I think xionirk ran away, when we pointed out that he didn't know what he was talking about and neither did anyone else.
(I mean can you actually read that brick wall of a post?)

Some people think this AI forum is comp.ai.philosophy. We can't blame them for their ignorance when they're new, but we can politely point out the appropriate use of this forum, or where best they should espouse their views.

Timkin

Quote: Original post by chosendl
I think xionirk ran away, when we pointed out that he didn't know what he was talking about and neither did anyone else.
(I mean can you actually read that brick wall of a post?)

Hmm, that would be a good AI project for the future -- Paragraph Checking/Correcting (like Spell Checking -- which itself could be enhanced by spelling variant validation by context...).

Quote: Original post by xiornik
Objective: to verbally explain how to create an artificial human.

One way to do this is to show all the connections in the human mind and how they work.

What is one connection to start. Your physical senses you have physical sense. You have mental senses. But everything begins with a type of physical sense/sensation. So what are all the physical sensations. There are the 5 senses taste, touch, sight, sound and smell.

When you walk into a room you experience all of those senses. What if you think about something, that is just thinking about a physical sensation, anything you can think about is really just a physical sensation. Everything is neurological. Including logical thinking structures, which relate in the end to physical sensations as well.

Now we need to verbally explain how the human mind works. So when you see things, you get sensations. You get sensations and you get thoughts. Those sensations and thoughts cause feelings. That’s it.

Why do you get those sensations and thoughts and feelings? Well a physical sensation is just neurological stimulation from a sense. If you touch something neurological signals are sent to your brain that you are having feeling at that touch, that is a feeling, just touching something causes a feeling. Similarly smelling something causes another feeling. As with the other senses.

Thoughts can also cause feelings, you can think about something happy or something sad. Why would one thing cause happiness? Some things stimulate your neurons while other things don’t stimulate them, so happiness would be the neurological stimulation.

“meaning” is just neurological stimulation. How do some things stimulate your neurons and make you happy while others don’t? A girl might have a pretty face that when you look at makes you happy. So visually you get pleased. When you think of the girl, you would get happy, and the reason would be it stimulates your visual center of the brain. Why do pretty things stimulate the visual center of your brain? Because they are easier to think about. Why are they easier to think about? Because they stimulate your neurons.

Why do ugly things not stimulate your neurons? I think because something pretty puts you in a good mood. Why would something like a pretty lake calm someone down? Its obvious why seeing violence would not calm someone down, cause it causes you to think about violence which is threatening to that person, causing them to shut down with worry. In that case the visual leads to thought.

Maybe something like water or a large landscape leads to no thought cause there is nothing to do in those environments, cause they are so peaceful and have nothing in them. And something pretty has fun things to do in it and fun things to feel, like feelings jagged edges wouldn’t be fun, but feeling smooth ones would be fun cause it doesn’t disrupt your senses. So smooth things are prettier and jagged things are usually uglier. So the entire visual sensation isn’t really a sensation, it just causes you to think about more real sensations like touch and touching things.

Something jagged feels bad when you touch it so its ugly. Why else would you take pleasure from seeing something? Seriously… The pleasure has to derive from somewhere real. Smell is just stimulating different neurons in your brain. Same with taste.

How would I verbally describe smell/taste? Maybe that’s wrong and feeling is just what the physical object causes you to think about. Like if you had a mechanic arm it would feel… mechanical. When you have a human arm is feels real and mushy, which is what the arm causes you to think about, mushy stuff like blood and muscles interacting. And if you get shot you think about things getting destroyed, so you feel pain.

So if you had a mechanical arm it would feel exactly like that, a mechanical arm, you’d feel like a robot. So we can give our robot a mechanical body and he’d feel it just by thinking about it. And a visual processor to process the lines and smoothness and patterns he sees. Then when sees a pattern that is harmonious, he will think of harmony and that will make him happy.

We can tell him what to do “get up and walk around”. How would he understand that. He can learn from his visual processor, getting up would just be his observation of other things and objects getting up, when he sees a human get up they move their legs and torso in a certain way, etc. So he just copies that with his body. Simple. So just give him lots of visual data to process. With descriptions of what everything that is going on is. Then when he hears someone say that, he will understand and respond.

I *tried* to do this person a favour and break it up into paragraphs, but there really aren't any cohesive thoughts so this is the best I could do.

OP - If you're going to repost this somewhere more appropriate, try not to ramble and divide your argument into key points supported by logic/facts. Try googling "Paragraph Structure" for an explanation.

Oh, and nothing you've said is new. Look up "strong AI," then look up "materialism" and "functionalism." What you've written could go either way.

If you weren't trying to describe how to create an artificial mind, I would almost certainly peg you as supporting Searle's "biological naturalism." In fact, "So if you had a mechanical arm it would feel exactly like that, a mechanical arm, you’d feel like a robot," sounds like something Searle would write if he had Down Syndrome. Of course, Searle would then follow up with some sort of analogy showing why it would be impossible for the robot to "feel" anything at all, nevermind "like a robot."

You also have a poor understanding of "intentionality" with a 't', and I would suggest you read up on that as well.

In my opinion, the only thing you've described is a "zombie" (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an explanation) and you're not even close to an implementation of an artificial mind.

Green eggs and ham anyone?

Quote: Original post by chosendl
I think xionirk ran away, when we pointed out that he didn't know what he was talking about and neither did anyone else.

                           Actually, that was an AI that                            killed the real xiornik and                            took his place in society.                            xiornik was probably reading                            gamedev when the AI killed him,                            and when the AI saw how smart                            we were, it planned to confuse                            us, just in case we achieve to                            figure out how to create an AI                            and, worst yet, how to kill it.

Well.. this guy obviously put a lot of work into this and you guys are just making fun of him. Yeah, he forget to capitalize the "I" and "AI" in the thread name. However, at least he's thinking about this kind of stuff.

I didn't actually read the OP's entire post. BUT, it's good to 'see' someone's thoughts on this stuff anyways.

ROFL.. that happy face thing has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen someone do on a forum. CONGRATS :D

Quote: Original post by chosendl
I think xionirk ran away, when we pointed out that he didn't know what he was talking about and neither did anyone else.
(I mean can you actually read that brick wall of a post?)

Yes, they are worse real publications about AI. At lest he didn't cluttered it by lemmas and proofs.

mmh... no?

That is not how to create AI