1 (current)
2
# 9756 byspider_boris@... on March 21, 2007, 9:36 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
OK, I have already offered the opinion that I think
this is off-topic for the list, however it looks like
people want to talk about it, so we may as well have
the thread named properly. Hopefully we can steer the
conversation towards something that is on-topic for
the list.
some time now in the space community. I think the
general consensus is that there are places for both,
and that they are complimentary.
When we bring artificial intelligence into the works,
then we get the best of both: something that doesn't
require the life support system of a human being, but
is still capable of making intelligent decisions on
the fly.
One thing that I have noticed over the years is that
the bar keeps getting moved. At one time, chess was
considered to be the ultimate measure of intelligence.
Then Deep Blue beat Kasparov, and the bar got moved
("well, that's not *really* intelligence") a little
further. Name any measure of intelligent behaviour,
and there is probably a robot or program out there
somewhere that can do it - in which case the bar gets
moved a little further along.
Part of the problem is that there really is no hard
and fast definition of things like consciousness,
intelligence, awareness, thought, and so on. This
enables people to cling to the conviction that we are
somehow special, that there is something magical about
human intelligence.
One of the key axioms of Physics is that the laws of
Physics are the same everywhere. If this is true,
then the laws must apply within our own skulls too.
There is nothing magical about thought, intelligence,
etc. I have said before on other forums a number of
times that people like Penrose who search for some
quantum mechanical explanation for intelligence are
engaging in a search for magic, and are completely
ignoring the signal-transformation capabilities of
neurons, that thought is an emergent property of the
actions of a large number of such interconnected
signal-transformation devices.
Once we get over the prejudice that there is something
magical and special about human intelligence, then it
is readily apparent that AI is already ubiquitous. It
is only a matter of developing it further to suit our
needs.
Personally, I would like to see AI developed that can
explore the surface of an asteroid, taking
measurements and analyzing samples and so on. I
believe Al Globus once wrote a paper on something
called "aster-ants" or something like that which
details how such teams of robots could assist us in
exploring and assaying asteroids.
Ed
--- "Omar E. Vega" wrote:
# 9757 byoevega@... on March 21, 2007, 11:10 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Yes, there is nothing magical about though, awarenes, intelligence
and concience. That's not what I mean at all.
CURRENT science.
And what I also mean is that A.I. professors behave like those
ancient Aristotelic schollars that believed they have all the truth,
and that Earth was the center of the universe. They never admitted
ignorance. Today is the same.
We need to now more (a lot more) BEFORE we can predict A.I. comming
in the "following 5 years". We don't need to rush to predict
the "comming of the Messiah" so often, or "singularity" how is called
sometimes.
Omar Vega
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau
# 9758 bysraj99@... on March 23, 2007, 6:05 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Why don't we make this discussion on A.I. a little more interesting.
Presently, as you may be aware we are sitting on a bombshell of an idea that
Darwin's theory of evolution does not fully explain how lifeforms on planet
earth evolved. As is human nature there is a tendency to plod along with
'accepted truths' till some one jostles our minds.
it will be useful if we can weigh in on this issue. (Eventually that will
help us to better understand the issue of A.I.). A complex structure like
the eye for instance, can it evolve based on Darwin's theory of NATURAL
SELECTION combined with RANDOM MUTATIONS (I am not sure whether the idea of
random mutations was proposed by Darwin.)
I have full belief in Darwin's theory of natural selection, but is just this
one theory enough to explain every aspect of evolution? Even to explain
motion, Newton had to propose three laws, each one independent and
non-derivable from the other!
It is difficult for me to believe that over a period of 5 million years -
Just 500,000 generations, if we assume one generation to be a period of 10
years - it would be possible to make all the well crafted changes required
to make humans out of the common ancestors of Chimpanzees and Humans - by
RANDOM MUTATIONS and NATURAL SELECTION alone.
To understand random mutations, imagine that you enter a pitch dark room;
you have a pellet gun in your hand, and you plan to put on the light by
shooting in all directions to make a lucky hit on a switch whose location
you do not know! How many trials will you need to make just this one simple
event happen? It is not clear yet how these random mutations are supposed to
happen. Some believe that it is caused by Cosmic radiation. Isaac Asimov had
suggested that it could be caused by radiation produced by breakdown of
naturally occurring radioactive material on the earth's crust.
As I see it Nature is intelligent, and evolution is an intelligent process
of change, combining a directed process of trail and error (and yes some
amount of chance and luck), to take advantage of an opening in an
ecosystem. In this model Nature express her intelligence through the medium
of bees and humans. (We cannot directly access our minds, nor do we know how
information is stored there, so our intelligence itself is subjective. We
may take pride in discovering natural laws, but let us keep in mind that
Nature is the very embodiment of Natural laws ).
