Autor Wątek: Summa technologiae  (Przeczytany 34095 razy)

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #75 dnia: 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 ::)

dzi

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #76 dnia: 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 ;)

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #77 dnia: Czerwiec 04, 2005, 08:39:58 pm »
Luckily.

peskanov

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #78 dnia: 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.

peskanov

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #79 dnia: 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 :)

peskanov

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #80 dnia: 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!

peskanov

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #81 dnia: 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".

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #82 dnia: 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!



Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #83 dnia: 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.

peskanov

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #84 dnia: 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

peskanov

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #85 dnia: 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.

Terminus

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #86 dnia: Czerwiec 06, 2005, 02:07:58 pm »
Yeah, we've talked about this crime once, I agree ::]

Deckert

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #87 dnia: 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

dzi

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #88 dnia: 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.

SoGo

  • Gość
Re: Summa technologiae
« Odpowiedź #89 dnia: 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 :)