It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Living Machines Are Impossible

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
What we call "artificial intelligence" is more or less real thing, so long as we emphasize the "artificial" part, and recognize the "intelligence" part purely in terms of what this machine can do to make human beings happy. Otherwise, there is nothing or no one "in there" to experience the computing.

The problem, or the reason that this idea has been produced and become so popular is that the producers are uneducated in philosophy and spend most of their days working through math, tech books or staring at a computer - and none of these activities are relevant to the question: what is the nature of consciousness?

It is sad, very sad, and the future of our species, if there is a future, will look back upon this day and age as a period where people didn't understand how much like chemistry they really were. If I begin life on certain terms, with certain feeling needs put into me by the people I grow around (a function of how they feel when the communicate with me, or when I attempt to communicate with them) then reality will seem a certain way to me. This is more or less the very simple gist of why some people make baseless assertions without concern or interest in the nitty gritty details of what consciousness actually is.

Consciousness: what is it?



Well first of all, you can only claim consciousness in relation to that which exhibits it: human beings and animals. If by consciousness we mean "self-awareness", we can edit out animals, as only humans are aware of themselves. If by conscious we mean 'experience of life', then animals are very much conscious creatures, inasmuch as they experience their life through the affects (feelings) which arise in relation to the events both within and outside them. Thus, we have only two examples of consciousness: animals and humans. And furthermore, the existence of consciousness is emergent, which means that it appears first in very rudimentary form as a simple semiotic dialectic - as in prokaryotic cells; then, about 2 billion years ago, cells complexify to become Eukaryotic (with a nucleus and mitochondrion); and then 500 million years ago, an 'explosion' occurs whereby Eukaryotic cells symbiotically merge to produce super-structures - multicellular "slimemolds", and "algae" and then arthropods (shelled creatures like crustaceans). Evolution began in terms of an ecosystem of natural selection whereby one creature adapted to the presence of another creature (a predator), which then adapted to the adaptations of the creatures trying to avoid predation. In this way, arthropods evolved into fishes which evolved into amphibians, etc.

What is the core of this process? If each creature is adapting, they are adapting as a function of maintaining some sort of ideal state; this state is the biodynamical "coherency" of the total 'waveform' that is the organism. In other words, when the world moves, the organism moves. And when the predator kills you, conspecifics (like members of species) take note and seek to evolve in ways that will avoid the predators detection.

In all of this, there is one obvious characteristic: NEED

What is Need?



The work of Nobel laureate chemist Ilya Prigogine on dissipative structures showed that the dynamics of a cell work on principles similar to dissipative structures like whirlpools, in that the whirlpool shape functions as the stable formation which works to dissipate the energy moving through that area in the most stable and coherent way possible.

The natural structures emerge naturally in this way more or less explains that the body of an organism is doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, the philosopher Terrence Deacon, in his book Incomplete Nature, has this idea at the core of it: that a living being is paradoxically built not so much by what is there, but by what is absent and how the absence forces the being into appearance.

Need, or affect, is what makes consciousness real. You cannot program needs without building it into the fabric of spacetime, as naturally emergent organisms do. This means that the very matter which moves through our system creates the property of need, inasmuch as that matter dissipates as heat loss overtime, and thus generates emergent states of affective perception which drive our system towards cognizing solutions.

This is the fact of the matter, which more or less means that Larry Page is probably a deranged lunatic - and ditto for Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and the rest of the AI fanatics who haven't thought a lick about what it means to create an actual conscious lifeform.

I'm not saying AI is completely impossible. There is something "machine-like" about humans in that we follow regular habits and rules of functioning; except our dynamics are profoundly and irresolvably non-linear, and so, cannot be properly represented in mathematical languages.

In short, if we want to "create life", it would seem to be a matter of copying what evolution does with carbon and not silicon. We would look to mother nature, since it is from her, ultimately, that we even arise. So too, it is to her that our energies are given when we die.




posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I wish I could provide a longer more elaborate response.

But I believe you are selling us short if you think these topics are not being discussed at length in this context.

From all that I have read these concerns are foremost in these discussions. I am not overly concerned about the results.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

And yet this thread so ironically feels like it was written by an AI..

ggwp googledeepmind



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
So many assumptions, makes it painful.

I'll just say, I completely disagree with your entire post. Entirely.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Opinion shouldnt be exclaimed as fact.

While in this case whether "its possible" or not, the people dumpng trillions of dollars into it (at our expense) sure are convinced they'll soon become "GODS" via their efforts. And the problem there is, everyone wont be able to live together, meaning over a long enough time line a whole lot of people are going to have to get gone.

Meaning whether you believe in it or not, you shouldnt so readily brush it off as not being the most important topic in the human experience. Besides, they dont necessarily need AGI in order to extend their lifespans thus "necessitating" getting rid of the "savages".



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

First law of thermodynamics implies energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Taking from Einstein:


E=mc^2

Does this indicate an instrisic relationship between baryonic, leptonic, bosonic, and consciousness (albeit may not be differentiated from the aformentioned) arising from their interplay?