The other possibility that lifeforms were originally designed by a more
intelligent being should receive due consideration. After all, we ourselves
seem to be planning such a feat through A.I. : - ) But my bet would be on
'Nature is intelligent model'.
Selvaraj
On 22/03/07, Omar E. Vega wrote:
# 9759 bysqorpo@... on March 23, 2007, 1:58 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Now I think this is starting to move way of topic, but I believe your
premise of understanding biological evolution to the path of
understanding A.I.is little off base.. It seems to me to be attempting
to inject "mystery" and "magic" back into the debate.. These concepts
are not magic and there is no big mystery.. This is modern science..
any credible biologist and they'll tell you anyone who tries to imply
anything different is only misinterpreting through theology.. Real
scientist don't believe in fairy tales.. Only facts.. Nature is not
"intelligent" only indifferent... What appears to be intelligence is
only evolution what works well in the environment in which it has
developed in.. There are many examples of "unintelligent design", but
these don't get pointed out.. Just look at the fossil record. They are
filled with examples... Anyway more to your point.. "Natural
Selection" and "Random Mutation" are only parts of the process..
Stress cause by climate change, habitat change, changes in food and
water sources, and changes in procreation and propagation patterns are
more responsible for the overall evolution of life.. These are in many
ways part of "Natural Selection", but not necessarily the "live or
die" definition many people think N.S. is about.. Also dramatic
environmental changes or events can create swift evolutionary jumps or
shifts.. All these things (and more) combined are parts of the complex
process of evolution.. But not "intelligent Design", or "magic"...
Back to what was mentioned before about "simulating" intelligence in
A.I... I think a better term may be "pseudo-intelligence".. And I
wonder.. If "real" intelligence and "pseudo" intelligence were
distinguishable from each other, would there really be any difference?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> Why don't we make this discussion on A.I. a little more interesting.
> Presently, as you may be aware we are sitting on a bombshell of an
idea that
> Darwin's theory of evolution does not fully explain how lifeforms on
planet
> earth evolved. As is human nature there is a tendency to plod along with
> 'accepted truths' till some one jostles our minds.
>
> Since many in the spacesettlers' group will have design background,
perhaps
> it will be useful if we can weigh in on this issue. (Eventually that
will
> help us to better understand the issue of A.I.). A complex structure
like
> the eye for instance, can it evolve based on Darwin's theory of NATURAL
> SELECTION combined with RANDOM MUTATIONS (I am not sure whether the
idea of
> random mutations was proposed by Darwin.)
>
> I have full belief in Darwin's theory of natural selection, but is
just this
> one theory enough to explain every aspect of evolution? Even to explain
> motion, Newton had to propose three laws, each one independent and
> non-derivable from the other!
>
> It is difficult for me to believe that over a period of 5 million
years -
> Just 500,000 generations, if we assume one generation to be a period
of 10
> years - it would be possible to make all the well crafted changes
required
> to make humans out of the common ancestors of Chimpanzees and Humans
- by
> RANDOM MUTATIONS and NATURAL SELECTION alone.
>
> To understand random mutations, imagine that you enter a pitch dark
room;
> you have a pellet gun in your hand, and you plan to put on the light by
> shooting in all directions to make a lucky hit on a switch whose
location
> you do not know! How many trials will you need to make just this one
simple
> event happen? It is not clear yet how these random mutations are
supposed to
> happen. Some believe that it is caused by Cosmic radiation. Isaac
Asimov had
> suggested that it could be caused by radiation produced by breakdown of
> naturally occurring radioactive material on the earth's crust.
>
> As I see it Nature is intelligent, and evolution is an intelligent
process
> of change, combining a directed process of trail and error (and yes some
> amount of chance and luck), to take advantage of an opening in an
> ecosystem. In this model Nature express her intelligence through
the medium
> of bees and humans. (We cannot directly access our minds, nor do we
know how
> information is stored there, so our intelligence itself is
subjective. We
> may take pride in discovering natural laws, but let us keep in mind that
> Nature is the very embodiment of Natural laws ).
>
> The other possibility that lifeforms were originally designed by a more
> intelligent being should receive due consideration. After all, we
ourselves
> seem to be planning such a feat through A.I. : - ) But my bet would
be on
> 'Nature is intelligent model'.
>
> Selvaraj
>
> On 22/03/07, Omar E. Vega wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there is nothing magical about though, awarenes, intelligence
> > and concience. That's not what I mean at all.
> >
> > What I mean is that these things are beyond the understanding of
> > CURRENT science.
> >
> > And what I also mean is that A.I. professors behave like those
> > ancient Aristotelic schollars that believed they have all the truth,
> > and that Earth was the center of the universe. They never admitted
> > ignorance. Today is the same.
> >
> > We need to now more (a lot more) BEFORE we can predict A.I. comming
> > in the "following 5 years". We don't need to rush to predict
> > the "comming of the Messiah" so often, or "singularity" how is called
> > sometimes.
