Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Artificial Intelligence

Expand Messages
  • Richard Morrow
    Hi, We all use the term Artificial intelligence, but if a machine were inteligent, what would be artifical about its intelligence? For example; An artificial
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 4, 2007
      Hi,

      We all use the term Artificial intelligence, but if a machine were
      inteligent, what would be artifical about its intelligence?

      For example; An artificial limb is artificial because it is not a real limb,
      but a arangment of plastic, metal and stuff that looks and works like a
      limb. Its action is real, but the object is not.

      So does an artificial brain have to have artificial intelligence? I don't
      think so. If an artificially created machine can comprehend and reason, then
      this would be intelligence right? It's only artificial when it's just
      blindly following a sequence of instructions (chess program for example).

      Anyone agree / disagree?

      Regards,
      Richard Morrow
      www.rmcybernetics. com
    • Crosby Barbara
      I think it would be called artificial because it was built by man, not by nature ... Richard Morrow wrote: Hi, We all use the term
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 6, 2007
        I think it would be called artificial because it was built by man, not by nature ...



        Richard Morrow <rpmorrow@hotmail. com> wrote:

        Hi,

        We all use the term Artificial intelligence, but if a machine were
        inteligent, what would be artifical about its intelligence?

        For example; An artificial limb is artificial because it is not a real limb,
        but a arangment of plastic, metal and stuff that looks and works like a
        limb. Its action is real, but the object is not.

        So does an artificial brain have to have artificial intelligence? I don't
        think so. If an artificially created machine can comprehend and reason, then
        this would be intelligence right? It's only artificial when it's just
        blindly following a sequence of instructions (chess program for example).

        Anyone agree / disagree?

        Regards,
        Richard Morrow
        www.rmcybernetics. com
      • american_lady376
        Yeah that sounds right. That AI is called AI because it was made by man except that man is built by nature so in a way computers are naturally made by this
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 13, 2007
          Yeah that sounds right. That AI is called AI because it was made by man
          except that man is built by nature so in a way computers are naturally made by this universe.


          "I think it would be called artificial because it was built by man, not
          by nature"
        • Sullivan Oswald
          Are not our human brains blindly following a system of programing? So what if a whole lot of programing goes into it? Can t we structure a robotic brain just
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 14, 2007
            Are not our human brains blindly following a system of programing? So
            what if a whole lot of programing goes into it? Can't we structure a
            robotic brain just like ours? Or a human brain just like a machine ...
            Sent from my BlackBerryŽ wireless device
          • Sarah Sullivan
            What have you missed? The chassis features a mesh backplane compliant to the latest VITA 46 specifications. Do you like what you read? i say that the
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 14, 2007
              What have you missed? The chassis features a mesh backplane compliant to the latest VITA 46 specifications. Do you like what you read?



              i say that the difference is that artificial intelligence is programmed to pretend it's intelligent, like the files in this group. if it develops on its own from a chaotic system it's real intelligence.

              godchild


              Richard Morrow wrote:

              > Hi,
              >
              > We all use the term Artificial intelligence, but if a machine were
              > inteligent, what would be artifical about its intelligence?
              >
              > For example; An artificial limb is artificial because it is not a real
              > limb,
              > but a arangment of plastic, metal and stuff that looks and works like a
              > limb. Its action is real, but the object is not.
              >
              > So does an artificial brain have to have artificial intelligence? I don't
              > think so. If an artificially created machine can comprehend and reason,
              > then
              > this would be intelligence right? It's only artificial when it's just
              > blindly following a sequence of instructions (chess program for example).
              >
              > Anyone agree / disagree?
            • big fat lady
              If you move the cursor over the name, you see a small screenshot. Human intelligence is the result of a system able to function relatively coherently amidst
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 14, 2007
                If you move the cursor over the name, you see a small screenshot.

                Human intelligence is the result of a system able to function relatively coherently amidst ongoing chaos.

                I think of it as a system being able to function even though its making millions of mistakes.

                While making mistakes is not really intelligent.


                With early computers a mistake meant the whole system would freeze up. Computers are little better now at handling those mistakes. Mistakes have become part of artificial intelligenc.

                Life itself is much like a computer and programing. Dna is the program.
                It has the ability to continue functioning quite well even with
                millions of mistakes in its transcription.

                That is much how our brain works. Memories detiorate and the collection
                of synapses that operate a certain part of the brain do not act exactly
                the same every time. Even though there are gross inxonsistencies
                sometimes we still work and many of those inconsistencies and learning to handle those mistake are a large part of making us who we are.

                So to make an intelligent brain for a robot we would need those same
                key elements. And if they had those same characteristics then would there be any difference?

