Ha! I even missed Star Trek off my list of examples, then put it in the next line XD. We can't forget Data from ST:TNG, or the Doctor from ST:V, then there's Adam, from Buffy... the list of Intelligent AI in Sci Fi just goes on and on!

If you want to prove\disprove the Gaia theory:

Taken from Wikipedia:

Quote: Gaia theory is a class of scientific models of the geo-biosphere in which life as a whole fosters and maintains suitable conditions for itself by helping to create an environment on Earth suitable for its continuity. The first such theory was created by the atmospheric scientist and chemist, Sir James Lovelock, who developed his hypotheses in the 1960s before formally publishing the concept, first in the New Scientist (February 13, 1975) and then in the 1979 book "Quest for Gaia". He hypothesized that the living matter of the planet functioned like a single organism and named this self-regulating living system after the Greek goddess, Gaia, using a suggestion of novelist William Golding.

Gaia "theories" have non-technical predecessors in the ideas of several cultures. Today, "Gaia theory" is sometimes used among non-scientists to refer to hypotheses of a self-regulating Earth that are non-technical but take inspiration from scientific models. Among some scientists, "Gaia" carries connotations of lack of scientific rigor, quasi-mystical thinking about the planet Earth, and therefore Lovelock's hypothesis was received initially with much antagonism by much of the scientific community. No controversy exists, however, that life and the physical environment significantly influence one another

If you are describing Gaia as a form of energy, then yes, it exists, simply as the very energy found in the centre of every atom(and everywhere else...) that is the building block of everything we know. The energy from that single atom allows it to combine with other atoms that have the right energy "pattern"(I use the word loosely), to make molecules. These molecules can be anything from water(H2O) to salt(NaCl), to DNA(...heck knows...). The thing that allows us to be intelligent is the masses of energies from all those different atoms or molecules, or whatever, being manipulated according to set rules, dependant on what other energies are around them.

Oh, and before I forget:

Merry Christmas, everyone!!!(I know it's a couple of days early, but who cares?!)


...geez, I really gotta stop editing my posts...

[Edited by - webwraith on December 23, 2005 6:54:00 PM]

Quote: Original post by NQ
It's obvious that an AI - even though it's learning from its mistakes and displays intelligent behaviour... still lacks something compared to real biological brains.

This 'something' is really hard to decribe, perhaps even impossible. Call it life, counciousness, spirit, creativity, feelings, sapience or whatever. That is the realm of seriously deep philosophy, and I will avoid the problem altogether by just summing it up with 'what AI lacks compared to real humans/biological brains'.

I don't know what you mean here. I only see one thing that algorithmic AI is lacking - and that's the ability of solving problems that cannot be solved algorithmically (no, not the halting problem again, just take some topological problem that even little children can solve, but algorithms never will[smile]).

Other than that humans are biochemical machines. Complex ones indeed. But machines still. Feelings are nothing but a chemical reaction in the brain, caused by the release of peptides in the hypothalamus. Consciousness is a term that isn't as well defined as one would think and shouldn't be overrated in such discussion - it's way too blurry.

The human brain is the most complex information processor in the known universe. It applies techniques that are yet to be discovered, but labeling these abilities (and you clearly have to draw a line here - use a domain that is well defined for your argument, e.g. mathematics) "spirit", "ghost" or "soul" is nothing but a romantic transfiguration.

I'd strongly suggest you to read Roger Penrose's book The Shadow Of The Mind for a more detailed, cleary structured and more scientific discussion on this topic.

Also, as frob already said, AI is not about re-creating human intelligence. It's about solving problems that require behaviour that we would call "intelligent". There's still a big misunderstanding regarding these things - legend has it that Charles Babbage, who among other built an automatic adding machine, was asked by someone whether his machine would still give the correct results if you feed it with wrong numbers.
Now you might think "how stupid were they back then?" but keep in mind that people were not used to such technology as we are now. Even in the early 50s of the last century some scientists and engineers were seriously concerned about being replaced by machines (even by single buttons!).
Today some still think that A.I. is about re-creating humans and associate chess programs and -computers with human intellect. While these machines/programs indeed use similar approaches as humans, they do not try to model our mind.

