Artificial Intelligence

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:God is metaphysical.

Cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Yet, surprisingly, cats are not dogs.

Nor are either metaphysical, as the conversation.

cthia wrote:Nor are either metaphysical, as the conversation.

Morality is Metaphysics. The study of conscience is Metaphysics. Theology is Metaphysics, and thus deities are metaphysical entities.
Just as cats are not dogs, it does not follow that the existence of morality and conscience is dependant on the existence of theology.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:Nor are either metaphysical, as the conversation.

Morality is Metaphysics. The study of conscience is Metaphysics. Theology is Metaphysics, and thus deities are metaphysical entities.
Just as cats are not dogs, it does not follow that the existence of morality and conscience is dependant on the existence of theology.

Somewhere you dropped a tiny morsel of this discussion. In what amounts to your attempt to argue the existence of God (Been there done that, and the GOD EXISTS thread was Duckked. No repeat. No return. No motivation.)

The morsel that you dropped led from my insistence that it may well be prudent to program the idea of a Deity within an artificial intelligence. I was NOT arguing (although I'm sure you know my stance on it) that the ideals under the umbrella of God on exhibit - conscience and morality - are only found within its core. Where else these ideals may be inherently found, or depend on, I can't say. But I can cite a construct where they ARE inherently found. I was simply using that lone (as known) construct.

But in an attempt to humor, I will alter that original statement just for you.

Uncensored:
"It is why several posts ago I stated that it might be quite wise to impart the idea of a Deity within its programming."

Censored:
It is why several posts ago I stated that it might be quite wise to impart the idea of morality and conscience within its programming.

I'm sorry, but this discussion is getting too religious. And if the discussion of religion is frowned upon in the Free Range section, then as is God, it is certainly not welcome in this classroom. I bow out now as I find myself censoring my post. Censoring for religious content. Which handicaps.

Please stop erroneously substituting words like 'theology' and 'religion' where it clearly should be 'God.'

Tenshinai wrote:

cthia wrote:

Oh no, the propaganda machine got to you too?

Shining examples of Christians.

If you are going to create a life form, you must embed a conscience.

Once you lay out the schematics and algorithms, you will find that your 'conscience' is exactly the constructs at the heart of Christianity - no matter what you label it.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

No, quite the opposite to "shining examples", and that was the point. There are millions of devout christians with a wild variety of beliefs that they will swear comes from their holy bible and nowhere else, not to mention how it is "obviously" the one and only holy godgiven truth.

At the opposite side of that spectra, you have Stalin, which became a paranoid genocidal anti-religious atheist BY STUDYING RELIGION.


So, if you try to enter religion into a computer, you have quite a fair risk of getting an AI that instantly declares holy war, starting with a crusade against pigfarmers, as it is clearly against christian beliefs to even consider eating such foul things, and anyone raising them must be evil by default.

Or you might get an AI that figures only way for humans to be religious is being insane and delusional, ergo they should be removed from the earth as they´re nothing but a putrid infestation.

Both above extremes can easily be drawn through logic applied on "christian values".

Once you lay out the schematics and algorithms, you will find that your 'conscience' is exactly the constructs at the heart of Christianity - no matter what you label it.

Don´t be absurd. Rosecolored glasses might allow you to only see what you wish, but reality isn´t quite that nice and simple.

Not from religion but from a Deity.


It is widely - totally - accepted by academia that conscience lies in the realm of the metaphysical.

Short skip and a jump.

*No, not among sane academia. Actually, not among ANY academia i ever heard about.
Well possibly with the exception of the lunatic fundamentalist christians in USA of course.

The idea is insane as it is contraindicated every day, all the time.

*Reading is fundamental.

Religions and guns - they don't kill people. People, kill people.

When I originally looked at this thread, my first thought was: "Artificial Intelligence isn't possible in the Honorverse, by Edict of Weber." Thread over. Take it to free range topics.

cthia wrote:Case in point, Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics.'

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Hopefully you also noticed that those 3 laws are basically a case in point about how not to set up moral robots/AI. Most of the robotics stories were based around how those simple clear and obvious rules led to robots doing undesirable things.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:
Case in point, Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics.'

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Hopefully you also noticed that those 3 laws are basically a case in point about how not to set up moral robots/AI. Most of the robotics stories were based around how those simple clear and obvious rules led to robots doing undesirable things.

****** *

/**
Warning - the following algorithm includes references to religion. Since the topic includes programming as the subject matter - and in deploying the good old BASIC gasp computer language... */

10 If 'discussions including religion' offends Then Goto 20 Else Goto 30

20 Exit

30 Gosub 70

40 End

50



60




70 /** Discussion...

You're not thinking like a programmer Johnathan.

Asimov shared his [1]core blueprint for achieving an acceptable Artificial Intelligence. Laymen may call it a rough draft. We programmers call it a flowchart. In a flowchart, one designs a process to be achieved. Within these processes at the micro level (coding) certain decisions must be implemented through conditionals. (After all, what are computer circuits other than compound Boolean expressions formed out of simple Boolean expressions using Boolean operations anyways?)