> >
> > Omar Vega
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
, Ed
> > Minchau
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > There is nothing magical about thought, intelligence,
> > > etc. I have said before on other forums a number of
> > > times that people like Penrose who search for some
> > > quantum mechanical explanation for intelligence are
> > > engaging in a search for magic, and are completely
> > > ignoring the signal-transformation capabilities of
> > > neurons, that thought is an emergent property of the
> > > actions of a large number of such interconnected
> > > signal-transformation devices.
> > >
> > > Once we get over the prejudice that there is something
> > > magical and special about human intelligence, then it
> > > is readily apparent that AI is already ubiquitous. It
> > > is only a matter of developing it further to suit our
> > > needs.
> > >
> > > --- "Omar E. Vega" wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
,
# 9760 byjoe@... on March 23, 2007, 2:51 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Mar 23, 2007, at 06:05 UTC, sraj wrote:
> Presently, as you may be aware we are sitting on a bombshell of an
> idea that Darwin's theory of evolution does not fully explain how
> lifeforms on planet earth evolved.
Who's sitting on this idea, and in what way is it a "bombshell"?
Evolutionary biologists have known for a long time that while Darwin
was basically right (and amazingly insightful for his time), the actual
details have needed some refinement (e.g. the concept of punctuated
equilibrium, or the existence of lateral gene transfer). I'd hardly
call that a bombshell, though. That's just the progress of science.
Or are you referring to the creationist nut-jobs who periodically
manage to take over a few U.S. school boards?
> A complex structure like the eye for instance, can it evolve based on
> Darwin's theory of NATURAL SELECTION combined with RANDOM MUTATIONS
Yes, it can, and in fact it has evolved several times. Oops, wait, let
me say it this way:
YES, it CAN, and in FACT it has evolved SEVERAL TIMES.
> I have full belief in Darwin's theory of natural selection, but is
> just this one theory enough to explain every aspect of evolution?
As noted, evolutionary theory has been refined to account for more
subtle details in the last few decades. Important but hardly
earth-shaking, IMO.
> It is difficult for me to believe that over a period of 5 million
> years - Just 500,000 generations, if we assume one generation to be a
> period of 10 years - it would be possible to make all the well
crafted
> changes required to make humans out of the common ancestors of
> Chimpanzees and Humans - by RANDOM MUTATIONS and NATURAL SELECTION
> alone.
Well, you probably just need to read up on the topic some more. This
hardly seems like the best forums to ask for recommendations on
anthropology and evolutionary biology, though.
> As I see it Nature is intelligent, and evolution is an intelligent
> process of change, combining a directed process of trail and error
> (and yes some amount of chance and luck), to take advantage of an
> opening in an ecosystem. In this model Nature express her
> intelligence through the medium of bees and humans.
You're anthropormorphizing in a rather blatant way. This is not
helpful in understanding. If it helps you write good poetry, then
great; but don't expect it to help you understand how the universe
works.
Nature is not a person (of any gender); it's just the sum of physical
laws, and it's not intelligent, except insofar as evolution has
happened to create species with intelligence (because that helped
members of those species to reproduce more successfully).
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9761 byoevega@... on March 23, 2007, 4:08 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hi Jake
> are not magic and there is no big mystery.. This is modern science..
>
> shifts.. All these things (and more) combined are parts of the complex
> process of evolution.. But not "intelligent Design", or "magic"...
>
> ......
> Back to what was mentioned before about "simulating" intelligence in
> A.I... I think a better term may be "pseudo-intelligence".. And I
> wonder.. If "real" intelligence and "pseudo" intelligence were
> distinguishable from each other, would there really be any difference?
>
Yes. We are not talking of "magic" but of something that Modern Science
can't explain fully as yet. We are talking about, sorry for the word:
ignorance.
There are many unsolved problems when studying the mind. Some seem
quite simple at first sight but they are still unsolved after decades
of study. This is particularly true in the field of "artificial vision"
or "robot vision".
For example, try to build a program that analizes any SINGLE black and
white picture and returns a 3d model of the objects in the picture.
Computers can't do it. Five years olds do it in a second.
How come?
Omar Vega
# 9762 bysqorpo@... on March 24, 2007, 12:16 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> > Back to what was mentioned before about "simulating" intelligence in
> > A.I... I think a better term may be "pseudo-intelligence".. And I
> > wonder.. If "real" intelligence and "pseudo" intelligence were
> > distinguishable from each other, would there really be any difference?
> >
> Yes. We are not talking of "magic" but of something that Modern Science
> can't explain fully as yet. We are talking about, sorry for the word:
> ignorance.
>
> There are many unsolved problems when studying the mind. Some seem
> quite simple at first sight but they are still unsolved after decades
> of study. This is particularly true in the field of "artificial vision"
> or "robot vision".