Now the obligatory analogy to clear things up a little - AI is to the human mind what cars are to the human locomotor system. Both accomplish similar tasks, but both don't try to re-create the entity that they were modeled after. Both are superior to their human counterparts in some respect and far inferoir in others
(e.g. cars beat humans wrt speed, endurance and load but loose in versatility, efficiency and self-repair capabilities; A.I. beats humans in complex computations, ability to react, information access and reliability while humans are better in many other things[smile]).

Just my 0.02€ - and Merry Christmas!
Pat.

That is everything my answer should have been!

Well, seeing that "ghost" was brought up, it made me remember that there seems to be a team of scientists out to prove the existence of a soul/ghost. Their assumption is that everything that "exists" must have some sort of meassureable mass. Last I heard, they found that the instant people die, they sudden lose a small amount of weight, and they seem to have found it fairly constant. That seems to be their "proof", but who knows.

Maybe ghosts do exist. Maybe not.

Looking at the article, my only question would be what the title implies. "When does an Algorithm turn Alive." That in itself has a problem. Most of the scientific community can't even agree on a definition of "alive." First there's that whole issue with whether a virus is a living being, then there's that whole when a fetus stop being a piece of meat and be considered "alive". So, I would say rephrase the title a bit to something more solid, because the word "alive" is just way too wobbly a starting point.

Quote: Original post by WeirdoFu
Well, seeing that "ghost" was brought up, it made me remember that there seems to be a team of scientists out to prove the existence of a soul/ghost. Their assumption is that everything that "exists" must have some sort of meassureable mass. Last I heard, they found that the instant people die, they sudden lose a small amount of weight, and they seem to have found it fairly constant. That seems to be their "proof", but who knows.

Post number 2000! [smile] And all I have to do is to de-mystify [sad].
In 1907, Dr. Duncan MacDougall indeed tried to measure the weight of the soul by tying six dying people to beds and measuring their weight before and after the exitus.

In fact those 21 grams were measured only one time, while two others "lost" 14 grams while "gaining" 28g to 42g minutes later.
Another patient had weight fluctuations of about 8g that couldn't be confirmed later.

Observations:
1) The experiment was only done one time, by one person and never repeated.
2) The experiment involved only six test subjects.
3) The results differed.
4) Dr. MacDougall wanted to prove the existence of a human soul.

Conclusions:
1) The experiment was conducted by a biased person.
To back this up: he repeated the experiment by killing 15 dogs and measured no weight loss. He claimed that was to be expected since dogs have no soul.

2) Six test subjects is far to few to get any statistical relevant data - especially since the test results varied greatly.

3) The whole experiment is to be questioned - what about the weighing machine? How was the exact time of death measured?
Also alternative explanations exist: a final sweating of 20g evaporates very quickly given the surface of the human body. Dogs btw. don't have perspiratory glands on their skin (only on their pads - that's why they pant to regulate heat).

While 21 Grams might have been a nice movie, that still doesn't proof we have a soul that wheighs 21g on average and mysteriously leaves the body once we die (it has to be non-baryionic matter to have a wheight without interacting with other particles or radiation - I for one would not be comfortable with the fact that my "soul" is basically 21g of dark matter[wink]).

Cheers,
Pat.

Oyy, holy crap!
I didn't really expect anybody to reply at all!

Alright, it'll take me some time to work through all these replies, but I'll try to answer each one of you as soon as I can.
Merry Christmas!

Quote: Everybody agrees we have got ghosts (whatever that is).

That doesn't make it true.

I personally think your arguments are all very inconsistent. You're basing almost all your premises on fallacies when not in just speculations (already proposed by other people, with movies, decades ago...)

If you mean your article to be just "sort of" an entertaining fantasy, then it's ok.

Okay, I've finally had the time to read everything through.
If you're wondering why I'm saying 'merry christmas' so early, it's because in sweden we celebrate on christmas eve instead. So everything's shifted compared to yours.
Right now it's midnight, all the guests have left and I'm free to write a reply.

First, let me say most of the errors you all noticed were because of one important error.

I missed writing a whole section. (further explanation below)
Also, the post did not explain most things as thuroughly as I meant to.

Other important lessons I draw from this is how things are recieved by readers, and how I need to (or shouldn't!) write in order for them to be recieved in a certain way. Most of the errors you found were because of things I saw clear in my head, but had missed writing down.

