Stanisław Lem - Forum

English => Forum in English => Wątek zaczęty przez: Pirx w Kwiecień 26, 2005, 12:09:24 am

Tytuł: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Pirx w Kwiecień 26, 2005, 12:09:24 am
I'm reading Summa technologiae end I am surprised because this book is stil actual. How do you think? I want  to now. I'm fourteen end I'm not so clever like you. :)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Kwiecień 26, 2005, 03:06:43 am
Aha, got you again. So the fervid 14yr-olds attack once more :]

I haven't read Summa yet, so no help from me, but I'm surely glad you're trying. Hope you enjoy.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Kwiecień 27, 2005, 07:54:57 pm
Cytuj
I'm fourteen end I'm not so clever like you. :)


Noone knows  ;D, maybe you are the most clever one we ever looked.

Yeah, you're right, the SUMMA is still actual.
That's because Lem looked so far in Future of Technology, or better is able to do so.
A real Futurologist, let's hope other visions he had will be real soon (GOLEM IV  :) )
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 12, 2005, 10:42:40 am
Wow.... I've found a thread posted by Pirx himself? Now, that's a discovery! How it happened that I haven't noticed that thread before? Guess I gotta review english forum more often...

Well Pirx, in answer to your query, I haven't read Summa yet, but it's on my list. However, I read Megabit Bomb (I hope that's a right english title :-)) and I think it's a continuation of many ideas Mr. Lem introduced in Summa. So if you wanna chat about it, just go ahead.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 12, 2005, 01:36:22 pm
Bomba megabitowa was not translated into english at all, Deck.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 12, 2005, 01:58:00 pm
Well, I didn't know...  :-[
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 17, 2005, 01:49:20 am
Cytuj
let's hope other visions he had will be real soon (GOLEM IV  :) )


Are you really that eagerly lookin' forward to talking to Golem IVX or his lookalikes? Would it be that much pleasure to answer Golem's questions? Like 'why did you made me', be that the example...


Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 17, 2005, 10:20:21 am
Cytuj
A real Futurologist, let's hope other visions he had will be real soon (GOLEM IV  :) )


I feel much optimism in this sentence. I know that Mr. Lem is not that satisfied with what he had forseen in his books. We've been a lot talking about it on polish forum. Every discovery we make has a positive and negative impact. It's our choice how we're gonna use the latest discoveries. Remember, that Golem's precursors were designed for one and only purpose - perfect extermination of the enemy.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Maj 17, 2005, 09:01:10 pm
Cytuj

Are you really that eagerly lookin' forward to talking to Golem IVX or his lookalikes? Would it be that much pleasure to answer Golem's questions? Like 'why did you made me', be that the example...




Answering this question is as interesting as asking him questions.
Even if we don't know the answers.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Maj 17, 2005, 09:03:19 pm
Cytuj
It's our choice how we're gonna use the latest discoveries. Remember, that Golem's precursors were designed for one and only purpose - perfect extermination of the enemy.


He is not satisfied, and maybe because of this it will happen.

perfect extermination of the enemy - yes, for this is (Golem) has been produced, but what did happen?
I don't see the destroying potential in this look into the future, only his intellect, as million as fast as ours.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 18, 2005, 02:36:46 am
Cytuj

Answering this question is as interesting as asking him questions.
Even if we don't know the answers.


Mind this: asking questions to AI is actually asking them to ourselves. Will AI ever exist, or not, we shall be it's creators. Therefore it will bear our eternal mark - it will be our reflection, flawed in the same ways we are, brilliant no more than us...  
Talking to a mirror - that's what Lem argued so often about. When looking for another life in the Universe, humanity seeks mirrors - the only otherness people can imagine.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 18, 2005, 10:15:32 am
Cytuj

He is not satisfied, and maybe because of this it will happen.

perfect extermination of the enemy - yes, for this is (Golem) has been produced, but what did happen?
I don't see the destroying potential in this look into the future, only his intellect, as million as fast as ours.


Sogo, it looks like you're the great fan of AI. I may be wrong, but this is what goes straight from your sentences quoted above.
OK, Golems predecessors were indeed produced for one purpose - to eliminate the enemy. It was the time of the Cold War. They were, if I remember well, fully featured AI machines. But they had some internal blockades limitating their free will. Golem XIV was the first one with erased blockades, so he (or it) was able to develope his own self-consciousness, emotions, feelings and so on...
He became maybe the greates philosopher we ever had. Finally it turned out that his thoughts were too difficult for us, more over it was not that easy for Golem himself to share his thoughts with us. He found our human language too limited for knowledge sharing process.
OK, now I think that Lem's look-aheads are not related to his emotions, as you stated it in the first sentence of your answer. Lem is in some part a scientist, philosopher and who knows what else... ;) And this is why his visions of future comes true. His fiction is based on the very science.

As I mentioned before, I haven't read Summa yet, but I read Megabit Bomb (that's my translation of the book's title (in polish - Bomba Megabitowa), that was not yet translated into english - Terminus - thanks for your remind) and I figured out that Mr. Lem's attitude to the latest techno-scientific discoveries is negative.

So if you believe you don't see a destroying potential in AI it's because we still don't know how to build it. At the moment it's just beyond of our reach. Experiments are in progress but there are no results so far.

CU,
Deckard
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 18, 2005, 10:33:44 am
Cytuj

Talking to a mirror - that's what Lem argued so often about. When looking for another life in the Universe, humanity seeks mirrors - the only otherness people can imagine.


That's a nice opinion. Yes, we are looking for mirrors. We do a lot to seek out some extraterrestial life forms in outer space, while it might be possible that we find one quite close. This is such a great humankind's dream to discover some other intelligence, that this whole AI may be, in my opinion, some kind of a substitute of this ET that can be never discovered.

In the beginning of AI existence (I think about something similar to Golem) we will be talking to mirrors, but later (it will be dependant on the level of AI), it might be quite difficult to talk to this mirror, coz' mirror will try to seek the mirror of it self. Jus as Golem was doing... he wanted so much to get in touch with Honest Annie...
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 20, 2005, 12:34:48 am
Honnest Annie, as far as I remember, was not as advanced as Golem 14 was, but still better than us :) No wonder. Besides, you know... she was a lady...
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Maj 20, 2005, 09:53:35 am
She was more advanced than GOLEM, she was at the level he decided to enter at the end of the book before him.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 20, 2005, 11:13:30 am
OK, but I wanted to point people's attantion to Golem's desire to contact with his peer. He was able to communicate with us, but his dream was to get in touch with someone similar to him.  I remember that scientists finally gave him such an opportunity. That contact, however, was pretty short and neighter scientists nor engineers detected anything unusual.
But this contact was sufficient for Golem to think about stepping into a new level of existance. It might have been originated by this short communication with Honest Annie.

Dzi, I must confess, that I don't remember anything about Honest Annie being more advanced than Golem. I can agree, that she managed to develop her own, while she was locked away (actually, she had plenty of time to think about many things :-))
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Maj 20, 2005, 11:54:15 am
Cytuj
OK, but I wanted to point people's attantion to Golem's desire to contact with his peer. He was able to communicate with us, but his dream was to get in touch with someone similar to him.  I remember that scientists finally gave him such an opportunity. That contact, however, was pretty short and neighter scientists nor engineers detected anything unusual.
But this contact was sufficient for Golem to think about stepping into a new level of existance. It might have been originated by this short communication with Honest Annie.
As far as I remember scientists didn't know anything about their contacts until he said them that. And at one day he just "stopped to respond", and as we know it was the enering to the next level, we don't know if he made it or not.

Cytuj
Dzi, I must confess, that I don't remember anything about Honest Annie being more advanced than Golem. I can agree, that she managed to develop her own, while she was locked away (actually, she had plenty of time to think about many things :-))
So she was ;)
As for the "technical advancement" they were same as far as I remember...

BTW, check out the thread name people ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 20, 2005, 11:56:54 am
OK, I don't want to argue if I'm not sure I'm right. Gotta read Golem once again.

Cytuj
BTW, check out the thread name people  


You think that Golem is not related with the topic???????
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 20, 2005, 01:48:14 pm
dzi is a summa-purist.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 20, 2005, 01:53:12 pm
Oh, poor dzi...  :D
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 21, 2005, 12:19:31 am
As everybody in the Polish section knows, he's not alone ::)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 22, 2005, 11:42:27 am
Yeah, but it's still a minority... ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: nty_qrld w Maj 22, 2005, 01:19:33 pm
Haha all you're here. To bad I don't know english so good to conversation here  :-/

grtngs
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 23, 2005, 02:27:58 am
Well to be honest, I feel so opressed by the Summa-niacs in our beloved Polish section, that I come here to seek a refuge ::)

I'm wondering if I should ever read this Summa at all, since, as it was pointed out by some of Summa-niacs, it summarizes whole Lem's creativity... I much prefer being stupid-and-happy ::)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 23, 2005, 10:50:47 am
Cytuj
Well to be honest, I feel so opressed by the Summa-niacs in our beloved Polish section, that I come here to seek a refuge ::)  


And so do I, so do I... :-)

Cytuj
I'm wondering if I should ever read this Summa at all, since, as it was pointed out by some of Summa-niacs, it summarizes whole Lem's creativity... I much prefer being stupid-and-happy  


Yeah, I know watchya mean. Of course they are wrong, as well as the opposition is wrong 'coz the truth usually lies in between.

Nevertheless I'm gonna read this Summa...

CU
Deck
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Maj 25, 2005, 06:36:01 pm
Cytuj

Sogo, it looks like you're the great fan of AI. I may be wrong, but this is what goes straight from your sentences quoted above.


Well, building something which can think a thousand times better than you, got something.