>
> For example, try to build a program that analizes any SINGLE black and
> white picture and returns a 3d model of the objects in the picture.
> Computers can't do it. Five years olds do it in a second.
>
> How come?
>
> Omar Vega
>
There has been some advances in this field.. Standford's DARPA Grand
Challenge entries the last few years have been pretty impressive..
Honda has made some progress too. as well as others.. Good image
recognition is a huge challenge, but you have to figure a five year
old child has been working on his/her programing for 5 years
straight.. And that's after evolution has already done most of the
work with the parents supplying all the proper equipment..
# 9763 byoevega@... on March 24, 2007, 2:41 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> There has been some advances in this field.. Standford's DARPA
>Grand
> Challenge entries the last few years have been pretty impressive..
> Honda has made some progress too. as well as others.. Good image
> recognition is a huge challenge, but you have to figure a five year
> old child has been working on his/her programing for 5 years
> straight.. And that's after evolution has already done most of the
> work with the parents supplying all the proper equipment..
>
universities are an advance?
Remember with robot vision we are not talking about the complex,
self organizing task of the brain at all. We are talking about BASIC
TASKS. Very BASIC tasks. Thinks that the brain do by instinc,
without even thinking about it. And certainly animals like dogs and
cats do as well.
Do you know there still no segmentation algorith that is failure-
proof? For example.
That's what I mean when I say scientists (particularly A.I.
researchers) are very good for saling "dreams", instead of finding
solutions.
Modelling the mind (that's what we are talking about) is a task that
will take centuries, to achieve, perhaps thousand of years. Before
that's achieved I am sure predicting "A.I. for the next five years"
is not only the saying of charlatans but is cheating people.
Singularity will have to wait a little.
Well, that's my oppinion.
Omar Vega
(Former researcher in Robot Vision. No kidding)
# 9764 byjanet_baker76@... on March 24, 2007, 1:26 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
My very dear Spacers,
work and the boss ignores it. You put in hours and hours, thought
about it every waking moment, neglected your family, perhaps,
neglected your health, perhaps -- and the boss is too involved in
his golf game or his girlfriend to notice. Maybe the project or the
business even fails because of it, and you lose your job that you
gave so much to.
How does it make you feel? It hurts like hell, no matter how mature
we are. That's because it's unjust! In justice stinks -- to high
heaven, as we say.
But you don't have any problem doing the same thing to God.
Shame on the poster for trying to inject a little "wonder" in his
world. Shame on him for putting two and two together, the
conversation about how totally, awesomely difficult it is to
reproduce the intelligence of a fetus, let alone a five-year-old,
and the conversation about evolution. Shame on him for opening the
door to space open (and all things space related) for millions of
people who might be interested, but, wisely, don't want to leave
their God behind, as many pseudo-engineers seem to think is justice.
The Catholic church, as far as I understand, says this: evolution is
real, but it is not random, and it adds up to love. That IS wonder-
ful. You ought to say so, in prayer, to the guy who did the work.
Yours in Christ,
Jan Baker
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> > There has been some advances in this field.. Standford's DARPA
> >Grand
> > Challenge entries the last few years have been pretty
impressive..
> > Honda has made some progress too. as well as others.. Good image
> > recognition is a huge challenge, but you have to figure a five
year
> > old child has been working on his/her programing for 5 years
> > straight.. And that's after evolution has already done most of
the
> > work with the parents supplying all the proper equipment..
> >
> Really? Do you mean, those metalic puppets shown on Japanese
> universities are an advance?
>
> Remember with robot vision we are not talking about the complex,
> self organizing task of the brain at all. We are talking about
BASIC
> TASKS. Very BASIC tasks. Thinks that the brain do by instinc,
> without even thinking about it. And certainly animals like dogs
and
> cats do as well.
>
> Do you know there still no segmentation algorith that is failure-
> proof? For example.
>
> That's what I mean when I say scientists (particularly A.I.
> researchers) are very good for saling "dreams", instead of finding
> solutions.
>
> Modelling the mind (that's what we are talking about) is a task
that
> will take centuries, to achieve, perhaps thousand of years. Before
> that's achieved I am sure predicting "A.I. for the next five
years"
# 9765 bysqorpo@... on March 24, 2007, 3 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
God?? God who??
Your Christian god? The god of Islam? all of the Hindu gods? Why not
the hundreds or maybe thousands of tribal gods? What about the
Buddhist??? Who's to say what myths should be recognized in space? Are
we to include unicorns and dragons in zoology education as well?? Why
not?? I have read many stories about them and even have seen very good
depictions of what they look like.. Can't we just make them real by
believing in them??
over this fruitless venture called religion.. What has been gained
from it? Peace?? NO.. Happiness?? Only for a small few.. Prosperity??
