The Matrix: are machine the new form of life? [Archive]

Dudeyhed

05-18-03, 09:27 AM

Before I outline what this thread will be about I want to express my view on something about life. I believe in reincarnation, why is not relevant, but even if I was wrong about reincarnation, I would still belive that the mind is seperate from the body, that is, our minds are not indefinitely bound to our bodies.

Now, let's forget religion.
------------------------------

After watching a few episodes of the Animatrix, especially the one about the rebellion of the machines, I started thinking about what a world where machines ruled would be like. What if all life was wiped out and all that was left on Earth were machines? Imagine that they had developed AI that was extremely advanced, and I mean insanely extremely advanced. The way I see it, sooner or later, the machines would develop something of a conscience, some sort of concept of their own existance and the existance of others around them. Would this then mean, that they are equal to humans?

If my belief in a mind separate from a body is correct, does it make sense that the machines could take on their own minds?

Think about it, if the mind was really something alone, would it matter what form of physical vessel it would take? If a machine's AI equaled the thinking capabilities of a human, would the machine then be a new individual, one with the ability to think for itself? Would it then be another form of life?

ProCop

05-18-03, 10:16 AM

Think about it, if the mind was really something alone, would it matter what form of physical vessel it would take? If a machine's AI equaled the thinking capabilities of a human, would the machine then be a new individual, one with the ability to think for itself? Would it then be another form of life?

I think the machines have some kind of concsiousness already. Consciousness is a byproduct of very fast interaction between the processor (inteligence) and RAM (memory). Above some speed levels of info exchange between memory and processor the consciousness spontaneously arises in that process. (To compare it metaphorically with some experince of the humans: something happens which "stupifies you" your look gets blank brain functions lose their speed you are sort of "unconscious"... then your thinking speeds up and suddenly it's you again, the speed is back and the consciousness too). If the speed is the key to the arrisal of consciousness then machines will have it pretty soon.

Soulcry

05-18-03, 10:57 PM

What if we are machines ? ;)

"Did you take tha test Mr. Deckard" (from Blade Runner)

Clockwood

05-18-03, 11:22 PM

So far most machines are purely reactionary like bacteria. Eventually though I think they will develop consiousness and we would have no right to get in their way.

After a certain amount of complexity is achieved life and technology become indistinguishable.

brainuniverse

05-18-03, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by ProCop
I think the machines have some kind of concsiousness already. Consciousness is a byproduct of very fast interaction between the processor (inteligence) and RAM (memory). Above some speed levels of info exchange between memory and processor the consciousness spontaneously arises in that process. (To compare it metaphorically with some experince of the humans: something happens which "stupifies you" your look gets blank brain functions lose their speed you are sort of "unconscious"... then your thinking speeds up and suddenly it's you again, the speed is back and the consciousness too). If the speed is the key to the arrisal of consciousness then machines will have it pretty soon.

Thats not true, consciensness is about self-reflectivness, if machines would have self-reflectivness they would be totally independent of humans and would creat their own symbernethic world(which would be their "brain")

Would there be consciensness machines one day ? Maybe, but in order that this be possible, it must have a processing syncronic ability that the brain is able to, that is of course a Quantum "CPU" it has not really to do with speed, but rather a syncronism... as for conscience, when you talk about the "you again"it may rather be explaned that it is you again, because your brain has recorded that you were conscient a fraction of second ago.

I see the brain as a TV set, and the conscience as the cable, and each condenser and stuff in the set, process syncronically because the information from the cable is given to them at the same time. So a Quantum "CPU" will separate the mind from the brain, because of the syncronic processing of the information.

So yes ! I believe Dudeyhed, when he say both are separated, Quantum physic leaves us to believe that, there is a work writen by a neurophysiologist bringing evidences of the control of mind on the brain. If you are interested I can give you the name of the individual, I do not buy the explanation of the "neurologic darwinism" to explan consciensness, those neurologists that brings those theories are just trying to save one of their disciplins tasks, because there is a kind of shift and that if this shift happen, they will be lost because of their lack of knowledge of what Quantum mechanic is.

brainuniverse

05-18-03, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Clockwood
So far most machines are purely reactionary like bacteria. Eventually though I think they will develop consiousness and we would have no right to get in their way.

After a certain amount of complexity is achieved life and technology become indistinguishable.

They can't by their own, brain does not work like computer memory, the only way we can do such a thing is by building Quantum CPUs, that will separate their minds as an syncronic process to the .object" in which it is self-reflective... it is more then just building faster processors, it is more about redesigning the entire process of building a new chip, and the links we may do, we should replace silicium with Carbon, and we are far from having the technology to do that.