                I would think the best people to work on these brains would be
                neuropsychogists, chemists and of coarse an army of computer geeks. All we are is errors in the wind!
                Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
              • Hilda
                if we add it all up, there is no difference between a biological machine as we are, and artificial robots, this makes us to the machine that we so desperately
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 14, 2007
                  if we add it all up, there is no difference between a biological machine as we are, and artificial robots, this makes us to the machine that we so desperately try to create.


                  MOSTLY CLOUDY SKIES THROUGH THE MORNING WITH ISOLATED RAIN SHOWERS. LITTLE OR NO SNOW ACCUMULATION.
                  MOSTLY CLOUDY SKIES THROUGH THE MORNING WITH ISOLATED RAIN SHOWERS.


                  http://www.consciousrobots.co.uk/

                  So you think you are a robot ...
                • Peggy Snowland
                  Yes, I think you are a robot. ... if we add it all up, there is no difference between a biological machine as we are, and artificial robots, this makes us to
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 15, 2007
                    Yes, I think you are a robot.



                    -----Original Message-----


                    if we add it all up, there is no difference between a biological
                    machine as we are, and artificial robots, this makes us to the machine that we so desperately try to create.


                    So you think you are a robot ...

                    http://www.consciousrobots.co.uk/
                  • tadpole
                    ... mikelino9@yahoo. com wrote: Yes, I think you are a robot.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 16, 2007
                      :-] ...



                      mikelino9@yahoo. com wrote:
                      Yes, I think you are a robot.
                    • Richard Morrow
                      Hi, mikelino9 wrote: I think of it as a system being able to function even though its making millions of mistakes I think this is the key to an intelligent
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 16, 2007
                        Hi,

                        mikelino9 wrote:
                        "I think of it as a system being able to function even though its
                        making millions of mistakes"

                        I think this is the key to an intelligent robot wether we call it
                        artificial or not. A robot would need to make mistakes (and lots of them) in order to learn about things the designers had never dreamed of. For a robot to be able to 'survive' in the wild it would have to be able to absorb the myriad of new and unidentified information. It would have to constantly throw away and re-asess data to get a small increase in 'knowledge' each time.

                        Adding noise to an A-brain (artificial brain) would cause it to act
                        slightly randomly and make some mistakes. it would also occasionally do something advantagous by chance. With a reward/punish system in place the A-brain would naturally get better and better at whatever it was getting rewarded for doing.

                        Higer level of noise would cause an A-brain to make more/bigger
                        mistakes but it would potentially learn faster.

                        A small amount of noise would leave the A-brain making only small
                        mistakes, but learning only very slowly.

                        Our brains are perfectly able to live with paradox, but standard
                        logical systems can't do this. I think it would be important that an A-brain could just accept that there was a paradox and use whatever version of events were most useful at the time.

                        "♥•Welcome Back •♥" wrote:
                        "if we add it all up, there is no difference between a biological
                        machine as we are, and artificial robots, this makes us to the machine that we so desperately try to create."

                        I gotta disagree with this in part. Maybe 99% of us is a machine, but
                        the other 1% is connected to the quantum realm which allows us to behave outside of what a normal machine could. Quantum rules are completley different.

                        We could theoretically build a machine that could also do this of
                        course, but I think it would have to be classed as something else. Maybe a synthetic lifeform or something.

                        Cheers, Rich



                        Regards,
                        Richard Morrow
                        www.rmcybernetics.com
                      • mikelino9@yahoo.com
                        What is the quantum connection you are talking about? The biological connection is an unfair advantage because we have had billions of years to randomly learn
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 16, 2007
                          What is the quantum connection you are talking about? The biological
                          connection is an unfair advantage because we have had billions of years to randomly learn and aquire our abilities to function.

                          And if we now learn that we are robots and that we are at the same time building the same, it may be nature's way of telling us who we are.

                          Time doesn't really matter the source of our construction, if we can repeat whether in the same form or non-biological we can simulate the same set up that our human brains have. The quantum connection is probably in the complex reactions of the biological necesseties we have with our computer. Our brains can function with so many errors occurring because of other reasons.

                          We were developed through years of trial and error. Logic has
                          no place in that transaction. I want to develope systems that are not dependant on survival but only on reason.

                          A system which is not dependant on survival has no chance to exist, to survive independant from survival means to develop a system which survives no matter what.

                          It may take a computer a million years to truly asses the meaning of one piece of information, taking into acount all possible
                          meanings and interactions with surrounding data, but if we develop a way to do that faster and with less storage space we will truly begin
                          learning. We are not fast or smart enough to even deal with what we know now.

                          We need an A-brain that can hold that much information meaningfully and interpret and act based upon it with some degree of certainty.
                          What are the current storage and processing devices out there that can begin to do this?
                          Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.