Terminator/Matrix could it really happen?

[killbot1000]

I disagree. Since when do the variables of an algorithm describe it's complexity? Can you prove that the human mind is merely an algorithm? Can you even mention an algorithm that comes close to it? How many states does the human algorithm have? And what's most important: if it's anywhere below infinite, then I'll probably be able to prove to you that it's just a turing-machine.

 

So many questions, I know. But hey, I'm just a better algorithm, right?

 

When I was referring to complexity, I was merely saying that there are so many paths our algorithm's can take that it begins to look like a rats nest (too many if-then statements).

 

An algorithm is just a way to map out what will happen in ones mind given a certain situation, for example (VERY VERY VERY oversimplified example):

 

 

FOOD

 

if hungry and like the food - EAT

if hungry and dislike the food - DON'T EAT

if Not Hungry - DON'T EAT

 

 

If one person's thought process could be broken down into every variable, every instance, one could effectively predict their behavior to a certainty. This would indicate that our thought process IS an algorithm.

 

I totally cannot prove this, but it seems natural, and if research were to come out supporting this, I would not be surprised. I am not closed to the possibility of being wrong, but using logic, this is the way the human brain makes the most sense. If we simply "thought" then there would be no way to trace or predict human behavior, but we can predict human behavior (within a certain margin of error). The fact that we CAN predict human behavior indicates that the way we think is through algorithm because even simply making a decision is based off a certain amount of data available to us, much like a computer with if/then statements, there's just a lot more if/then statements. And when we get to something which our brain doesn't understand, we make up an algorithm (this is what thinking and sentience is).

 

If we get a machine to the point where they can make up their own algorithms based on a changing situation, we can probably call it thinking, no matter how distasteful it might be to us. At that moment, we become gods.

[hecker]

When I was referring to complexity, I was merely saying that there are so many paths our algorithm's can take that it begins to look like a rats nest (too many if-then statements).

 

An algorithm is just a way to map out what will happen in ones mind given a certain situation, for example (VERY VERY VERY oversimplified example):

 

 

FOOD

 

if hungry and like the food - EAT

if hungry and dislike the food - DON'T EAT

if Not Hungry - DON'T EAT

 

 

If one person's thought process could be broken down into every variable, every instance, one could effectively predict their behavior to a certainty. This would indicate that our thought process IS an algorithm.

 

I totally cannot prove this, but it seems natural, and if research were to come out supporting this, I would not be surprised. I am not closed to the possibility of being wrong, but using logic, this is the way the human brain makes the most sense. If we simply "thought" then there would be no way to trace or predict human behavior, but we can predict human behavior (within a certain margin of error). The fact that we CAN predict human behavior indicates that the way we think is through algorithm because even simply making a decision is based off a certain amount of data available to us, much like a computer with if/then statements, there's just a lot more if/then statements. And when we get to something which our brain doesn't understand, we make up an algorithm (this is what thinking and sentience is).

 

If we get a machine to the point where they can make up their own algorithms based on a changing situation, we can probably call it thinking, no matter how distasteful it might be to us. At that moment, we become gods.

Ever heard of non-deterministic machines? There is absolutely no need to put every singe thought process into one IF statement, because we have algorithms that work by evaluating a series of OR statements leading to another series of OR final statements (this is not theoretical. There actually are machines that do this) . This is precisely what makes the outcome unpredictible, which would much better fit our method of reasoning IMO.

 

You mentioned that we CAN predict human behaviour. Can you show me how?

[QuietOC]

Ever heard of non-deterministic machines?

I believe they are using "non-deterministic" in a special sense, especially if non-deterministic systems can be modelled with deterministic systems. I have worked with real upredictable, deterministic systems in the lab, a driven pedulum is one simple example. Non-determinism boils down to an irrational belief, that one may desire for various other reasons (prior philosophical commitments).

 

I was very disappointed with the course I took in artificial intellegence. It seems to be the retard in the field of computer science. Maybe it is more exciting if you have really low expectations. 

[hecker]

I believe they are using "non-deterministic" in a special sense, especially if non-deterministic systems can be modelled with deterministic systems. I have worked with real upredictable, deterministic systems in the lab, a driven pedulum is one simple example. Non-determinism boils down to an irrational belief, that one may desire for various other reasons (prior philosophical commitments).

 

I was very disappointed with the course I took in artificial intellegence. It seems to be the retard in the field of computer science. Maybe it is more exciting if you have really low expectations.