Only for the temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques.. I wonder how
much more mankind could have accomplished already if not for the
interference of religion...
I would almost be willing to say religion does have a place on a space
settlement... Right along with the rest of the fables and fairy tales
we read to our children at night before they go to bed.. Except most
of the stories would give them nightmares....
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
wrote:
# 9766 byoevega@... on March 24, 2007, 4:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> Shame on the poster for trying to inject a little "wonder" in his
> world. Shame on him for putting two and two together, the
> conversation about how totally, awesomely difficult it is to
> reproduce the intelligence of a fetus, let alone a five-year-old,
> and the conversation about evolution. Shame on him for opening the
> door to space open (and all things space related) for millions of
> people who might be interested, but, wisely, don't want to leave
> their God behind, as many pseudo-engineers seem to think is
justice.
>
> The Catholic church, as far as I understand, says this: evolution
is
> real, but it is not random, and it adds up to love. That IS wonder-
> ful. You ought to say so, in prayer, to the guy who did the work.
>
> Yours in Christ,
>
> Jan Baker
I don't believe father Pierre Theilhard de Chardin would ever agree
with you. I respect very much because him, because his superb vision
of mankind, God and the future. You should read him, so you get an
idea of what the educated Catholics think about that topic.
One thing I know is Catholic don't use the word "shame" to menace
people. That's more an attitude of fundamentalist Protestants and
Muslims.
Besides, who said God was not the architect of the universe? The
topic was in other direction.
Regards,
Omar Vega
# 9767 byjanet_baker76@... on March 24, 2007, 6:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
There's only one, of course, and figuring it out is supposed to make
a man out of you.
Jan
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Jake" wrote:
>
> God?? God who??
> Your Christian god? The god of Islam? all of the Hindu gods? Why
not
> the hundreds or maybe thousands of tribal gods? What about the
> Buddhist??? Who's to say what myths should be recognized in space?
Are
> we to include unicorns and dragons in zoology education as well??
Why
> not?? I have read many stories about them and even have seen very
good
> depictions of what they look like.. Can't we just make them real by
> believing in them??
>
> Just think of all the time and money, not to mention lives wasted,
> over this fruitless venture called religion.. What has been gained
> from it? Peace?? NO.. Happiness?? Only for a small few..
Prosperity??
> Only for the temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques.. I wonder
how
> much more mankind could have accomplished already if not for the
> interference of religion...
>
> I would almost be willing to say religion does have a place on a
space
> settlement... Right along with the rest of the fables and fairy
tales
> we read to our children at night before they go to bed.. Except
most
> of the stories would give them nightmares....
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
> wrote:
> >
> > My very dear Spacers,
> >
> > I can't imagine a person who hasn't had this experience: you do
good
> > work and the boss ignores it. You put in hours and hours,
thought
> > about it every waking moment, neglected your family, perhaps,
> > neglected your health, perhaps -- and the boss is too involved
in
> > his golf game or his girlfriend to notice. Maybe the project or
the
> > business even fails because of it, and you lose your job that
you
> > gave so much to.
> >
> > How does it make you feel? It hurts like hell, no matter how
mature
> > we are. That's because it's unjust! In justice stinks -- to high
> > heaven, as we say.
> >
> > But you don't have any problem doing the same thing to God.
> >
> > Shame on the poster for trying to inject a little "wonder" in
his
> > world. Shame on him for putting two and two together, the
> > conversation about how totally, awesomely difficult it is to
> > reproduce the intelligence of a fetus, let alone a five-year-
old,
> > and the conversation about evolution. Shame on him for opening
the
> > door to space open (and all things space related) for millions
of
> > people who might be interested, but, wisely, don't want to leave
> > their God behind, as many pseudo-engineers seem to think is
justice.
> >
> > The Catholic church, as far as I understand, says this:
evolution is
> > real, but it is not random, and it adds up to love. That IS
wonder-
> > ful. You ought to say so, in prayer, to the guy who did the work.
> >
> > Yours in Christ,
> >
> > Jan Baker
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There has been some advances in this field.. Standford's
DARPA
> > > >Grand
> > > > Challenge entries the last few years have been pretty
> > impressive..
> > > > Honda has made some progress too. as well as others.. Good
image
> > > > recognition is a huge challenge, but you have to figure a
five
> > year
> > > > old child has been working on his/her programing for 5 years
> > > > straight.. And that's after evolution has already done most
of
> > the
> > > > work with the parents supplying all the proper equipment..
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? Do you mean, those metalic puppets shown on Japanese
> > > universities are an advance?
> > >
> > > Remember with robot vision we are not talking about the
complex,
> > > self organizing task of the brain at all. We are talking about
> > BASIC
> > > TASKS. Very BASIC tasks. Thinks that the brain do by instinc,
> > > without even thinking about it. And certainly animals like
dogs
> > and
> > > cats do as well.