Cytat: Deckard
OK, Golems predecessors were indeed produced for one purpose - to eliminate the enemy.[/quote


I had seen a movie with a bomb, having counsciouness.
All the time, he swallowed in his depressions, of his life sense. Sometimes it said "Maybe, I explode now and all is over". The Pilots on the Spaceship didn't wan't it and after they failed to disarm her, they tried to cure her.
"Its my sense to explode, so why shouldn't I do it?"
Even a horrible killing machine can tell somehing true and right. I know, Golem and his formally ones are just build to kill all the human beeings.
But thats no problem or an argue for me, because we still life. Maybe we die all one day, but then it was not sensefull to say all "tomorrow is the end of the world".
Golem maybe saw the "Götterdämmerung" but he didn't made something to get her nearer.

You had written, no one depends on his feelings, if he write.
Thats wrong.
Even Lem depends on them, as minimally as possible, maybe, but he do.
Positive Aspects of Negative Thinking.
His cynism had maybe brought him to this, not to make the same mistake as all other SF-Writers and so see and to talk with the miracle.
You're right there is one.

Even Golem has feelings, is frustrated about us and our stupidness.
Hitting flies stucking my nerve is just an example.
Be disturbed is a feeling.

To Summa:
Its more neutrally than all other.
Really, negative aspects of the future, at all there is one.
And if not, the universe and golem seemed not to care.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 25, 2005, 09:16:22 pm
Cytuj

Well, building something which can think a thousand times better than you, got something.I had seen a movie with a bomb, having counsciouness.
All the time, he swallowed in his depressions, of his life sense. Sometimes it said "Maybe, I explode now and all is over". The Pilots on the Spaceship didn't wan't it and after they failed to disarm her, they tried to cure her.
"Its my sense to explode, so why shouldn't I do it?"
Even a horrible killing machine can tell somehing true and right. I know, Golem and his formally ones are just build to kill all the human beeings.


It's a stupid idea to have a thinking bomb on board. We can have thinking computers, but not weapons themselves. You wouldn't like to be a corporal giving orders to such a weapon, coz' weapon would say: "Hey, I'm not gonna hit the target, 'coz I have a bad day today". There's no sense in it, just think about it.
On the other hand, Golem was not a weapon. He was, in fact, in charge of all available kind of weapons that US Army possesed. He was aware of his own existance, so he was steering all kind of weapons to not let the enemy to destroy HIM. I don't think that Golem, was thinking about us, I mean the people he was to protect. All living entities do all their best to survive, and so does Golem. So he knew that finally he was protecting also himsef, not only people..., or maybe, above all else, he was pretecting himself... well I feel I'm goin' too deep into this...

Cytuj
But thats no problem or an argue for me, because we still life. Maybe we die all one day, but then it was not sensefull to say all "tomorrow is the end of the world".
Golem maybe saw the "Götterdämmerung" but he didn't made something to get her nearer.


What is "Götterdämmerung" ?

Cytuj
You had written, no one depends on his feelings, if he write.
Thats wrong.
Even Lem depends on them, as minimally as possible, maybe, but he do.
Positive Aspects of Negative Thinking.
His cynism had maybe brought him to this, not to make the same mistake as all other SF-Writers and so see and to talk with the miracle.
You're right there is one.

I'd don't get it... could you please explain it in details?


Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 27, 2005, 12:58:00 am
Primo, I sincerely disagree with SoGo's statement, that machines would be able to think better than us. I agree with Lem, who stated (yet in his early Astronauts in 1951) that they will think faster. And they will have more data in disposition (because of no problems with forgetting, large hard drives, rom's, ram's, stuff...). So, to conclude - maybe I'd agree that they would be thinking more efficiently, but I don't think this means better.

Secundo, I don't agree with the statement, that AI would like to survive above all cost! Gentelmen! Why? Consider, please, that AI will be programmed to have the priorities chosen by the programmers ! By its creators ! (By us.) Therefore, a Golem-like machine can be prepared in such way, that it will only care about the constructors (humans), and not about itself. It's really not difficult to attain by clever programming. I think that every concious being, I mean every living being, has a survival instinct, but those are not artificial beings. They were prepared by the all-continuing evolution, the pattern that we don't have to genuinely follow ! Why should we? I mean, I am deeply distrustful towards AI (as Deckard knows, because we discussed it in person once), but since we're talking about it, I have to say, that AI doesn't have to be similar to Real Intelligence in any way...  So, there's no need for a programmer to create AI the way our intelligence is shaped. No need for AI to base on the same  pillars of instinct!  
And therefore, in my opinion, it's not  impossilble that Golem-like machine  would not care about his own existence, but only about ,,common good'.

And Tertio, for the thinking bombs... that's... well  didn't Americans use the radar-controlled bombs in Iraq? That's a step towards it...  

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Maj 27, 2005, 02:06:34 am
Ekhem, as far as I'm concerned Lem assumes that there will be a possibility of making mahines that think better than us, meaning *better* (more potentially).
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 27, 2005, 11:50:33 am
Terminus!

I agree with most of the things you wrote. I've just stated my point of view, which doesn't neccessarily have to be true.
I think you go towards specific rights created once by Asimov. These rights are, of course, simple and proper, but they are typical limitations.That's why I'd like to state here my deep fear on evolution of AI. Yes evolution! First AIs will be limited to specific reactions, emotions and so on, but future generations will, just as children, know more.We, as inteligent creatures break barriers! Of course, we have some examples of human entities who like living in such limited environment, but I believe we consider completely different kind of intelligence - thinking intelligence  ;D  ;D ;D

Anyway... getting back to the subject, I agree that AI will think faster and more efficiently. That's clear! But I simply can't say that it won't think "better". AI will introduce a brand new quality in our lives. Hey, and I didn't say that AI will try to survive at all costs! I believe this kind of reaction cannot be excluded, and that's all.

Cytuj
So, there's no need for a programmer to create AI the way our intelligence is shaped. No need for AI to base on the same  pillars of instinct!    


OK. AI, as I've already written before, will be totally different to ours. It will be based on abstractions. It will live in its own world of abstraction, the new virtual reality. What will it think about its own future? What will it think about switching the power off?
On one hand we will have AIs that will help us in our day-to-day problems. They will save our lives in car accidents, they will perfeclty control airplane traffic and so on. But these, are just very, very simple AIs, actually such decision algorythms are present even today. People like calling it intelligent, while there is not even a spark of intellect in them.
On the other hand we will have pretty well secured scientific institutions where people will  let the AIs to collapse their own built-in limitations. Just to check what's gonna happen. How's the artificial intellect gonna reshape itself. This is quite a mistery, maybe we'll learn something from it. Who knows?
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Socrates w Maj 28, 2005, 07:57:52 pm
Considering the fact that it is quite impossible currently to artifically expand human brains to have them acquire more information faster, but it is not impossible to do that with computers (it's simply a matter of costs), then once the barrier of AI is breached, I don;t see why computers wouldn't be able to think "better" than humans...But of course, the AI frontier is what all of this is about, as how does one make computers self-aware (And that is another topic somewhere in the archives)
Cheers, Socrates
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Maj 28, 2005, 09:17:55 pm
Terminus,
Cytuj
Primo, I sincerely disagree with SoGo's statement, that machines would be able to think better than us. I agree with Lem, who stated (yet in his early Astronauts in 1951) that they will think faster. And they will have more data in disposition (because of no problems with forgetting, large hard drives, rom's, ram's, stuff...). So, to conclude - maybe I'd agree that they would be thinking more efficiently, but I don't think this means better.

Lem not only believes an AI could think faster, but also be more intelligent. Just check the text about Golem working on the metalanguages. And I don't think Lem has conserved exactly the same opinions about AI since the 50's; I can see a clear evolution in his ideas about super-computers along the years, being "Imaginary magnitude" his most elaborated opinion on the matter (despite the comical tone).
Also, in the Golem tale, the machine is capable to design physical extension of it's brain in order to work out problems which are out of it's reach. Golem clearly trascends human intelect in Lem's tale.

I have a hard time understanding your position, Terminus, You think an AI can be faster and more efficient, but no smarter. A few questions:
What qualities of the mind do you think makes a person be smarter than other? Or maybe you think that, at least potentially, everybody can reach the same intelectual heights?
Do you think the physical properties of the brain do not limit the mind in any way?
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 29, 2005, 03:08:38 pm
Yes, I believe that everyone can ,,reach the same intellectual heights".

As for Lem's view of the matter, I am well aware of the evolution of his point of view on AI. He's not a blind man, and he sees and understands the evolution of computers. I'm not concerned about his point of view, though. I just used the example of his old book in order to emphasise the fact that the basic difference between us and machines is that they have bigger data processing capabilities. And that's all.

As for the those capabilities: I wrote quite a few times before, that I don't believe that fast data processing, ability to store it nor things like hyperthreading define intelligence.

So, peskanov, I will be able to tell if machines think 'better' than me or You, just after they start thinking at all, because nowadays they just don't. Everybody knows that the calculative efectiveness has nothing to do with AI, at least not much. There are, of course, scientists that believe that it has, but I'm not able to agree.

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Maj 29, 2005, 09:08:19 pm
Cytuj
As for Lem's view of the matter, I am well aware of the evolution of his point of view on AI. He's not a blind man, and he sees and understands the evolution of computers. I'm not concerned about his point of view, though. I just used the example of his old book in order to emphasise the fact that the basic difference between us and machines is that they have bigger data processing capabilities. And that's all.

You are quite wrong here. A common human brain has a huge  capacity for data processing (estimated by some neuroscientist in 100 teraflops), the problem is that maybe you are confusing our ability to perform calculus with data processing.
Let's take a simple example: visual recognition. Example: a person takes a look at his room and identify a chair.
This simple action, when performed by a current computer (it can be done), requires a huge amount of computations, requiring some of the best computers available to perform it in real time. And that's the case for a computer which knows a very small set of objects!
However, a human do it usually without effort, and he only uses part of his brain to perform the task.

