discussion.

OK, I want You to tell me how is it that I know that I am, that I'm talking with You about creating something like us, that I'm talking with You about how is it possible that we are talking. Tell me also, how is it, that I can "feel" what is the right answer for things I have no knowledge about. Tell me also, how is it, that I can make a painting with few squares and some people will like it and others don't.

 
I have participated in several discussions about free will, and all of them finish with the causality argument, which is the one you are suggesting.
If our world is deterministic or causal, as it seems, our will is determined by physical constraints of the brain.
So what? Does this means we are not free?

Let's supose this is the case, so what does mean to be "free"? Try to answer this question in absolute terms, and you will reach a tautology or a paradox.
Being free is a question of degree. The removal of constraints means something or somebody is more free. And viceversa.

The notion of free will comes from the following perception: our capacity for taking decissions is more influenced by internal events (our mind) than external ones.
This perception, which I can accept, does not depend on how the mind works, or if it is causal or not. As far as I take the decisions, I can talk about having free will, independently of the nature of "I".

I'm not saying You don't have a free will. I just wonder, how is it that You have it. Meaning, if I can make decisions, how is it possible, according to our phisical knowledge? (if you've explained it in Your answer I'm sorry that I didn't understand it, my English is quite bad  :-/ )