> > >
> > > Do you know there still no segmentation algorith that is
failure-
> > > proof? For example.
> > >
> > > That's what I mean when I say scientists (particularly A.I.
> > > researchers) are very good for saling "dreams", instead of
finding
> > > solutions.
> > >
> > > Modelling the mind (that's what we are talking about) is a
task
> > that
> > > will take centuries, to achieve, perhaps thousand of years.
Before
# 9768 byjanet_baker76@... on March 24, 2007, 6:37 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Please be specific about Chardin. What I gave is a perfectly good
and specific summary of Catholic teaching: evolution happens, but
not randomly.
say it more often, although I myself in this instance was speaking
ironically in this case and meant just the opposite: thanks to the
poster for trying to bring wonder into "science."
Jan
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
>
> > Shame on the poster for trying to inject a little "wonder" in
his
> > world. Shame on him for putting two and two together, the
> > conversation about how totally, awesomely difficult it is to
> > reproduce the intelligence of a fetus, let alone a five-year-
old,
> > and the conversation about evolution. Shame on him for opening
the
> > door to space open (and all things space related) for millions
of
> > people who might be interested, but, wisely, don't want to leave
> > their God behind, as many pseudo-engineers seem to think is
> justice.
> >
> > The Catholic church, as far as I understand, says this:
evolution
> is
> > real, but it is not random, and it adds up to love. That IS
wonder-
> > ful. You ought to say so, in prayer, to the guy who did the work.
> >
> > Yours in Christ,
> >
> > Jan Baker
>
> Dear Jan:
>
> I don't believe father Pierre Theilhard de Chardin would ever
agree
> with you. I respect very much because him, because his superb
vision
# 9769 byoevega@... on March 24, 2007, 11:05 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
>
> Please be specific about Chardin. What I gave is a perfectly good
> and specific summary of Catholic teaching: evolution happens, but
> not randomly.
>
Chardin didn't reject evolution theory at all, and he knew mankind
itself was evolving in technology, society and biology. Mankind is
going to the Omega point. Space settlers are just trying to achieve
the dream of Chardin, peopling Space.
Now, in the matter of brain complexity, I am really amazed of it,
and I can't understand how many serious scientists believe
reproducing it is a "piece of cake". It is not. Not at all. Many
don't have a clue of the task ahead. I am talking from the point of
view of enginering in here, only.
If the brain was designed or not by an Architect is a matter of
faith, and if you believe it I respect your oppinion. I was only
pointing the fact the task of building "artificial intelligence" is
well beyond what our current technology can achieve, and probably
that project will have to way centuries or, perhaps, millenia.
Omar Vega
# 9770 byjoe@... on March 25, 2007, 1:33 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Mar 24, 2007, at 18:29 UTC, janet_baker76 wrote:
> a man out of you.
Don't let her intimidate you, Jake. She's suffering from the God
delusion, and it's not really her fault; she was probably indoctrinated
at a very young age, before she could be expected to have developed any
defenses. Some people manage to shake this conditioning, but many more
never do.
> Meanwhile, how about following the rules of any damn one of them.
Or better yet, follow a rational moral philosophy based on fundamental
principles like respect, rather than on some ancient mythology that
includes stonings, genocide, turning one's daughter over to be
gang-raped, and so on.
I've been a closet athiest for a long time, but when I see this sort of
harassment of my fellows, I just have to speak up.
However, none of this is on topic for the list, not by a long shot, and
it's not generating a very healthy environment either. Jake and Jan,
perhaps the three of us (and anyone else who's interested) should
continue this privately, off-list -- or not at all.
Best regards,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9771 bysqorpo@... on March 25, 2007, 3:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I agree with you 100%.. This is not the right group for this debate..
few I have decided to not be afraid anymore... Fear is very powerful..
Maybe the most powerful emotion we have.. It keeps us alive, but also
it is used to control us in ways we don't even realize.. Accepting my
atheism has been very liberating.. Freedom from fear is wonderful
feeling.. Better than any false sense of security can ever give..
This topic is done as far as I am concerned..
Now "let us be guided by the light of the stars and not by the lights
of every passing ship"... (one of my favorite quotes)
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
# 9772 byspider_boris@... on March 25, 2007, 5:12 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
(my replies interspersed throughout below)
> > There has been some advances in this field..
> Standford's DARPA
> >Grand
> > Challenge entries the last few years have been
> pretty impressive..
> > Honda has made some progress too. as well as
> others.. Good image
> > recognition is a huge challenge, but you have to
> figure a five year
> > old child has been working on his/her programing
> for 5 years
> > straight.. And that's after evolution has already
> done most of the
> > work with the parents supplying all the proper
> equipment..
> >
> Really? Do you mean, those metalic puppets shown on
> Japanese
> universities are an advance?