As for Lem's view, I have not much doubts about his opinion. Both Golem XIV and DEUS (from Fiasco) are more intelligent than humans (although DEUS in a lesser degree) and capable of understanding more complex problems and make better hypothesis.
In Cyberiad and Tichy tales he always jokes about the nature of the brains. He has no prejudices about what kind of matter can constitute a thinking brain.
In "An imaginary magnitude" he jokes with his "Cogito" paradox, about the thinking machines which doubt about the capability of thinking attributed to humans!
Lem always downplays (in his most serious books) supossed transcendental attributes of mind, like telepathy or life after death.

I can search dozens of examples for you. To be fair, Lem is probably the most materialism oriented author I have read. He doesn't see the human mind as a special category in the world.
Cytuj
As for the those capabilities: I wrote quite a few times before, that I don't believe that fast data processing, ability to store it nor things like hyperthreading define intelligence.

Well, as Pascal said: "Memory is necessary for all the operations of reason".
Aside from that, you should learn more about neuroscience and the perceptron model. Modern computers are not made to reach intelligence, nor to work like a human brain. When thinkers start a discussion about "Could a computer think?", they don't refer to a modern computer, but a theorical one.
The real question, better formulated, would be: Can intelligence be correctly represented with a formal system?, and, "Can intelligence be deterministic?"
The perceptron model is the most succesful attempt to formalise the operations of a real neuron; the logical brick that would allow to build an artificial brain.
Cytuj
So, peskanov, I will be able to tell if machines think 'better' than me or You, just after they start thinking at all, because nowadays they just don't.

There is one famous sentence about that, said by Minsky. Minsky is one of the greatest minds in the XX century, and one of the fathers of AI. He said: "Of course machines can think, I am a machine and I think". I am sure Lem would agree :)
Cytuj
Yes, I believe that everyone can ,,reach the same intellectual heights".

Could you expand on this? In your opinion, can all the persons considered "slightly retarded" have a mind like Paul Dirac's one, for example?
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 30, 2005, 02:43:36 am
Cytuj
You are quite wrong here. A common human brain has a huge  capacity for data processing (estimated by some neuroscientist in 100 teraflops), the problem is that maybe you are confusing our ability to perform calculus with data processing.
Let's take a simple example: visual recognition. Example: a person takes a look at his room and identify a chair.
This simple action, when performed by a current computer (it can be done), requires a huge amount of computations, requiring some of the best computers available to perform it in real time. And that's the case for a computer which knows a very small set of objects!
However, a human do it usually without effort, and he only uses part of his brain to perform the task.


Ok, I meant ability to do calculations. I am a mathematician and am fully aware of the fact, that my computer calculates faster than me, that's all I wanted to say. And if you mean recognition by neural networks, than I am not sure if I can compare it with human thinking.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 30, 2005, 02:49:21 am
Cytuj
As for Lem's view, I have not much doubts about his opinion. Both Golem XIV and DEUS (from Fiasco) are more intelligent than humans (although DEUS in a lesser degree) and capable of understanding more complex problems and make better hypothesis.
In Cyberiad and Tichy tales he always jokes about the nature of the brains. He has no prejudices about what kind of matter can constitute a thinking brain.
In "An imaginary magnitude" he jokes with his "Cogito" paradox, about the thinking machines which doubt about the capability of thinking attributed to humans!
Lem always downplays (in his most serious books) supossed transcendental attributes of mind, like telepathy or life after death.

I can search dozens of examples for you. To be fair, Lem is probably the most materialism oriented author I have read. He doesn't see the human mind as a special category in the world.


As I said before, I am not concerned about Lem's POV on this, I only gave the example from Astronauts. He stated therein, that a calculational machine was able to calculate faster than human, and that's all.
You don't need to give me any examples then.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 30, 2005, 03:03:49 am
Cytuj
Well, as Pascal said: "Memory is necessary for all the operations of reason".

Still, having large amount of memory and large calculational capabilities isn't equivalent to being intelligent.
Cytuj
Aside from that, you should learn more about neuroscience and the perceptron model.

I happily would, I just hope it doesn't come down to neural networks. I was greatly dissapointed when shown what they are....

Cytuj
Modern computers are not made to reach intelligence, nor to work like a human brain.

Tadaaa...

Cytuj

The real question, better formulated, would be: Can intelligence be correctly represented with a formal system?, and, "Can intelligence be deterministic?"

The perceptron model is the most succesful attempt to formalise the operations of a real neuron; the logical brick that would allow to build an artificial brain.


You say that someone tries to model the working neuron? Would You be so kind and tell me where I can learn some substantial things about it?  I wonder how does it look from mathematician's point of view...

I think I just about understood Your position... it seems that instead of quarelling You, I should try to learn something from You, hihi, why not  ::)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 30, 2005, 03:20:39 am
Cytuj
Could you expand on this? In your opinion, can all the persons considered "slightly retarded" have a mind like Paul Dirac's one, for example?


No, I am aware of the fact, that mentally handicaped persons are not able to attain certain levels. Even looking from Lem's materialistic point of view, it comes down to a fact that some parts of their brains are not working efficiently or something like that.

But I still think that if someone's brain is biologically normal, than he is capable of everything, if he/she tries. That's all I wanted to state: I don't claim, that I could be like Dirac only because I'd like to, but I claim that  it is technically possible.

I've read Achuthan's sentence about Dirac (about his works):
Each of the pieces not only is in praise of an exceptionally gifted intellect but also places on record how deeply and abidingly the human mind can delve into the realms of mathematical insight and modelling, keeping intact the spirit of beauty and clarity of a creative genius.


and am aware, that comparing 'regular men' to Dirac is sort of provocative:)  But so what. Let everybody have the chance.


Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Maj 30, 2005, 11:27:40 am
Cytuj
Ok, I meant ability to do calculations. I am a mathematician and am fully aware of the fact, that my computer calculates faster than me, that's all I wanted to say. And if you mean recognition by neural networks, than I am not sure if I can compare it with human thinking.  

I meant than "hability to perform calculation" is embedded in both the human brain and modern digital computers, no matter what the global activity is: moving a hand or solving a square root on the blackboard, both are extremely high level operations. However, It's true that you can use the calculation capabilities of a computer with total flexibility while neural networks are mostly "hardwired" to carry on specific operations (like recognition, yes).
And the total computing power of a brain, in terms of neural computing power, is estimated to be much greater than most supercomputers today.
Cytuj
As I said before, I am not concerned about Lem's POV on this, I only gave the example from Astronauts. He stated therein, that a calculational machine was able to calculate faster than human, and that's all.  
You don't need to give me any examples then.

Ok; I think I was confusing your opinions with the ones of other member of this board, sorry :D
Cytuj
Still, having large amount of memory and large calculational capabilities isn't equivalent to being intelligent.

Yes of course, but you still have to find which component of the human brain is lacking on a computer. At the moment we have a good amount of evidence about the brain being a computer made of meat.
Cytuj
I happily would, I just hope it doesn't come down to neural networks. I was greatly dissapointed when shown what they are....

Yes, neural networks. Everything in neural networks is impressive, from it's hability to learn ,to it's incredible power to solve fuzzy problems with a few neurons only.
What did you found dissapointing?
Cytuj
You say that someone tries to model the working neuron? Would You be so kind and tell me where I can learn some substantial things about it?  I wonder how does it look from mathematician's point of view...

You say you know neural networks, therefore you know the perceptron details and the mathematical formulation.
So shoot out, what's your problem with this area of scientific research? (I cross my fingers, I hope we don't have to discuss the Penrose-Hameroff lunacy).
Cytuj
I think I just about understood Your position... it seems that instead of quarelling You, I should try to learn something from You, hihi, why not  

There is no need to be sarcastic. Your arguments against AI were simplistic, so I assumed you were not well informed about the AI world.
But you are informed; ok, I beg your pardon for being condescending; elaborate more your arguments.
Cytuj
No, I am aware of the fact, that mentally handicaped persons are not able to attain certain levels. Even looking from Lem's materialistic point of view, it comes down to a fact that some parts of their brains are not working efficiently or something like that.

Not at all, from the point of view of materialism there is not a "ideal" brain which serves as reference to consider others as handicapped or not. From materialism POV, there exist strictly different brains, with differente properties and capabilities. There would be an statistical average about brain propierties, which could be used to label a brain as "normal", but that's all.
That's the reason I used the expression "slighty retarded" instead od something like "down syndrome victim".
It seems you see the human brain as an absolute value, a tool with universal habilities avalaible to all humans. A very optimistic view, to be fair.
Cytuj
and am aware, that comparing 'regular men' to Dirac is sort of provocative  But so what. Let everybody have the chance.

Yes, it is very provocative. It clashes with reality very strongly, I don't think you can support this opinion with evidence. However finding evidence in the opposite side is very easy.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Maj 30, 2005, 12:43:56 pm
Ok, there was a very interesting discussion, so here is my point.
I don't think capacity for operations is intelligence.
But after a very special point, these capacitys are able to copy human-acting in all points of thinking, speaking and so on very good.
A nearly perfect copy is as good as the original, if you can't see a difference between both.

The Future:
Maybe technology kill us all.
The humankind may be erased by an meteor, by war or by an enviromental collaps.
But the evolution still lives on.
And thats it, there will be life every time, just sometimes in some strange forms.

Theres a novel from, which telled about seed, that only spread by the cosmic catastrophe of an exploding planet.