Hehe, I knew that someone would pick that one up.

 

You can, of course, convert a non-deterministic machine into a deterministic one, but that doesn't mean that they work in the same fashion or apply the same logic.

I suspect that you think of non-determinism is something irrational because of it's non-linear logic sequence (using that term very loosely here), but in fact, the contrary is quite true.

To put it down in laymen's terms, non-deterministic systems work in parallel whereas deterministic systems go down the logic sequence in a linear way. Where's the irrationality in that?

The fact that the outcome of something is unpredictable does NOT make it illogic. Neither does the fact that you don't understand the concept (remember when people were sure the earth was flat because anything else seemed illogic to them?).

[QuietOC]

...because of it's non-linear logic sequence (using that term very losely here), but in fact, the contrary is quite true. To put it down in laymens terms, non-deterministic systems work in parallel whereas deterministic systems go down the logic sequence in a linear way. Where's the irrationality in that?

The driven pendulum is non-linear and deterministic, and, for certain ranges of conditions, completely chaotic--unpredictable. Now you can look at the driven pedulum acting chaotically in the lab and think, hey this thing is non-deterministic! But anyone can write a simple model of the pendulm on any computer and get the exact same chaotic behavior. So, I think they are using "non-determinism" for something that really is deterministic (just in a different way). The whole equating determism with predictability being the red flag.

[hecker]

The driven pendulum is non-linear and deterministic, and, for certain ranges of conditions, completely chaotic--unpredictable. Now you can look at the driven pedulum acting chaotically in the lab and think, hey this thing is non-deterministic! But anyone can write a simple model of the pendulm on any computer and get the exact same chaotic behavior. So, I think they are using "non-determinism" for something that really is deterministic (just in a different way). The whole equating determism with predictability being the red flag.

I get your point about the predictability part, but this still doesn't make non-determinism illogic (maybe just an inadequate model for a pendulum). I guess the problem here is the understanding (or definition) of randomness and predictability but that's a completely different issue.

 

Cheers,

 

hecker

[killbot1000]

You mentioned that we CAN predict human behaviour. Can you show me how?

 

Sociology, except in order to predict human behavior, we must take human beings OUT of the equation. We must study the organizations of human beings (the things we have created, whether it be our social structure, our buildings, etc.) This can give us a greater understanding of how to predict human behavior.

 

Keep in mind, the world is incredibly complex, the simplest model for the world is...the world, and the simple act of trying to predict human behavior oversimplifies the world, to the point where a person's brain can understand it. This means that while one cannot get prediction down to an absolute certainty, we can get it down to a very high percentile of predictability. If however the human brain was capable of understanding the world, we wouldn't have to oversimplify it and then we would have 100% predictability.

 

If a human being is hungry for example, and we present them with food (putting other motives aside), they will most likely eat, if they like the food. This is a predictable behavior, within an experimental setting or not.

 

When a human being is presented with extreme social pressure to be thin, they are MORE LIKELY to strive for that goal, because the functioning society demands it.

 

We cannot boil human behavior down to an absolute certainty given our current level of social and technological development, but we are getting closer and closer each day, for better or worse. You seriously cant see that we CAN to a certain degree predict human behavior? Do you think it's completely unpredictable? Because if thats what you think, you would be mistaken.

 

I am not lessening the importance of the human mind, I find it to be quite amazing, but we as a species must be AWARE of our limitations and our predictability, only when we are AWARE of this in all its splendor and all its limitations can we truly begin to move forward in any kind of meaningful way. I believe there is a method to our brain's madness, and slowly, we are starting to figure ourselves out.

[hecker]

Sociology, except in order to predict human behavior, we must take human beings OUT of the equation. We must study the organizations of human beings (the things we have created, whether it be our social structure, our buildings, etc.) This can give us a greater understanding of how to predict human behavior.

 

Keep in mind, the world is incredibly complex, the simplest model for the world is...the world, and the simple act of trying to predict human behavior oversimplifies the world, to the point where a person's brain can understand it. This means that while one cannot get prediction down to an absolute certainty, we can get it down to a very high percentile of predictability. If however the human brain was capable of understanding the world, we wouldn't have to oversimplify it and then we would have 100% predictability.

 

If a human being is hungry for example, and we present them with food (putting other motives aside), they will most likely eat, if they like the food. This is a predictable behavior, within an experimental setting or not.