I'd say that bipedal robots that can run (such as
Asimo) are a huge advance over the state of the art of
even ten years ago (Genghis and Atilla). Even some of
the smaller type of robots, the robosapiens-style
ones, are doing some amazing things in comparison to
the robots of five or ten years ago. And as far as
them being "puppets" goes, what is it that you want?
Should they simply be fully intelligent at the level
of an adult human being right out of the box?
I think that if you were to show the robots of today
to someone who was at the top of the AI field 25 years
ago, they would be amazed at how far we have come, and
would say that we have definitely achieved a form of
AI already today.
>
> Remember with robot vision we are not talking about
> the complex,
> self organizing task of the brain at all. We are
> talking about BASIC
> TASKS. Very BASIC tasks. Thinks that the brain do by
> instinc,
> without even thinking about it. And certainly
> animals like dogs and
> cats do as well.
>
> Do you know there still no segmentation algorith
> that is failure-
> proof? For example.
There is no such thing as failure-proof. This is what
I meant by "moving the bar". In this case, the bar
has been moved beyond that of which even human beings
are capable. If you have ever been fooled by an
optical illusion, then the circuitry/algorithms in
your eyes and brain are not failure proof. Is the bar
for AI to be set so high that not even human beings
could be considered intelligent?
>
> That's what I mean when I say scientists
> (particularly A.I.
> researchers) are very good for saling "dreams",
> instead of finding
> solutions.
>
> Modelling the mind (that's what we are talking
> about) is a task that
> will take centuries, to achieve, perhaps thousand of
> years. Before
> that's achieved I am sure predicting "A.I. for the
> next five years"
> is not only the saying of charlatans but is cheating
> people.
AI is already here. Look around you. It is so
pervasive that modern life would be impossible without
AI. Sure, a lot of it is in specialized systems -
like the railroads of Japan, or in petroleum
refineries, or the Google search engine - and it isn't
the cartoonish version envisioned in the science
fiction of 50 years ago. That doesn't make it any
less intelligent.
>
> Singularity will have to wait a little.
>
I don't think the singularity will be a single event;
instead it is a process that will occur gradually over
several years along many different fronts, and it will
happen in fits and starts, and that it is happening
right now.
Look at it this way: when was the Renaissance? On
what date did it start, and on what date did it end?
If you were alive early in the Renaissance, would you
even realize that it was happening, even if you were
one of the principal figures of that age?
It was only in hindsight that we were able to look
back on that period of time and give it the
Renaissance label. I think it will be the same with
the Singularity, and that in 20 years or so we will be
able to look back and say, "hmm it looks like we
passed the Singularity back in about 2004 or so..."
Ed
(former researcher in neural networks, genetic
algorithms, and fuzzy logic, no kidding ;) )
# 9773 byoevega@... on March 26, 2007, 2:02 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Well, I believe we are going in circles.
calling them "artificial intelligence".
I just say the task ahead is several ORDERS or magnitude beyond the
advances of today. Besides, in the fields of "awareness" there is no
clues at all.
I don't want sophisticated metalical puppets that could surprise
kids and A.I. researchers. I want they surprise me :). I want my
Asimov's robot now :)
No kidding,
Omar
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau
# 9774 byxenophile2002@... on March 26, 2007, 2:40 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "janet_baker76" wrote:
> say it more often, although I myself in this instance was speaking
> ironically in this case and meant just the opposite: thanks to the
> poster for trying to bring wonder into "science."
First off, the poster and the rest of us were doing just fine. I
don't think any of us were trying to shame this poster. I'm not sure
what the problem is.
I also don't know who was saying that God must be left behind. I
suspect that those who believe in God while on Earth will believe in
God while in space. Those who do not believe in God while on Earth
will not believe in God while in Space.
Finally, science (no quotation marks needed) has oodles of wonder.
For those who believe in God, science is the most effecting way of
appreciating His wonders. For those who do not, science is the only
reliable way of appreciating a wonderful (if Godless) universe.
So there is no conflict between science and belief in God, only
between science and those who claim to have a lock on God's Own Truth
ahead of time.
# 9775 bysqorpo@... on March 26, 2007, 2:19 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Robots and androids will be real cool and I want my own Asimov now as
well... But another application for A.I., that I believe is much more
practical and will have much more of an impact in our daily lives on
and off the earth, is systems control.. All kinds of systems, from
climate controls to energy distribution and even sanitation and sewage.
and "Artificial intelligence".. These things come together in
robotics, but also in many other processes as well.. i.e.
manufacturing, food production, systems controls, transportation, and
even law enforcement and medicine.. Obviously, not all these things
require the same level of "intelligence" to operate... But basically
all they need to be considered A.I. is the ability to question and
make decisions..