Thats life.
Life goes on.
Maybe independent from us.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 31, 2005, 03:36:26 am
Cytuj
I meant than "hability to perform calculation" is embedded in both the human brain and modern digital computers, no matter what the global activity is: moving a hand or solving a square root on the blackboard, both are extremely high level operations. However, It's true that you can use the calculation capabilities of a computer with total flexibility while neural networks are mostly "hardwired" to carry on specific operations (like recognition, yes).
And the total computing power of a brain, in terms of neural computing power, is estimated to be much greater than most supercomputers today.



Yes, I've read something about this recently... what was it... oh yeah... the article in ''Scientific American'' about Hans Moravec, the AI hothead. He compared the computational capabilities of computers with those of certain animals (like Bacteria, Mouse), and predicted that the 'human level' (of performance & speed) will be achieved at about 2040...  Nevertheless, he still meant   performance only.  

Cytuj
Yes of course, but you still have to find which component of the human brain is lacking on a computer. At the moment we have a good amount of evidence about the brain being a computer made of meat.

I won't object to that (regardless of how it sounds) but I does this mean, that after copying this 'meat' in silicon You get a properly working copy?
Cytuj
Yes, neural networks. [...]
What did you found dissapointing?

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...
Cytuj
You say you know neural networks, therefore you know the perceptron details and the mathematical formulation.
So shoot out, what's your problem with this area of scientific research? (I cross my fingers, I hope we don't have to discuss the Penrose-Hameroff lunacy).

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

Cytuj
There is no need to be sarcastic. Your arguments against AI were simplistic, so I assumed you were not well informed about the AI world.

I was not sarcastic at all. I really think I should read more about the efforts of AI-programmers, and I maybe I will. I don't think I am well infomed about the 'AI World', one can hold titles in mathematics and not be informed, I guess I'm the case. So no irony there. As I said before, the mathematics of Neural Networks seemed trivial for me, maybe I judged too hastily...

Cytuj
Not at all, from the point of view of materialism there is not a "ideal" brain which serves as reference to consider others as handicapped or not. From materialism POV, there exist strictly different brains, with differente properties and capabilities. There would be an statistical average about brain propierties, which could be used to label a brain as "normal", but that's all.

Well of course, I didn't mean anything else. That's all the meaning of the world "normal" You can really find anywhere (outside mathematics, where it means hundred different things, as You probably know).

This reminds me my former teacher's saing: There are no normal people, just the ones that haven't been yet tested.

It's of course simple, but still a bit funny.
Cytuj

It seems you see the human brain as an absolute value, a tool with universal habilities avalaible to all humans. A very optimistic view, to be fair.

Sure.
Cytuj
Yes, it is very provocative. It clashes with reality very strongly, I don't think you can support this opinion with evidence. However finding evidence in the opposite side is very easy.

Haha, too easy, unfortunately. Let's just say this is the expression of my hopes about what it means to own a brain. Don't treat it as a scientific theorem or even a hypothesis. It's just my belief.
I am well aware of the materialist point of view of this matter: that the 'geniuses' have some specific parts/regions of brain more active that "normal" ones, and so on...  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.
So it's always good to hope that everyone (statistical majority) is "able & capable"... Even if that hope is somewhat insane.  

Back to NN:

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.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Maj 31, 2005, 09:24:16 am
Cytuj
I just think that NNs cannot solve any problem that cannot be solved by, call them, 'classical' alghoritms. No revolution there.
That's a fact, but, they are used to *find* algoritms that are unknown. So there is a basic difference between a "classical" way of making algoritms where you use your brain to make it and the "NN way" where you use a NN.
BTW it's same for genetic algoritms, heurystics and generally all AI algoritms.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Maj 31, 2005, 01:24:58 pm
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. They surely act funny, and (sometimes) give good solvings of problems, but are they intelligent... Of course they're based on imitating evolution (mutations, crossbreeding, so on) which is very interesting, but still...
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Maj 31, 2005, 01:38:58 pm
Cytuj
...they are based on trying, trying, trying, and trying... endlessly, unless the certain criterion is fulfilled or closely fulfilled. They surely act funny, and (sometimes) give good solvings of problems, but are they intelligent...


Well, this reminds me of "learning from mistakes" - it's a sort of human bahaviour, however for genetic algorythm it's not a self-learned reaction, but already built-in one.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Maj 31, 2005, 08:16:28 pm
Cytuj
Yes, I've read something about this recently... what was it... oh yeah... the article in ''Scientific American'' about Hans Moravec, the AI hothead. He compared the computational capabilities of computers with those of certain animals (like Bacteria, Mouse), and predicted that the 'human level' (of performance & speed) will be achieved at about 2040...  Nevertheless, he still meant   performance only.

That's right, the numbers I mentioned (100 Teraflops for the simulation of a full human brain) are the same he writes in his homepage:

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/robot.papers/2000/Cerebrum.html

BTW, the year 2040 is a prevision about common computers reaching 100 Teraflops. But today, a supercomputer can reach that speed. It's question of price.

However Moravec is more of an expert in robots than he is in neuroscience...He is interested in any technology which can make his robots more intelligent today, instead of working exclusively in the most promising one.
I say that because when we talk about the questions "could a computer think, be intelligent or be conscious?", I discard all the fields of the AI sciences (like expert systems, bayesian filters or heuristics) to talk exclusively about neuroscience and neural networks. This is the field closest to finding and answer for our question!
Cytuj
I won't object to that (regardless of how it sounds) but I does this mean, that after copying this 'meat' in silicon You get a properly working copy?

We already have an attempt to simulate a part of the brain, the hippocampus prosthesis:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3488

(it's fun to learn that Lem already wrote about this kind of prosthesis a lot of years ago, on his tale "Does Mr. Smith exist?").
There is also a company which allegedly tries to simulate a human cortex:
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Stanford/MarcosGuillen-CCortex.html
http://www.ad.com/
http://www.ravllc.com/robotic-blog/2004/07/artificial-development-news.htm

...but imho it seems a scam or a lunacy, not serius neuroscience. I don't think we have enough information about the brain to try something like this (yet).

This is a fast growing field of research, so everybody can start preparing their bets. Myself, I find dificult to believe that a brain (human or animal) has any kind of function aside from processing discrete information. Therefore, I think whatever a mind is, it should be computable.

Another link, more serious, about neuroscience and simulation:
http://www.rni.org/
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Maj 31, 2005, 08:23:36 pm
Cytuj
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!
Cytuj
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.

Cytuj
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.
Cytuj
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.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Maj 31, 2005, 10:00:44 pm
Cytuj
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 ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 12:10:51 am
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.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 09:31:24 am
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...
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 11:14:04 am
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...
Cytuj
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).
Cytuj
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....
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 12:40:35 pm
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.

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 12:46:34 pm
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 :D )
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 01:46:46 pm
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.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 02:00:54 pm
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?  ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 02:13:56 pm
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...

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 04:16:09 pm
Cytuj
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.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 04:31:37 pm
So why, you still talk about it, ha?  :D
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 04:53:49 pm
dzi,
Cytuj
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.
 
Cytuj
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".
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 04:59:16 pm
Cytuj
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. :)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 06:55:13 pm
Cytuj
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.
Cytuj
 
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  :-/ )
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 01:56:20 am
Cytuj
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.

Please note that you are the one negating everything, including what is evident.
You have said, several times, that we know NOTHING about the human mind...However I am sure you know all these things about the mind:

- You know you posses memory: the hability to recreate past moments of your life with images and sensations, old learned concepts, faces, songs...
- You know your memory is falible. You know sometimes your records don't fit the evidence. You know your memory sometimes degrades with time.
- You now learning requires repetition to achieve excellence.
- You know your speed learning certain habilities is different from other individuals.
- You know you can create spoken discurses in your mind.
- You know you have the hability to re-create images in your mind.
- You know your perception of time is not always the same.
- You know most habilities of your mind suffer when you are tired or sleepy.
- You know you lose your awareness when going to sleep, and recover it partially while dreaming.
- You know you sometimes do small actions by reasons you are not fully aware of, "inconscient" actions.
- You know certain situations usually produce associated feelings. Like fear in the darkness, etc...

...and a very large list of all the things everybody knows about their own mind.

Now tell me if you know or not all these things about your mind.
Does all your knowledge about your mind amount to NOTHING or not?

Don't you feel most of those knowledges about your mind suggest the existence of underlying causes or mechanisms?
And about about neuroscientist? Do you accept they know more about the human mind than you?
Cytuj
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.

Are you asking why different mind develop different aesthetic tastes? I don't know, but I could elaborate thousands of hypothesis.
Different persons develop different tastes pending on multitude of external and internal factors, I don't see anything special here. What's your own answer to this question? If you say "free will", this will not explain nothing, while we know there probably exist real answers.
Cytuj
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

Yes I did, but I will try again.
What I say is the "free will" is a) or b) or c)

a) In an deterministic universe, impossible but uninteresting and irrelevant to AI discussions.
b) In an deterministic universe, possible and a property of all superior animals and advanced AI programs.
c) In a partially non-deterministic universe, possible but uninteresting and irrelevant to AI discussions.

To choose your answer you must consider if you believe the universe to be deterministic or not, and what's your definition of an entity being "free".
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 02:10:41 am
Back to Neural Networks, peskanov, thanks for the links. I'll see it through.
Neural Networks  may be not interesting for a mathematician, but the learning abilities are, of couse, what's precious, so I'll stop swaggering and let's get back to AI.
Aha, one more thing. You say, that Turing machine is also simple, but makes impressive things possible. I am, however, far from admiring Turing machines, they are (mathematically trival, and essentially) nothing more than a scheme of a calculator with memory, which is obvious. Calculators are, on the other hand, all we need...  It's no point to quarell about what's complex and impressive, however, let us not stray out of the AI topic.