 

When a human being is presented with extreme social pressure to be thin, they are MORE LIKELY to strive for that goal, because the functioning society demands it.

 

We cannot boil human behavior down to an absolute certainty given our current level of social and technological development, but we are getting closer and closer each day, for better or worse. You seriously cant see that we CAN to a certain degree predict human behavior? Do you think it's completely unpredictable? Because if thats what you think, you would be mistaken.

 

I am not lessening the importance of the human mind, I find it to be quite amazing, but we as a species must be AWARE of our limitations and our predictability, only when we are AWARE of this in all its splendor and all its limitations can we truly begin to move forward in any kind of meaningful way. I believe there is a method to our brain's madness, and slowly, we are starting to figure ourselves out.

Hmm, very interesting reply.

I guess what you're saying is that humans are complex on the inside but simple on the outside and that some day we'll crack the code and understand the basic simplicity of life? Yeah, I most certainly agree.

[killbot1000]

Sweet! BTW this has been a good back and forth convo!

[QuietOC]

Keep in mind, the world is incredibly complex, the simplest model for the world is...the world...

That sounds freakishly like that "irreducible complexity" argument that those "intelligent design" advocates fling about. What is remarkable is that even rather simple real systems like the driven pendulum exibit infinitely complex and unpredicible behavior (strangly limited behavior too--often with fractal attractors in phase space). Space-time is inherently non-linear, and while our simple linear and probablistic models work well enough most of the time--they are all the time incorrect. All claims about real predictability should be questioned, especially in any soft science (i.e., anything relying on observation).

 

BTW: It looks like anyone can play with a driven pendum online now.

[Paranoid Marvin]

You know the UK has a network of satellites called Skynet

[hecker]

You know the UK has a network of satellites called Skynet

Get outta here! Is this true? Then it has already begun....

[killbot1000]

That sounds freakishly like that "irreducible complexity" argument that those "intelligent design" advocates fling about. What is remarkable is that even rather simple real systems like the driven pendulum exibit infinitely complex and unpredicible behavior (strangly limited behavior too--often with fractal attractors in phase space). Space-time is inherently non-linear, and while our simple linear and probablistic models work well enough most of the time--they are all the time incorrect. All claims about real predictability should be questioned, especially in any soft science (i.e., anything relying on observation).

 

BTW: It looks like anyone can play with a driven pendum online now.

 

 

Believe me when I say this. I did not mean to even come close to saying that the earth is irreducibly complex. I actually think that we will find the answers that many of us have been looking for without the help of an imaginary (or real) deity.

 

I realize that space-time might be non-linear, I feel like we are probably wrong about a lot of things when it comes to the earth and the universe, but we are LESS WRONG than we were 1000 years ago, and knowledge continues to move forward.

 

I could be completely wrong but I feel like everything can be predictable if only we had ALL the variables, when it comes to the driven pendulum, or particles at the quantum level, we do not have all the variables, so there is no way in hell we can predict anything...yet.

 

I do agree that claims about real predictability in a social science (I object to calling them soft-sciences, they are just as scientific as any of them, only more general AND complicated at the same time) should be questioned. That's what correlations are for, if one is within a certain range, it is seen as statistically significant, if its out of the range, its not. I realize that one cannot predict behavior from correlations, but if one performs an experiment on human behavior, that is more than observation, it is manipulating the situation to see a stimulated response, that seems pretty damn scientific to me.

 

Sociology is a REAL science, the only problem with it is that people who study it or read about it, confuse social science with social work. Sociology in scientific terms actually takes human being out of the equation, we can study what we do by taking our feelings, and thoughts out of the equation and only studying what we have done and the choices we have made, regardless of feeling or intent, this begins to really break us down scientifically.

[Maxintosh]

Get outta here! Is this true?

It always starts out so innocently. Video here...

[DreamingAwake]

There is one major difference between living organisms and machines, and that is 'self awareness'.

 

A machine will never be 'self' aware, the way humans and some other animals are. (Not all animals are self aware)

[QuietOC]

I realize that space-time might be non-linear, I feel like we are probably wrong about a lot of things when it comes to the earth and the universe, but we are LESS WRONG than we were 1000 years ago, and knowledge continues to move forward.

No, the fundamental equation(s) of space-time are nonlinear. That is why a simple driven pendulum that is only effected by gravity and a constant rotational force can display chaos. Gravity: nonlinear, Electro-static: nonlinear, strong nuclear: nonlinear, weak-nuclear: nonlinear.