Granted.. Bringing this up to the level of android or humanoid is
still a little ways off.. Not 5 or 10 years but probably closer to 25
to 50.. With interference, maybe 50 to 100.. Keeping the legislators,
the religious right, and big business out of the way will be an
important part of making it happen sooner, rather than later...
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega" wrote:
# 9776 bymaxquasar@... on April 2, 2007, 11:01 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
For my work the question isn't whether or not there is such a thing
but the raging debates between the differences between an "Expert
System" and a "Artificial Neural Network". It seems that in my
classes 2 thirds believe there is no real neural network and that all
versions of IA (however primitive) are some form of expert system and
that neural networking has never left the lab. Others' self included
(however limited my understanding ;-) have a hard time with
the "robot vacuum cleaner".
Picture training and OCR system for the font types you plan to scan.
Where the ANN can learn on it's own.
As far as grander visions with robots that can become sentient
beings, well that's another story. I am putting that off with my
plans to handle the Y10K software bug, when we go to 5 digit dates
and planes will fall from the sky.
MQ
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Jake" wrote:
>
> Robots and androids will be real cool and I want my own Asimov now
as
> well... But another application for A.I., that I believe is much
more
> practical and will have much more of an impact in our daily lives on
> and off the earth, is systems control.. All kinds of systems, from
> climate controls to energy distribution and even sanitation and
sewage.
>
> We are really talking about two different things here.. "Automation"
> and "Artificial intelligence".. These things come together in
> robotics, but also in many other processes as well.. i.e.
> manufacturing, food production, systems controls, transportation,
and
> even law enforcement and medicine.. Obviously, not all these things
> require the same level of "intelligence" to operate... But basically
> all they need to be considered A.I. is the ability to question and
> make decisions..
>
> Granted.. Bringing this up to the level of android or humanoid is
> still a little ways off.. Not 5 or 10 years but probably closer to
25
> to 50.. With interference, maybe 50 to 100.. Keeping the
legislators,
> the religious right, and big business out of the way will be an
> important part of making it happen sooner, rather than later...
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
> >
> > Well, I believe we are going in circles.
> >
> > I agree with you there are advances. What I don't agree with you
is
> > calling them "artificial intelligence".
> >
> > I just say the task ahead is several ORDERS or magnitude beyond
the
> > advances of today. Besides, in the fields of "awareness" there is
no
# 9777 byxenophile2002@... on April 3, 2007, 3:31 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I've decided that I want to ask a different question. Not "Does AI
exist now?" or "Will AI exist in ten years?" or even "When, if ever,
do you think that we will have AI?"
What would a machine need to do in order for you to say, "Yes, that's
Artificial Intelligence"?
# 9778 bycsmyth@... on April 4, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> I've decided that I want to ask a different question. Not "Does AI
> exist now?" or "Will AI exist in ten years?" or even "When, if ever,
> do you think that we will have AI?"
>
> No, what I want to ask is this:
> What would a machine need to do in order for you to say, "Yes, that's
> Artificial Intelligence"?
>
Dear xenophile,
There is a classic test for artificial intelligence which I
believe is called the Turing Test (named after one of the most
influential and brilliant "fathers" of modern computing). In general,
if a participant at a computer terminal (voice activated or keyboard)
can meaningfully interact (ask questions and receive replies) with
another computer terminal for five minutes to such an extent that
he/she is convinced that there is another person responding at the
other terminal then artificial intelligence is assumed on the part of
the computer at the other end. This is a generalization but it gives
you an insight into Mr. Turing's very pragmatic approach to this much
debated question.
Chris
# 9779 byspider_boris@... on April 4, 2007, 1:21 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Turing himself had several objections to the Turing
test. And, upon reading the Wikipedia entry on the
test, one of the objections to relevance strikes a
chord with me: that "A machine may very well be
intelligent without being able to chat like a human."
able to pass the Turing test with flying colors, then
an objection will be raised that such a machine is not
truly intelligent because of X, where X is some way of
raising the bar after the fact.
Ed
--- Chris Smyth wrote:
# 9780 byjwsmith42000@... on April 4, 2007, 1:33 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The 1000 Planets research team worked on the subject for a number of years
and won the last Lobner Prize for Artificial Intelligence in 2002 . I personally
do not believe that it will be achieved in my life time but the guys keep
working on it.
That effort is no longer directed by 1000 Planets but Kevin C. keeps on
refining the program.
here. Visit the website at www.ellaz.com/AI/Talk.aspx
For more information on EllaZ: Ellaz Systems - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia EllaZ Systems is an artificial intelligence software company whose natural
language chatbot Ella took first prize in the 2002 Loebner Prize Contest. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellaz_Systems>
John Wayne Smith, CEO
1000 Planets, Inc.
http://www.1000Planets.com
In a message dated 4/4/2007 4:30:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
csmyth@... writes:
1 (current)
2