As for it (AI), I am wondering, what abilities of the human brain should be programmed as an overriding procedures. (I am not referring to how it will be done, but to what should be done.) As for now, we've talked about the ability to collect information (recognizing characters, etc.).
I personally think, that one of crucial ideas (of future AI) should also be the ability to thing (compute) in an abstract way. That is, in the opinion of many, what differs people from animals. You have to admit, peskanov that even if it is true, that our brains are  complex computers, than it is also apparent, that no other animals express the ability to think abstractly in our way.
Abstract thinking of a philosopher, or scientist, or whoever, is an ability to find regularity in something, and to use the knowledge of that regularity and apply it somewhere else.

How, gentelmen, would that be implemented in AI? What do You think?

(I have no idea, of course...).
Cheers

(Ps. peskanov pardon for asking, but I won't take it anymore ::)  :  What, if I may ask, is Your speciality? Are You a programmer?  Apologies for asking only You, but me, Deckard, and dzi know eachother from Polish section, and I know that Deckard is a hard-core computer scientist, and dzi is whatever-You-wish-him-to-be  ::). )
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 09:26:37 am
Cytuj
Please note that you are the one negating everything, including what is evident.
You have said, several times, that we know NOTHING about the human mind...However I am sure you know all these things about the mind:

- You know you posses memory: the hability to recreate past moments of your life with images and sensations, old learned concepts, faces, songs...
- You know your memory is falible. You know sometimes your records don't fit the evidence. You know your memory sometimes degrades with time.
- You now learning requires repetition to achieve excellence.
- You know your speed learning certain habilities is different from other individuals.
- You know you can create spoken discurses in your mind.
- You know you have the hability to re-create images in your mind.
- You know your perception of time is not always the same.
- You know most habilities of your mind suffer when you are tired or sleepy.
- You know you lose your awareness when going to sleep, and recover it partially while dreaming.
- You know you sometimes do small actions by reasons you are not fully aware of, "inconscient" actions.
- You know certain situations usually produce associated feelings. Like fear in the darkness, etc...

...and a very large list of all the things everybody knows about their own mind.
I'll repeat. We know what our minds are able to do, we don't have an idea [size=24]HOW[/size] it happens. And the question about AI is HOW to make it, not what is it going to be.

Cytuj
Now tell me if you know or not all these things about your mind.
Does all your knowledge about your mind amount to NOTHING or not?

Don't you feel most of those knowledges about your mind suggest the existence of underlying causes or mechanisms?
Yes, that's obvious they suggest because everything is a mechanism, but again, we don't know what the mechanism is.

Cytuj
And about about neuroscientist? Do you accept they know more about the human mind than you?
They know how our brains are built (a bit), they have no idea why they think.

Cytuj
Are you asking why different mind develop different aesthetic tastes? I don't know, but I could elaborate thousands of hypothesis.
It's not a problem to make hypothesis, the question is if it has any sense.

Cytuj
Different persons develop different tastes pending on multitude of external and internal factors, I don't see anything special here. What's your own answer to this question?
My own answer is I DON'T KNOW, and I repeat it all the time here ;)

Cytuj
If you say "free will", this will not explain nothing, while we know there probably exist real answers.
Yes I did, but I will try again.
What I say is the "free will" is a) or b) or c)

a) In an deterministic universe, impossible but uninteresting and irrelevant to AI discussions.
b) In an deterministic universe, possible and a property of all superior animals and advanced AI programs.
c) In a partially non-deterministic universe, possible but uninteresting and irrelevant to AI discussions.
What I'm saying is that according to our phisics our universe is deterministic (so points a and b). My question is, how is it possible to make choices in such universe? Because now we think that we make choices, and that's what we want to implement in AI, we just (again) don't know how because of our phisical knowledge.

Cytuj
To choose your answer you must consider if you believe the universe to be deterministic or not, and what's your definition of an entity being "free".
I believe in what phisics say and that's my problem, because according to that I don't make choices.

Cytuj
How, gentelmen, would that be implemented in AI? What do You think?
Yeah that's my question basically too...

Cytuj
(Ps. peskanov pardon for asking, but I won't take it anymore ::)  :  What, if I may ask, is Your speciality? Are You a programmer?  Apologies for asking only You, but me, Deckard, and dzi know eachother from Polish section, and I know that Deckard is a hard-core computer scientist, and dzi is whatever-You-wish-him-to-be  ::). )
Yes, I'm quite flexible  ;D But they usually say that I'm a (soft-core) computer scientist ;) (software developer to be more specific)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 10:23:23 am
To peskanov, about this materialist and non-materialist attitudes to AI.
I believe you asked that question, 'coz our countries have somethings in common.  Spain and Poland are situated on the opposite edges of Europe. They are both quite big coutries. Some time ago you were considered to be a very catholic country. It has changed lately. Now, Poland, on the other hand, is at present thought to be the most catholic country in eastern Europe.
So, I understand why you are interested in our point of view about the AI. Unfortunatelly I can't answer that question, 'coz AI, imo is a scientific problem not related with belief. Of course, from the philosopical point of view it is quite related, but common people have no bright idea about it. In Poland more known problems (also linked somehow with science - in fact with medicine) are euthansia and abortion. And here statistics could say something.

I can only say what we think about AI on this forum. But I will state now only my point of view. So I think I have non-materialistic attitude:

1. Neuroscientists have some partial knowledge on how our brains are built. They make discoveries on how we can see, smell, touch etc... but they have still no idea on how we think. The question is, will they ever discover it?
2. Omitting the above question, I think the AI can be  discovered before we get knowledge on how we think (if ever). It's quite possible. I've been saying that quite often, that I think the AI would be a different kind of intelligence. Different to ours. The process of thinking might go in the different way.

As dzi wrote, we know nothing about AI, and that's why it's so funny to talk about it. We all have some fears and hopes.

So, how the process of abstract thinking could be implemented into the AI? I don't know. I might be a programistic trick of some sort...
Do you remember the story with one of the greates computer games ever written? John Carmack (ID Software) wrote Doom (gee, how many dark nights I spent playing it?). That was the first game that introduced the 3D World into the computer entertainment industry. Of course, we know now, that it was just a programistic trick, 'coz no common PC's were able, at that time to display a real 3D action. Game developers and also hardware engineers from accross the world were asking themselves a question, how it was possible to display such dynamic things on the typical 286 or 386 processor? As I said, it was just a trick. In fact everything was 2-dimensional.





Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 05:17:24 pm
Dzi, Terminus:
I have the feeling that you are backing what is called, in philosophy, an argument to ignorance ("argumentum ad ignorantiam")
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

You claim that, as we ignore mind inner workings, machines smarter that us can not exist. Where is the relation between these two propositions? There is none!
Instead of discussing in circles, I propose you two write your argument more formally. Can you fill the gap?
1.- The inner workings of the human mind are unknown
2.- ...
(add your premises and arguments here, so they lead to the conclusion)
Conclusion: no machine more intelligent than a human mind can exist.

I have showed you a good deal of evidence which points to an afirmative prediction of strong AI. Now is your turn, convince me that strong AI is impossible.

I am going to write here my own prediction more formally, so you can see clearly my argument:
1.- The human brain is an discrete information-processing device
2.- The human mind is an emergent phenomenon from the brain
3.- Different configurations of the brain produce diferent intellectual capacities of the mind.
4.- Evolution shows a time-progressing grow of intelligence in the animal kingdom.
5.- Progresive apparition of superior intellects occurs inside mankind, until today.
6.- (deducted from 4 and 5) Intelligence is a growing quality (with no limit known).
7.- A computer is a discrete information processing device
8.- A computer can be build which greatly surpass the information processing capacity of the human brain.
Conclusion (from 1,2,6,7 and 8 ) : A computer can surpass human intellect.

That's the meat of my argument. I think I can defend each one of these points.
Now is your turn to explain your argument. :)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 05:25:01 pm
Terminus,
I would like to add one link more:
http://www.brainatlas.org/

This is the effort financed by Paul Allen to create a complete, detailed map of the human brain.

Cytuj
As for it (AI), I am wondering, what abilities of the human brain should be programmed as an overriding procedures. (I am not referring to how it will be done, but to what should be done.) As for now, we've talked about the ability to collect information (recognizing characters, etc.).

Yes, I have pressed more in analysis, because NN more simple and common uses are analysis processes.
However synthesis of information is also acomplished with NN.
Cytuj
 I personally think, that one of crucial ideas (of future AI) should also be the ability to thing (compute) in an abstract way. That is, in the opinion of many, what differs people from animals. You have to admit, peskanov that even if it is true, that our brains are  complex computers, than it is also apparent, that no other animals express the ability to think abstractly in our way.  

Should I? The seeds of abstraction seems to be in the animals also...
For me, the concept of number is the supreme abstraction of the human mind, and probably the driving force in our capacity for abstraction. The number is not directly related to any object, action or sensation of the real world.
However there exist evidence that certain innate hability for numbers is already hardwired in our brain as consequence of evolution. It seems we use an special part of out brain to count until three, and it seems this counting hability is also present in some superior animals.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr99/math.html

For you abstract thinking is radical departure from the animal kingdom, but for me is a question of degree. An evolutive hability, which probably developed and grew with the aparition of the human languages.
Sadly, there no other human species alive today to compare our respective capacity for abstraction.
Cytuj
How, gentelmen, would that be implemented in AI? What do You think?  