Which, in Asimov's robots case, led to miscreant behavior because of the underlying programming [2]guiding the three laws. His three laws are just fine. Simple. Elegant.

What those 3 laws assimilated by Asimov's robots showed was the impossibility of covering all bases in logic programming of a non-finite Turing machine - warned of by none other than Gödel and his incompleteness theorems in conjunction with the halting problem.

[1]Core blueprint - as in morals, scruples and values. And as morals, scruples and values go, those lone three laws are just fine. In fact, they'd do just fine as the *THREE COMMANDMENTS of man because man doesn't have issues with its underlying programming because its thinking process doesn't suffer from the constraints imposed by Gödel's theorems and the halting problem. Now, there still must be successful programming to achieve those target values. Serve no wine before its time.

[2]That is why the Ten Commandments are called the guiding light. Because HE (Jesus) is the Light Of The World. (In the Christian doctrine.)

*Perhaps God decided on Ten Commandments (Laws) to be more explicit. Because he knew, that even though his creation wouldn't be bound by Gödel's incompleteness theorems it can be bound by, well for one, stupidity -- in perhaps reasoning through the seven deadly sins or vices given as greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, lust and pride. This complexity (subroutine in computerese) in man's programming never would have been initiated, had it not been for the original or ancestral sin.

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden.

An Aside:
Please do forgive my references to religion as I'll forgive myself for having to apologize. Life - and by inference, many things - is impossible to adequately discuss without its inclusion -- which I fear is the same problem that is hindering the proper teaching and mentoring of our kids in public schools because of the handicapping brought on by the inability to discuss religion. Which regurgitates an obvious result of bullet-ridden public schools. */

200 Return

Has anyone else experienced the following glitch in the system? In my previous post, the algorithm is showing a potential 'type' error in line 10 of the source code. There should be a space registering between the 'f' in 'If' and the variable 'if discussions of religion offends'. There isn't one showing. However, in invoking the debugger and inspecting the translated machine code (viewable upon hitting Reply) the space is indeed present. This annoying little bug reveals itself under certain as of yet undetermined conditions. I have wasted time trying to correct it in many posts. My anal side finds it exceptionally annoying in my previous post, as were that algorithm Run, an error would result of the type 'syntax' or 'undefined procedure' line 10. This bug has been inherent on the site for quite some time since I first detected it.

Annoying little bug. Seems resistant to DDT - Debugging Dam Thing.

Duckk?

Late Edit:
Never mind. It is actually the limitations of my display in conjunction with the font type.

cthia wrote:Has anyone else experienced the following glitch in the system? In my previous post, the algorithm is showing a potential 'type' error in line 10 of the source code. There should be a space registering between the 'f' in 'If' and the variable 'if discussions of religion offends'. There isn't one showing. However, in invoking the debugger and inspecting the translated machine code (viewable upon hitting Reply) the space is indeed present. This annoying little bug reveals itself under certain as of yet undetermined conditions. I have wasted time trying to correct it in many posts. My anal side finds it exceptionally annoying in my previous post, as were that algorithm Run, an error would result of the type 'syntax' or 'undefined procedure' line 10. This bug has been inherent on the site for quite some time since I first detected it.

The space is there, it's just that the kerning on the particular proportional font this forum uses is a little aggressive about letting surrounding letters shrink the apparent whitespace ('f' being especially bad; and combined with a single quote the space is very hard to see).

But see the differences below between the one space and the no-space versions:
If discussions
Ifdiscussions

If 'discussions'
If'discussions'

If f
Iff

Ift
If t

The webpage is displaying what you typed, it's not "eating" the space I can select it from your "problem post" above. But to get more spacing someone would most likely have to change the default font for the forum.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Has anyone else experienced the following glitch in the system? In my previous post, the algorithm is showing a potential 'type' error in line 10 of the source code. There should be a space registering between the 'f' in 'If' and the variable 'if discussions of religion offends'. There isn't one showing. However, in invoking the debugger and inspecting the translated machine code (viewable upon hitting Reply) the space is indeed present. This annoying little bug reveals itself under certain as of yet undetermined conditions. I have wasted time trying to correct it in many posts. My anal side finds it exceptionally annoying in my previous post, as were that algorithm Run, an error would result of the type 'syntax' or 'undefined procedure' line 10. This bug has been inherent on the site for quite some time since I first detected it.

The space is there, it's just that the kerning on the particular proportional font this forum uses is a little aggressive about letting surrounding letters shrink the apparent whitespace ('f' being especially bad; and combined with a single quote the space is very hard to see).

But see the differences below between the one space and the no-space versions:
If discussions
Ifdiscussions

If 'discussions'
If'discussions'

If f
Iff

Ift
If t

The webpage is displaying what you typed, it's not "eating" the space I can select it from your "problem post" above. But to get more spacing someone would most likely have to change the default font for the forum.

Thanks Johnathan, I caught it myself on a very hi-res screen with a different font on a Linux machine.



****** *


The Adam & Eve of the minicomp?

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ ... stick.html

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/11/20/ ... umb-drive/