If the big bang theory is valid, consciousness is a part of the singularity. Or is it separate?

The linearity, or quite possibly non linearity of time are valid concerns when dealing with these ideas.

Dark energy and dark matter cannot be discounted either.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

As if any of us know what is possible, or impossible?

Language, words, and definitions change over time.
Who's to say what "living machines" will mean in 100 years?

Many different pieces of technology are being integrated into the human body these days.
Who's to say we won't have a person who is more machine than human cells, in 100; 200; 1000 years?
Perhaps this hybrid would retain consciousness, and why not?

Nobody knows anything.
Thinking we know stuff, is an ego-trap.

Deny knowledge.
Bless ignorance.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte


If by consciousness we mean "self-awareness", we can edit out animals, as only humans are aware of themselves.

Really? Why can some very smart animals like dolphins and elephants recognize themselves in a mirror?


Need, or affect, is what makes consciousness real. You cannot program needs without building it into the fabric of spacetime, as naturally emergent organisms do.

How would one go about building something "into the fabric of spacetime"? What does that even mean? This argument doesn't really make sense because digital life forms still require energy to survive, computing requires some resources, especially the heavy computations required to produce a conscious machine. Also this argument that consciousness cannot arise without evolution is some what flawed because there is a thing called evolutionary algorithms which simulate the process of evolution by applying ideas from genetics and biology, incorporating ideas like survival of the fittest to apply an evolutionary pressure, thus giving the digital creatures a need to fulfill certain tasks in their virtual environment if they want to stay alive.


There is something "machine-like" about humans in that we follow regular habits and rules of functioning; except our dynamics are profoundly and irresolvably non-linear, and so, cannot be properly represented in mathematical languages.

There is nothing which says an algorithm should be linear, computers can model highly chaotic dynamics and the computational pathways can be extremely complicated. I've argued before that consciousness requires a source of true randomness so I agree with you in some regard, however we can easily get that entropy from QRNG's if necessary. An algorithm is not an equation, it's instructions for manipulating binary data. Of course simulating a human brain will require thousands of terabytes of data and an immense amount of parallel computing power, but so long as we can simulate particle physics with computers we will be able to simulate anything in the real world given enough computing power.
edit on 25/11/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
At some point AI will surpass us and not too long after that while ruling over us it will look back at your post and laugh.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Hmmm, carbon-oxygen bodies aren't machines?



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I was thinking about this while i was driving today.

It all depends on the way AI is defined.

I don't think they are creating consciousness though. They are creating very smart and quick thinking machines but those machines do not have a soul riding inside of them.

From my experience with astral projection over the last 14 years I don't believe that consciousness is limited to the human brain.

I was thinking maybe science can build a robot or artificial brain that a human can astral project his consciousness into and become the controller of the robot. But a robot will never be able to experience time dilations and premonitions like human consciousness can achieve through mediation.

And no I don't think the BIg Bang is a valid theory either.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
What we call "artificial intelligence" is more or less real thing, so long as we emphasize the "artificial" part, and recognize the "intelligence" part purely in terms of what this machine can do to make human beings happy. Otherwise, there is nothing or no one "in there" to experience the computing.

The problem, or the reason that this idea has been produced and become so popular is that the producers are uneducated in philosophy and spend most of their days working through math, tech books or staring at a computer - and none of these activities are relevant to the question: what is the nature of consciousness?

It is sad, very sad, and the future of our species, if there is a future, will look back upon this day and age as a period where people didn't understand how much like chemistry they really were. If I begin life on certain terms, with certain feeling needs put into me by the people I grow around (a function of how they feel when the communicate with me, or when I attempt to communicate with them) then reality will seem a certain way to me. This is more or less the very simple gist of why some people make baseless assertions without concern or interest in the nitty gritty details of what consciousness actually is.

Consciousness: what is it?



Well first of all, you can only claim consciousness in relation to that which exhibits it: human beings and animals. If by consciousness we mean "self-awareness", we can edit out animals, as only humans are aware of themselves. If by conscious we mean 'experience of life', then animals are very much conscious creatures, inasmuch as they experience their life through the affects (feelings) which arise in relation to the events both within and outside them. Thus, we have only two examples of consciousness: animals and humans. And furthermore, the existence of consciousness is emergent, which means that it appears first in very rudimentary form as a simple semiotic dialectic - as in prokaryotic cells; then, about 2 billion years ago, cells complexify to become Eukaryotic (with a nucleus and mitochondrion); and then 500 million years ago, an 'explosion' occurs whereby Eukaryotic cells symbiotically merge to produce super-structures - multicellular "slimemolds", and "algae" and then arthropods (shelled creatures like crustaceans). Evolution began in terms of an ecosystem of natural selection whereby one creature adapted to the presence of another creature (a predator), which then adapted to the adaptations of the creatures trying to avoid predation. In this way, arthropods evolved into fishes which evolved into amphibians, etc.