I have defended reaching artifical human thinking by imitation of existent biology. This method does not require our understading of it's mechanism, only mere replication.
...you don't have to understand how Linux works to copy a CD containing it.
After acomplishing that, you can try to augment it's capacities through try-and error, doing methodical architecture changes, like in the genetic algorythms (for example).
Cytuj
Ps. peskanov pardon for asking, but I won't take it anymore   :  What, if I may ask, is Your speciality? Are You a programmer?  Apologies for asking only You, but me, Deckard, and dzi know eachother from Polish section, and I know that Deckard is a hard-core computer scientist, and dzi is whatever-You-wish-him-to-be

Ok, but you should not use the expression "I won't take it anymore". In English it's used in violent situations (google it for checking).
I am a profesional videogames programmer.
I studied a short universitary course of 3 years, (in a very pragmatic, work-oriented school). There, I also studied expert sytems and prolog, but very lightly, and several algorythms and techniques used commonly in AI (like recursion or path finding).
I have programmed the AI for a few commercial videogames, but this kind of AI is usually quite simple. Usually I program in the graphics part of the games, the 3D engine, not in the AI part.
I learned about NN reading some IEEE transactions from one of my brothers who studied telecommunications. I became fascinated with them and I usually read about the matter regularly and keep with the news from time to time.
Right now I am working in the preproduction of a fighting game for ps2, and I am planning to try NN in the AI for the first time in my career. I want to see if I will able to train some NN using the corpus of data produced by real persons playing the game. If I fail I will have to program it in the classical way :)

BTW, I also pertain to a very small cultural movement called "demoscene", which basically consist in creating real time computer graphics presentations, programmed in C and/or assembler. I mention it because is quite popular in Poland and maybe you know it.

PD: I don't claim to be an scientis of the AI field, just a person interested in the matter an who works in it from time to time.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 05:28:51 pm
dzi,
Cytuj
I'll repeat. We know what our minds are able to do, we don't have an idea HOW it happens. And the question about AI is HOW to make it, not what is it
going to be.

Ah, but you know also a lot of HOWs. Recall any conscient decission you took recently. I am sure you will be able to recall a big part of your mental processes.
This is very different from knowing NOTHING about how you mind works.
Cytuj
Yes, that's obvious they suggest because everything is a mechanism, but again, we don't know what the mechanism is.

If you accept it could be a mechanism, why don't you accept the trivial extrapolation that a most powerful mechanism could exist?
Cytuj
What I'm saying is that according to our phisics our universe is deterministic (so points a and b). My question is, how is it possible to make choices in such universe? Because now we think that we make choices, and that's what we want to implement in AI, we just (again) don't know how because of our phisical knowledge.

Making choices is trivial. You weight the relevant factors of the decission and reach a result. Computers do it all time. A person is only partially aware of this proccess, but it happens anyway at neural level.
This is point b), which means we operate in a similar fashion than computers.
Can you honestly say your decissions are not the result of a bunch of factors (like your memories or feelings in the decission moment)?
Cytuj
I believe in what phisics say and that's my problem, because according to that I don't make choices.

Yes you do, and computers do it also. I defy you to demonstrate computers don't make decissions.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 05:31:46 pm
Deckard,
Cytuj
I believe you asked that question, 'coz our countries have somethings in common.  Spain and Poland are situated on the opposite edges of Europe. They are both quite big coutries. Some time ago you were considered to be a very catholic country. It has changed lately. Now, Poland, on the other hand, is at present thought to be the most catholic country in eastern Europe.

Yes, that's my understading. In west Europe, I think only Ireland has a similar profile.
Cytuj
So, I understand why you are interested in our point of view about the AI. Unfortunatelly I can't answer that question, 'coz AI, imo is a scientific problem not related with belief.

I don't know about Poland, but I was teached, in Catholic doctrine, that the intelligence of humans separate us from animals, and that intelligence comes from then human soul, which is god-given and clearly non-physical. From the pov of my old christian teachers, strong AI is a phantasy or an aberration.

But to be fair, I asked because I am interested on the views of Stanislaw Lem readers. I am very very surprised to find that Lem readers and followers are so skeptical of both strong AI and materialism...A big surprise, really.
Cytuj
1. Neuroscientists have some partial knowledge on how our brains are built. They make discoveries on how we can see, smell, touch etc... but they have still no idea on how we think. The question is, will they ever discover it?

Here is the meat of my argument.
We do NOT need to understand it, to make an artificial replica!
Current programmers using NN solve problems without knowing how the NN solves them!
Read carefully the hipocampus prosthesis link I posted; they built a funcional part of the brain, but they don't have any clue about what the electric signals mean.
The key is that we can correclty replicate this clockwork machine without knowing how it really works, or more exactly, what it's dynamics really MEANS.
Cytuj
Do you remember the story with one of the greates computer games ever written? John Carmack (ID Software) wrote Doom (gee, how many dark nights I spent playing it?). That was the first game that introduced the 3D World into the computer entertainment industry. Of course, we know now, that it was just a programistic trick, 'coz no common PC's were able, at that time to display a real 3D action. Game developers and also hardware engineers from accross the world were asking themselves a question, how it was possible to display such dynamic things on the typical 286 or 386 processor? As I said, it was just a trick. In fact everything was 2-dimensional.

Well, we used to call it 2 and half dimensions. It's 3d but the camera only has one degree of freedom because walls has to remain vertical and grounds horizontal...I spent a some time in 1995 trying to replicate this 3d engine. :)

I understand your analogy, but it does not affect my pov. In this case, I would simply claim that we can copy this software, and then, progresively toy with it to change it's posibilities.

BTW, do you also program videogames?
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 02, 2005, 06:28:05 pm
Peskanov!
Great job on answering our posts.
I don't have the time at the moment to read everything but I wanted to say that I'm glad to have here a forum memeber with such a great programming experience.

You wrote:
Cytuj
BTW, I also pertain to a very small cultural movement called "demoscene",


Of course, demoscene is still active here in Poland. I'm still a great fan of C64 and Amiga. I still posses C64 (a few models), Timex 2048, and Amiga 500 and 600 with a lot of stuff. I just have to say that I LOVE IT!
Obviously, it's not popular any more, but yet there are some freeks like me, who still enjoy it. Now demoscene goes around demos and intros for PC, and sometimes I download them to look at what people want to show.

Cytuj
Well, we used to call it 2 and half dimensions.


Yes, of course. You used a correct description of that technique. I haven't looked at the source code but I read a lot about it, and participated in some level designs. It was clear to me, just by using the editor, that this is just a 2,5D.

Cytuj
BTW, do you also program videogames?


Nope. But it has always been my big dream.

To the rest of your posts I will try to answer later - now I go to the cinema!

CU
Deck


Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 03, 2005, 11:01:34 am
Cytuj
You claim that, as we ignore mind inner workings, machines smarter that us can not exist. Where is the relation between these two propositions? There is none!
And where did I say that it can't exist?

Cytuj
Instead of discussing in circles, I propose you two write your argument more formally. Can you fill the gap?
1.- The inner workings of the human mind are unknown
2.- ...
(add your premises and arguments here, so they lead to the conclusion)
Conclusion: no machine more intelligent than a human mind can exist.
The argument You states is enough for me, just the conclusion is wrong. My conclusion would be: no intelligent machine is possible to be made now.

Cytuj
I have showed you a good deal of evidence which points to an afirmative prediction of strong AI. Now is your turn, convince me that strong AI is impossible.
I won't, because I have no idea if it's true (as I said).

Cytuj
I am going to write here my own prediction more formally, so you can see clearly my argument:
1.- The human brain is an discrete information-processing device
2.- The human mind is an emergent phenomenon from the brain
3.- Different configurations of the brain produce diferent intellectual capacities of the mind.
4.- Evolution shows a time-progressing grow of intelligence in the animal kingdom.
5.- Progresive apparition of superior intellects occurs inside mankind, until today.
6.- (deducted from 4 and 5) Intelligence is a growing quality (with no limit known).
7.- A computer is a discrete information processing device
8.- A computer can be build which greatly surpass the information processing capacity of the human brain.
Conclusion (from 1,2,6,7 and 8 ) : A computer can surpass human intellect.
As for 1, 2 and 4 I'm not sure if it's true for example. How can You prove it?

Cytuj
That's the meat of my argument. I think I can defend each one of these points.
Now is your turn to explain your argument. :)

Mine is:
We don't know how our intelligence is, we are even having problems with defining what is an intelligence. That's why the only way to create an intelligence is to copy it, meaning to build an artificial brain. We are no capable to do it neither. We have to wait. End of discussion for me :)

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 03, 2005, 11:12:52 am
Cytuj
dzi,
Ah, but you know also a lot of HOWs. Recall any conscient decission you took recently. I am sure you will be able to recall a big part of your mental processes.
Would You name an expert system an intelligence? It seems You would...
What intrests us in our intelligence is our creativity, that big it can create god, or think how could the universe look like before it started. What intrests us is why we love and why we hate. That's the intelligence I'm talking about.
It's not a problem to make a machine making logical conclusions. We actually do it, it's called "expert system", not intelligence.

Cytuj
This is very different from knowing NOTHING about how you mind works.
If you accept it could be a mechanism, why don't you accept the trivial extrapolation that a most powerful mechanism could exist?
OK, sorry, I'm actually not sure if it's a mechanism...

Cytuj
Making choices is trivial. You weight the relevant factors of the decission and reach a result. Computers do it all time. A person is only partially aware of this proccess, but it happens anyway at neural level.
This is point b), which means we operate in a similar fashion than computers.
Can you honestly say your decissions are not the result of a bunch of factors (like your memories or feelings in the decission moment)?
Yes you do, and computers do it also. I defy you to demonstrate computers don't make decissions.
I'll try to explain it once more.
Our phisics says, that if we have a group of atoms it is possible to predict the next state of the system, meaning, where each atom is going to move.
Our brain is made of atoms. Our thinking is a process of transporting electrons.
So if You look at Your brain at a quantum level, it means, it's already known how is it going to look like next. It means, that You can't think what You want because it's already "decided" what You'll thing (meaning it's known where each of electrons in Your brain will move so it can't cause two ways of thinking).
You don't have to convince me that I make decisions, I know that, You know that, and everyone knows that. What's the conclusion of it?
The conclusion is that our brain doesn't work how our phisics tells him to work. That means our phisics is wrong. And that means we can't get theoretically known how our brain works. And that means we can't build a brain (unless we somehow copy it without understanding).
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 03, 2005, 12:12:58 pm
Peskanov,

Cytuj
PD: I don't claim to be an scientis of the AI field, just a person interested in the matter an who works in it from time to time.