As several of you pointed out, the assumption that we have 'ghosts' was completely unsupported logic. I was actually aware of this. It was meant to be accompanied by a section which assumed that we DO NOT have 'ghosts'.

From both stances I would specify the accompanying implications. My intended conclusion was that - no matter which stance is the true way - we live in a pretty weird world.

However, some errors were still actual errors. Which is exactly why I posted here. To get help rooting them out.

I think tomorrow I will post a better version of it. Right now I will just reply to certain specifics;

Quote: Original post by frob
I didn't say I disagree. I said the argument is flawed.

I agree with some of the points, but many are not demonstrated and may not be provable.

Admirable. Just because one agrees, doesn't mean one has to BLINDLY agree. Questioning the logic even behind your own opinions is, IMO, admirable.

Quote: Original post by frob
First, I hope your article is for something like "Computers for stupid people"... *snip*

However, starting with an insult is not.

Quote: Original post by Steven Hansen
I took the view that the author wasn't really trying to prove anything (even though he did ask for us to point out logic errors). If it were just a list of possibilities and opinions, I think the article would be better received, which is why I advise changing the "facts" into possibilities or opinions instead.

Your view was correct; I didn't anywhere try to PROVE anything. Also not specifying false facts are a good advice. I will be more careful.

Quote: Original post by Steven Hansen
An argument attempting to prove the author's view would require a great deal more formalism - as frob has pointed out. On the other hand, such an article wouldn't likely be as easy or fun to read.

Exactly!!

Quote: Original post by webwraith
Anyway, back on subject, I am very surprised that you didn't pick up on a particular similarity between wetware and soft\hardware. That is the fact that our brains use the same form of energy(ie electricity) to function as computers.

Well yes, the topic is quite related but I didn't find the physical comparison necessary for what I was trying to say.

Quote: Original post by webwraith
I'd love to see your finished article

Thanks but sorry; it'll be in swedish! However I mean to follow this post up with a better version of my explanations. That should probably be rather close to my article.

Quote: Original post by webwraith
If you want to prove\disprove the Gaia theory:
*snip*

Nah, I wasn't into proving/disproving it at all. I just mentioned that if 'life' does come with all things from the beginning of time, that would make the 'Gaia concept' quite a big topic.

Quote: Original post by darookie

*all you said*

Every single thing you said is actually my own personal standpoint. However I failed to convey them all. Thanks for you additions, I agree with all you said.

Oh, just like you and frob said, AI doesn't mean recreating humans. This was just a thought experiment which grew from imagining that we DID try to develop humanlike AI.

Quote: Original post by WeirdoFu
Looking at the article, my only question would be what the title implies. "When does an Algorithm turn Alive." That in itself has a problem. Most of the scientific community can't even agree on a definition of "alive." First there's that whole issue with whether a virus is a living being, then there's that whole when a fetus stop being a piece of meat and be considered "alive". So, I would say rephrase the title a bit to something more solid, because the word "alive" is just way too wobbly a starting point.

:) That title was chosen because it's really controversial. It wasn't truthfully what the article was about, but it was close enough, and it would attract lots of more readers than other titles. Shortly, the title was chosen by my inner troll. :)

That was it for this time.
I'll be back soon. Thanks for all replies!

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: Original post by Raghar
Frob, when did you read your last book? And about what it was?

Over the past two weeks:

* re-read Harry Potter 2

It shows, you need something heavier to stop taking everything literally. Like Dick books, or the more serious Tolkien work...

BTW I consider reading MSDN articles, somewhat simillar to watching soap operas. Brain would become simillar to goo.

Quote:
* The day I had to play with my sister

Hentai?

Quote: ...or otherwise don't recall very well.

I also spent a lot of time with my wife and kids.

How about you?

frob.

Dunno persons living from welfare has a lot of work to do. Filling forms required to be filled each month for welfare money. Two days from last week killed just by travel to other city to buy some presents. Wrote dictionary, asked question on the wikipedia about relativity and FTL. Cooking. Cleaning. CD/DVD cleaning and sorting. Playing Civ 4. Writing a few articles. Finishing sucessfully test of a multithreaded highly modular engine. ...and so on. Last two week were rather quiet.

I think it's time to stop flaming frob, or anybody else for that matter.

I will be back soon with an updated 'article' which will (hopefully!) make more sense than the first one.