What is the core of this process? If each creature is adapting, they are adapting as a function of maintaining some sort of ideal state; this state is the biodynamical "coherency" of the total 'waveform' that is the organism. In other words, when the world moves, the organism moves. And when the predator kills you, conspecifics (like members of species) take note and seek to evolve in ways that will avoid the predators detection.

In all of this, there is one obvious characteristic: NEED

What is Need?



The work of Nobel laureate chemist Ilya Prigogine on dissipative structures showed that the dynamics of a cell work on principles similar to dissipative structures like whirlpools, in that the whirlpool shape functions as the stable formation which works to dissipate the energy moving through that area in the most stable and coherent way possible.

The natural structures emerge naturally in this way more or less explains that the body of an organism is doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, the philosopher Terrence Deacon, in his book Incomplete Nature, has this idea at the core of it: that a living being is paradoxically built not so much by what is there, but by what is absent and how the absence forces the being into appearance.

Need, or affect, is what makes consciousness real. You cannot program needs without building it into the fabric of spacetime, as naturally emergent organisms do. This means that the very matter which moves through our system creates the property of need, inasmuch as that matter dissipates as heat loss overtime, and thus generates emergent states of affective perception which drive our system towards cognizing solutions.

This is the fact of the matter, which more or less means that Larry Page is probably a deranged lunatic - and ditto for Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and the rest of the AI fanatics who haven't thought a lick about what it means to create an actual conscious lifeform.

I'm not saying AI is completely impossible. There is something "machine-like" about humans in that we follow regular habits and rules of functioning; except our dynamics are profoundly and irresolvably non-linear, and so, cannot be properly represented in mathematical languages.

In short, if we want to "create life", it would seem to be a matter of copying what evolution does with carbon and not silicon. We would look to mother nature, since it is from her, ultimately, that we even arise. So too, it is to her that our energies are given when we die.


I think its an obvious oxymoronic statement/question that answers itself, rt? A machine is a machine, and a LIVING thing (any-thing) is LIVING.

I think the best we could do would be A.I. and Exo-suits...but neither living nor machine can be 100% when combined.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0racle
a reply to: Astrocyte

And yet this thread so ironically feels like it was written by an AI..

ggwp googledeepmind


It is much easier for human being to be machine like than it is for a machine to be a human being.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I'm not saying AI is completely impossible. There is something "machine-like" about humans in that we follow regular habits and rules of functioning; except our dynamics are profoundly and irresolvably non-linear, and so, cannot be properly represented in mathematical languages.


I think almost everything you post is wordy BS. But this paragraph seemed pretty good to me.

I would go even further and say not only are our biological processes keeping us alive non-linear, but also our thought processes are non-linear. Machines have state. Machines can be exactly the same way over and over again. Human beings are never the same thing twice. We are constantly changing into something else.

The problem with computer programs is they always only ever do exactly what they are programmed to do. Human beings are constantly doing and creating what they've never done before.


edit on 25-11-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Consciousness is Separate from mind, there are some whom genuinely do not understand this and think they can give a machine consciousness which they can not, consciousness if the part we usually equate with soul, the driver in the car that is the mind.
A machine can not ever have this but what is this, is our consciousness a higher dimensional structure and the brain more like an interface, if so then a complex computer system that matches the necessary conditions and criteria could merge with such a consciousness and then would it have a soul?.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Well that is certainly your perspective based upon the information we have at this point in human history. But I would leave it open-ended, if it's me. We don't know what could happen, nor what we could discover.

For example: we never knew that such things as "extremophiles" existed...creatures whose whole lives are based around geothermal vents in the oceans. They live in a world which we considered impossible to support life at all, yet these creatures are able to thrive and form the basis for an entire ecosystem.

But we "knew" that was impossible only a few decades ago.

Therefore living machines are impossible, IMO, based on our knowledge know, but in the future they might be viable, they might be real and they might become the dominant force on this planet. Who knows?



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
An unscientific personal opinion with no fact at best.
a reply to: Astrocyte



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Living Machines Are Impossible

It might depend on the definition, but we are living machines
.

We even reproduce ourselfes, we´re made of carbon, but we can´t optimize ourselfes through breeding like you could with a machine.

What if AI created humans as machines and now we´re trying to re-create AI and inferior mechanical machines? Like Von-Neumann- type machines but slowed down in reproduction (1+1=1 per cycle).



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I agree with the OP pretty much.

The issue is the term "AI" seems to be getting confused with LIFE for a lot of people.

Sure, we will make some really tricked out fake-intelligence machines. Pimped out toasters or even vibrators maybe....but no, humankind will never be able to create life.


(I mean, other than the old fashion procreating way, that is, lol)


The Terminator was just good sci-fi, machines aren't going to replace us.



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

I think our brains are simply a physical collection of organic matter and chemicals that, when working together, interact in such a way to form what we call consciousness.

So if the brain is just physical material, and what we call consciousness emerges from that material, it seems that (theoretically, at least) a machine could be built that does the same thing. I'm not saying we could build such a machine anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that such a machine will never be possible.


edit on 26/11/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join