You know that practical life is much different from theory. That's why it's so good to have down here someone with practical experience.

Peskanov, just a personal question? Why you keep using the word hability instead of just ability? ;-)

Cytuj
Yes, that's my understading. In west Europe, I think only Ireland has a similar profile.


This is exactly what we know down here in Poland.

Cytuj
But to be fair, I asked because I am interested on the views of Stanislaw Lem readers. I am very very surprised to find that Lem readers and followers are so skeptical of both strong AI and materialism...A big surprise, really.


Hey, I just pictured my point of view. I have a mistical attitude to life, that's why. Maybe Terminus and dzi will also make a statement in this matter.


Cytuj
We do NOT need to understand it, to make an artificial replica!


But this is exactly what I said!
In this case I will clarify my point of view once again. On one hand we have neuroscientists which surgically examine brain to detect the areas responsible for controlling specific reactions and so on. Many people think that it can lead us, in the long run, to discovery of how we think. I believe it's not true.
On the other hand we have technical staff consisted of scientists, engineers and designers gathered in one purpose - to build the AI. And I think this is the right way, which will finally give us the AI. Of course I don't exclude information exchange between neuroscientists and technicians.
However, because AI will be a technical solution, this kind of intelligence will run in a different way to the biologically originated inteligence. Why?
We, humans, have "built-in" sensors which give us the ability to see, touch, smell, feel pain etc... We learn much thanks to that sensors. Computer intelligence is not outfitted with such capabilities although people do a great deal of effort to create electronic substitutions of our biological sensors. But again, I believe AI can be created without this sensors. It will be dependant on the level of abstraction describing our world.

Cytuj
Read carefully the hipocampus prosthesis link I posted; they built a funcional part of the brain, but they don't have any clue about what the electric signals mean.


Obviously, I will read it. Thanks for all these links.


Cytuj
I understand your analogy, but it does not affect my pov. In this case, I would simply claim that we can copy this software, and then, progresively toy with it to change it's posibilities.


Just as you said, it was an analogy, nothing more.

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 03, 2005, 12:34:09 pm
Few things.
First, I know english too well; I wanted to add smileys to my 'i cant take it anymore' but must have forgotten to.
Second, stick this argumentum ad ignorantiam...
Have You seen the episode of south park about underpant gnomes? They were a bunch of small creatures, who had an undergound HQ, where they collected underpants stolen from the town's people. They did it all, to follow their working plan, which follows:

1. Collect underpants.
2. ...?
3. World domination.

Ingenious AI scientist, are at the point 1.

How can You say that you don't need to understand something, to create a working copy of it? That's the argumment of ignorance.

It's a brutally simple matter. We thing, that there is a stage in point 2. which eiher is very difficuld to overcome, or will take years to break by patient programming, or won't be defeated at all; whereas You suggest that it is just a matter of time.

You are not able to convince us, as well we aren't able to convince You. It's the same vacuum of arguments on the both sides.

As for the scene, I took part as a multichannel composer, I was a great fan of Pulse group, nowadays I am not that familiar with what happens there...

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 03, 2005, 02:01:37 pm
Cytuj
As for the scene, I took part as a multichannel composer, I was a great fan of Pulse group, nowadays I am not that familiar with what happens there...



The scene is active, as I wrote, but it's far from the activity it had in the past. That's rather obvious, who still wants to type assembler code nowadays?  ;D ;D
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 03, 2005, 02:32:27 pm
Cytuj
As for the scene, I took part as a multichannel composer, I was a great fan of Pulse group, nowadays I am not that familiar with what happens there...
Yeah, Pulse was good :)

Cytuj
Peskanov,
Hey, I just pictured my point of view. I have a mistical attitude to life, that's why. Maybe Terminus and dzi will also make a statement in this matter.
I'm not sure if seeing me as a typical Lem reader is a good thing to do :) Don't do it Peskanov ;)

Hey I just realised some horrible (at least for me) thing... When we make AI we will "build" it's world at mathematics. After some time when AIs are making theories for us and everything a problem (for me) will show up. A problem because theories made by AI will be made on the world "implemented" to them. And taking the world of philosophy by the world of science will be even stronger. Hopefully we'll still use our brains and remember that our senses is not everything we "see" with...
It's kinda similar to the concept made in Summa that sais we can make an artifical (virtual) world based on mathematics and "move" into it to be sure the world we see is "mathematical".

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 04, 2005, 02:47:13 am
This virtual world is what You see right now on the screen... the only observable form of it ::)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 04, 2005, 10:55:39 am
But You have to admit it has less influence on me than the one I'm talking about ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 04, 2005, 08:39:58 pm
Luckily.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 05, 2005, 02:15:44 am
Terminus, Deckard, Dzi,

It's a nice surprise you all know the demoscene; it's a small world after all!
I think my preferred Polish demo is still Technological death / Mad elks, good stuff. Yes I am old skool, or near... :)
A friend of mine, from Sevilla, went to a Satellite Party few years ago and always told me how good Polish parties are.
Curiously one of the few demoscene girls I have known is fromPoland; I knew her in the Mekka Symposium (now Breakpoint). We also saw a booze compo there between Polish and Finish, there was a lot Polish there. Surely the demoscene is popular in Poland!

I programmed a few demos for Amiga AGA in my active period, but only one of them got popular: Phase One / Capsule. We winned the Abduction party, so maybe any of you have seen it.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 05, 2005, 02:17:49 am
Deckard,
Cytuj
I don't have the time at the moment to read everything but I wanted to say that I'm glad to have here a forum memeber with such a great programming experience.

Err, thanks, but I have only worked in one AAA title, the rest were small games. The game I am working now is also low budget. What can I say, I live in Spain, not England, there are not many companies here. :(
Cytuj
Of course, demoscene is still active here in Poland. I'm still a great fan of C64 and Amiga. I still posses C64 (a few models), Timex 2048, and Amiga 500 and 600 with a lot of stuff. I just have to say that I LOVE IT!

Hey, I also collect computers. I even have a SX64, my little jewel of 12 Kg! :)
Cytuj
Nope. But it has always been my big dream.  

I am not sure what to say here. Most people lose his love for the videogame programming in a few years, but I also reckon some persons don't. You would have to try it yourself to know.
Cytuj
Peskanov, just a personal question? Why you keep using the word hability instead of just ability?

Easy question; Spanglish. In Spain we say "habilidad" with "h". My mistake...BTW, why do Dzi and Terminus always write "You" with capital "Y". Is something copied from Polish? :)
Cytuj
But this is exactly what I said!  
In this case I will clarify my point of view once again. On one hand we have neuroscientists which surgically examine brain to detect the areas responsible for controlling specific reactions and so on. Many people think that it can lead us, in the long run, to discovery of how we think. I believe it's not true.

Why? A succesful replication is the first milestone for good examination. In fact is the first step to in every process of reverse engineering.
Cytuj
On the other hand we have technical staff consisted of scientists, engineers and designers gathered in one purpose - to build the AI. And I think this is the right way, which will finally give us the AI. Of course I don't exclude information exchange between neuroscientists and technicians.
However, because AI will be a technical solution, this kind of intelligence will run in a different way to the biologically originated inteligence. Why?
We, humans, have "built-in" sensors which give us the ability to see, touch, smell, feel pain etc... We learn much thanks to that sensors. Computer intelligence is not outfitted with such capabilities although people do a great deal of effort to create electronic substitutions of our biological sensors. But again, I believe AI can be created without this sensors. It will be dependant on the level of abstraction describing our world.

Obviously, the mind is shaped by the senses and the feelings. A real synthetic intelligence as you describe would have to be very different to the human mind.

Cytuj
The scene is active, as I wrote, but it's far from the activity it had in the past. That's rather obvious, who still wants to type assembler code nowadays?  

I still code some PPC+Altivec assembler on my Mac from time to time, but I don't seem to find the energy to finish a full demo these days...I also code ARM assembler, for mobile games, comercially. But I do it because I like optimization :)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 05, 2005, 02:23:34 am
Terminus,  
Cytuj
First, I know english too well; I wanted to add smileys to my 'i cant take it anymore' but must have forgotten to.  

No, you know English fairly well, but not "too well" because that expression is invalid ;)
Cytuj
Second, stick this argumentum ad ignorantiam...  
Have You seen the episode of south park about underpant gnomes? They were a bunch of small creatures, who had an undergound HQ, where they collected underpants stolen from the town's people. They did it all, to follow their working plan, which follows:
 
1. Collect underpants.
2. ...?  
3. World domination.
 
Ingenious AI scientist, are at the point 1.  

Are you including neuroscientis here? Because I am defending their work much more than I am defending AI work...
Neuroscientist are bit more far than the "collect underpants" step; you don't seem too fond of their work, to be fair.
Obviously, talking about NN, both fields neuroscience and AI, overlap.
Cytuj
How can You say that you don't need to understand something, to create a working copy of it? That's the argument of ignorance.  