 

I could be completely wrong but I feel like everything can be predictable if only we had ALL the variables, when it comes to the driven pendulum, or particles at the quantum level, we do not have all the variables, so there is no way in hell we can predict anything...yet.

Completely wrong. The fact is we probably know the variables but cannot know their values (with precision). Both chaos theory and quantum mechanics have placed real limits on our ability to observe those. It is quite easy for space-time to completely surprise our observation, through mere determined causal processes.

[kramer2k]

All ur base r belong to us

[killbot1000]

Completely wrong. The fact is we probably know the variables but cannot know their values (with precision). Both chaos theory and quantum mechanics have placed real limits on our ability to observe those. It is quite easy for space-time to completely surprise our observation, through mere determined causal processes.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge, I feel weary about anybody who simply says "nope! cant ever predict that". Give it some time, we will discover more...Also, not to get off subject, but I was referring to the predictability of human behavior, not a pendulum or quantum mechanics. Human behavior is far easier to predict, because...well...we are far simpler than all of that, which was kind of my point to begin with.I wouldn't stand on such high ground, it might fall out from under you. Saying that something cannot be predicted is setting up your argument for failure, it would be more appropriate to say that at present we have no way of predicting it. This kind of science (quantum, etc.) that humans have been getting into lately is extremely new, it has only been around seriously for a few decades, all that this new science has shown is that the universe is one of probability, not certainty...Give it some time, we will discover much more in the coming decades, I have no doubt about that. There are people much smarter than you or I hard at work .

There is one major difference between living organisms and machines, and that is 'self awareness'. A machine will never be 'self' aware, the way humans and some other animals are. (Not all animals are self aware)

Evidence for this? The simple act of saying that a machine will NEVER be self aware is a BIG assumption on your part. It sounds a little more like "Human beings NEVER WANT machines to be self-aware".Also I throw this out there too:Human beings, as well as all other animals, plants, and living things...ARE machines. Everything in our bodies has a purpose, no matter how insignificant which contribute to the overall whole of the person. We have parts in our bodies that have different functions just like the machines we build. We are literally building machines to be like us without us even knowing it, its so cool!

[munky]

ok, im coming to this late, but fwiw...

 

the chess computers like deep blue only win by computing every possible move from the current 'state of the world' (the state of the chessboard and position of all pieces). it works out the most likely outcome for each move, and picks the one it deems most likely to secure a win. then it waits for the opponent to move, and it just does it all again.

 

it is just an algorithm. its brute force with not much fancy stuff going on at all.

 

thats not intelligence. thats throwing LOTS of cpu at the problem. a human could actually (in theory) take the same approach. the advantage the computer has is being able to work out all the permutations of the game incredibly quickly and error-free.

 

chess is whats known as a 'perfect information' game. that means the SoW (state of the world) is always fully known at each stage. its actually relatively trivial to write programs which can win perfect information games. now imperfect information games....

 

my honours project was based on all this stuff btw

[QuietOC]

I wouldn't stand on such high ground, it might fall out from under you. Saying that something cannot be predicted is setting up your argument for failure, it would be more appropriate to say that at present we have no way of predicting it.

No, we know why there is no way to predict chaotic behavior. We completely understand it. There is nothing to be solved at a future date. We can demonstate it day in and day out, in reality and with algorithims.

 

...all that this new science has shown is that the universe is one of probability, not certainty...

No, probability/uncertainty is a religious/philosphical belief and has nothing to do with science. Now, probablistic models can be very useful. Inductive thinking such as that used in science must neccessarily be probablistic, but it is a giant leap from "useful model" to "that's how it all really works."

[killbot1000]

No, probability/uncertainty is a religious/philosphical belief and has nothing to do with science. Now, probablistic models can be very useful. Inductive thinking such as that used in science must neccessarily be probablistic, but it is a giant leap from "useful model" to "that's how it all really works."

 

OH, so thats all that you were saying, well in that case I completely agree with you.

 

When I was referring to predictability, all I meant was "useful model". I understand the distinction now, thank you for clearing it up.

[Maxintosh]

All ur base r belong to us

42.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Get outta here! Is this true? Then it has already begun....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6434773.stm

 

My geography teacher pointed it out to me the other. It was all over the news, but I didn't click.

[JonTheSavage]

Already here yuppies.

 

[killbot1000]

Already here yuppies.

 

 

That robot freaks me out, I would be scared if that thing was chasing me down in a few years.