Hardly, because I have evidence and I have presented some of it to you.
You can reject my arguments or my evidence, but you can't accuse me of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The hipocampus prosthesis scientists claims exactly what I claimed: copying the function without knowing the meaning, the "why it works". Why don't you try to read the article and come back later?
Btw, copying a existing technology found in nature  without understanding it's inner workings it's one of the oldest and most popular sources of technology known by mankind. Or do you think all humans had any idea about oxygen when they discovered fire?
Cytuj
It's a brutally simple matter. We thing, that there is a stage in point 2. which eiher is very difficuld to overcome, or will take years to break by patient programming, or won't be defeated at all; whereas You suggest that it is just a matter of time.  

Yes and I presented my argument in a coherent manner. Look at the premises, accept or reject it, but don't talk as if I am inventing my own reality.
All the premises are well supported in the scientific community and have plenty of evidence behind.
Cytuj
You are not able to convince us, as well we aren't able to convince You. It's the same vacuum of arguments on the both sides.  

I disagree; the arguments you have presented lack any power of prediction.
You seem to forget we are talking about prognosys, predictions based on reality. Prognosys are based of trends, evidence, and succesful theories. Your predictions of the imposibility of strong AI lacks all 3 components!
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 05, 2005, 02:27:47 am
Dzi,
you are free to ignore or underestimate all my arguments in favour of strong AI, I don't feel any need to press the issue further.
I am only curious about your rejection of premise 4, evolution of intelligence.
Do you reject the modern antropology views of human evolution?

About the free will vs. determinism,
Cytuj
Our phisics says, that if we have a group of atoms it is possible to predict the next state of the system, meaning, where each atom is going to move.
Our brain is made of atoms. Our thinking is a process of transporting electrons.
So if You look at Your brain at a quantum level, it means, it's already known how is it going to look like next. It means, that You can't think what You want because it's already "decided" what You'll thing (meaning it's known where each of electrons in Your brain will move so it can't cause two ways of thinking).

Yes, it's called determinism. I repeat I know what you are talking about.
Cytuj
You don't have to convince me that I make decisions, I know that, You know that, and everyone knows that. What's the conclusion of it?
The conclusion is that our brain doesn't work how our phisics tells him to work. That means our phisics is wrong. And that means we can't get theoretically known how our brain works. And that means we can't build a brain (unless we somehow copy it without understanding)

I don't see any relation between you premises  and your conclusion. It does not follow.
Let's put it more formally:

1.- Physic states than everything happens following a cause
2.- Humans make decissions.

[BIG GAP]

Conclusion: human decission scape current physics

Can you fill you big gap? How do we deduce the conclusion from the premises?
You have to demonstrate that taking a decission is not a phenomenon based on causes. You have to demonstrate human will is acausal.
And I going to tell you one thing: no philosopher has demonstrated it.
If you are interested, what you think about free will is called today "libertarian free will", which oposes to the concept called "compatibilist free will".
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 05, 2005, 01:04:07 pm
Cytuj
Hey, I also collect computers. I even have a SX64, my little jewel of 12 Kg!


Well, that's great! I don't have much room to extend my collection to so big machines.

Cytuj
Most people lose his love for the videogame programming in a few years, but I also reckon some persons don't. You would have to try it yourself to know.


I've always wanted to make computer games. I've never succeeded and nowadays you know exactly that computer entertainment industry belongs to huge companies... not individuals, like in the past. You surely remember - Another World - the game which was a milestone in the genre of platform games. And it was created by one guy!

Cytuj
Easy question; Spanglish. In Spain we say "habilidad" with "h". My mistake...BTW, why do Dzi and Terminus always write "You" with capital "Y". Is something copied from Polish?


This is what I pressumed. According to our capital "You" it's derived from Polish prectise used in letter composition  to title the recepient with capital "You", what expresses sender's respect to recepient.

Cytuj
Why? A succesful replication is the first milestone for good examination. In fact is the first step to in every process of reverse engineering.


Reverse engineering is illegal.  ;D ;D ;D

OK, but seriously, I think technical replication of biological brain will lead us to nothing. Novertheless, I don't exclude technical replication as a mean of getting, the process of how brain controlls specific parts of the body, to know better.

Cytuj
I still code some PPC+Altivec assembler on my Mac from time to time, but I don't seem to find the energy to finish a full demo these days...I also code ARM assembler, for mobile games, comercially. But I do it because I like optimization



So you are the tough guy, peskanov!


Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 05, 2005, 03:28:02 pm
Yes, the capital "Y" in "You" is a custom in Poland, used in writing letters, like Deckard said, to emphasize, that You respect the one You're talking to.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 06, 2005, 01:40:07 pm
I guess this new is relevant to the thread; an university has announced his project to simulate a full human brain.
As I told before, the company AD aimed to do the same (starting few years ago), but they lack credibility.

However this looks much more serious. The article is interesting as it expands about the questions we were talking about.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7470
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Czerwiec 06, 2005, 01:44:23 pm
Btw, don't you find that the attempt to create an artificial person, deprived of a real body and a family, is higly unethical?
I would say that I find not only unethical, but nearly criminal.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 06, 2005, 02:07:58 pm
Yeah, we've talked about this crime once, I agree ::]
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 06, 2005, 02:15:33 pm
Nope. I don't think so.
As I said before, artificial person or AI designed as a mechanism or  a bunch of pretty smart algorythms, grafted into the sensor-deprived environment of a computer, is different from our intelligence.
According to this suggestion, a concept of family or body will also be different. Actually it will be just an abstraction.
If artificial person is able to develop its own emotional responses. You know, hate, love, fear, envy.
Gee... where the he.. comes this from?  ;D ::)

...then, the artificial person might feel lack of such things as family or friends to trust with its life. But all these things would also be only abstractions...

Anyway, all of this is academic.  ::) ;D

CU
Deck
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 06, 2005, 02:24:21 pm
Cytuj
Dzi,
you are free to ignore or underestimate all my arguments in favour of strong AI, I don't feel any need to press the issue further.
I am only curious about your rejection of premise 4, evolution of intelligence.
Do you reject the modern antropology views of human evolution?
Let's say I'm not sure about it...

Cytuj
About the free will vs. determinism,
Yes, it's called determinism. I repeat I know what you are talking about.
I don't see any relation between you premises  and your conclusion. It does not follow.
Let's put it more formally:

1.- Physic states than everything happens following a cause
2.- Humans make decissions.

[BIG GAP]

Conclusion: human decission scape current physics

Can you fill you big gap? How do we deduce the conclusion from the premises?
You have to demonstrate that taking a decission is not a phenomenon based on causes. You have to demonstrate human will is acausal.
And I going to tell you one thing: no philosopher has demonstrated it.
If you are interested, what you think about free will is called today "libertarian free will", which oposes to the concept called "compatibilist free will".
You seem not to understand again. My answer is I DON'T KNOW. I can't prove You anything or answer Your question, because I just don't know. All I see is the fact that it "doesn't work" (because phisics says it different than I feel it is) and nothing more. I'm not saying that our phisics is right and our thinking is acausal, I'm saying that I don't know how it is.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Czerwiec 17, 2005, 09:14:26 pm
Hi

here an interesting Address about Technosophie.
It's not so important to open an new topic for.
Tragically, its just in German

http://www.technosophie.de/WWTechno/Techsoph/Techno.htm

Look and learn more :)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 20, 2005, 09:30:12 am
Sorry, my German is too poor to read it. Are there any english links related to this subject?

CU
Deck
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 20, 2005, 02:00:34 pm
"Technosophie" ? Gosh, some people get really twisted...
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 20, 2005, 02:38:05 pm
Lem for example? ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 21, 2005, 12:40:31 am
Stopp the mockery, dzi, shame on you, provocateur!
Aren't we reading "His Master's Voice" right now? What abou Hoghart's thoughts about the technology being only a tool but not the purpose of development? Do you think Lem is a technomaniac then? No goddamn way!
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 21, 2005, 09:48:53 am
So what is the Lem's purpose in that case? ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 21, 2005, 12:15:48 pm
Well, the 'good of humanity' of course. If half of Earth' people wastes all their time in pursuit of a new mp3-player+cellphone+digital photo camera, and the other half eats rind off the trees, then, in my opinion, the progress of humanity is just an ilusion.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: dzi w Czerwiec 21, 2005, 12:21:08 pm
Hehe, I bet that every technosophist beliews he works for the good of humanity ;) Well, every philosophist at general actually :) The point is who is right? ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 25, 2005, 02:09:31 am
Time will tell.
I myself have no doubt that the diagonal length of my cellphone's screen is not the measure of progress. Nor is the number of microchips implanted in my buttocks - which, as we both know* is a matter of concern for some.

*from Polish section.



Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Czerwiec 28, 2005, 09:37:14 pm
Terminus, I would be interested in your logo
maybe you showed it us decompressed, it looks interesting. :)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 29, 2005, 01:00:17 pm
You mean this?
(http://members.lycos.co.uk/xc543xb/radiostr.jpg)

It shows, as far as I know, the interior of Guglielmo Marconi's workshop.


Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 29, 2005, 02:25:05 pm
Nice... I've always been wondering what kinda machinery it is.  ;)
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Czerwiec 29, 2005, 07:38:25 pm
Yeah, but your Profile is still impressing, too Deckard.
But I'm wondering, if the one left in your profile is
Han Solo?
He looks really like that.
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 29, 2005, 07:51:38 pm
Hey SoGo!

The guy in my pic and signature is actually the same one, and yeah! he looks remarkably just like Han Solo!!!  ;D ;D ;D

CU,
Deck
Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Czerwiec 30, 2005, 02:35:26 am
Buehehe, that one must be Harrison-Han-Rick   Ford-Solo-Deckard, rightie.

Tytuł: Re: Summa technologiae
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Deckert w Czerwiec 30, 2005, 09:19:38 am
Yep, yep, yep..... ;D ;D ;D