Dudeyhed

05-19-03, 07:22 AM

I don't believe that machines have consciousness at the moment. Machine's don't really think for themselves at the moment, unlike humans. Perhaps its the ability to think for oneself that marks the presence of a 'mind'.

It's interesting, what soulcry says. This is far out and probably just straight out wrong, but what if we are? Machines of another race before us? What if we rose against our creators when we gained our own minds?

Seriously thinking about it, the human body, and the body of all living things are so machical when broken down. There are so many things that happen in an order than make our bodies work, just like a machine has its own little bits and pieces to make it work. Machines are far from the complexity of the human body but say they did reach that same level of intricacy, then how are they different?

Disregarding the mind, we need energy sources; machines need energy sources. We produce waste in our function; machines also do this through exhaust fumes in cars... hmm, can't really think of any other forms :o but I'm sure there are shiteloads of waste at the powerstation that's providing power to your computer right now. The human body is really a very very very complex machine.

So, I'm sure nobody doubts that it may be possible to create immensely complex machines in the future, machines that equaled the complexity of the human body. If life had to go on, if there were minds that needed physical vessels, could it be possible for machines to satisfy the conditions necessary for a mind to exist within a physical world?

Or would it be that the AI of machines would be too perfect to allow free thought? Would their AI be a series of logical instructions that had no creativity?

:confused:

kyle_soule

05-19-03, 07:00 PM

During The Second Renaissance you will notice when the machines present the Apple (peace) to the United Nations. This scene made me realize something about the consciousness of machines, that was, they have no motivation, their reasoning is absent. They have no means by which they can say, for example, "I want to go eat" when they are not hungry, and go eat anyways.

Their motivation for trying to join the UN was not motivated the same way human's are. Human's will join the UN for protection, perhaps, or other reasons. The machines have no reason for joining, because they have no moral's, per se, and don't care if they destroy an entire species (viz humans). I think this is the key difference between human intelligence and AI.

Ectropic

05-19-03, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
The machines have no reason for joining, because they have no moral's, per se, and don't care if they destroy an entire species (viz humans). I think this is the key difference between human intelligence and AI.

Then again, how guilty were you the last time you threw away a computer? How guilty were you when you ate your last steak? What if the level of complexity a machine had was comparable to you as you are to a cow? Would it be okay for the machine to kill you since you are the lesser life form?

kyle_soule

05-20-03, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Ectropic
Then again, how guilty were you the last time you threw away a computer? How guilty were you when you ate your last steak? What if the level of complexity a machine had was comparable to you as you are to a cow? Would it be okay for the machine to kill you since you are the lesser life form?

This is a very good question, but first the machines would have to achieve a higher status of life form, but they don't have life, do they? I suppose we first must define living...

Clockwood

05-20-03, 12:59 AM

Will it be alive when it tells the user "screw you" and goes on strike?

Ectropic

05-20-03, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I suppose we first must define living...

You are right. This is where all of these AI conversations seem to go. So to follow in the pattern I have seen in previous threads I will answer with more questions.

Is the single worker Ant alive? She cannot survive on her own, nor can she reproduce or defend herself very well. If she finds food it takes her a very long time to follow her path home. Now, regardless of whether the ant is alive or not, what about the entire nest as a whole. The colony acts much more like a "normal" creature that each of the single ones do. I think this building of higher structure through small simple components was coined "Emergence" by an author I can't remember off the top of my head.

So let's apply that to machines. A single computer sitting on my desk and recording every typo I type is not really alive. But what if we coupled it with a nuclear reactor core that generated electricity to sustain itself, then we add an assembly line robot to allow the machine to reproduce. Now we have a self sustaining machine that can let us play Quake anywhere in the galaxy.

I think the important part of the machine (the brains) is still to come. As Moore's law works it’s magic computers WILL supercede our brain's complexity. There is no doubt about that, it is the nature of economics :) . After all, our brains are really just a bunch of binary computers sending analog signals to each other.

Not only will the surpass out brain's complexity, but the interconnections between each sections of those brains will be hundreds of times faster that our sluggish neurons. So even with efficiency that is 1/100th of that which our brains (sometimes) enjoy they will be just as capable as us, and don't forget that we don't get twice as smart every 18 months like they do.

kyle_soule

05-20-03, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Ectropic
Is the single worker Ant alive? She cannot survive on her own, nor can she reproduce or defend herself very well. If she finds food it takes her a very long time to follow her path home. Now, regardless of whether the ant is alive or not, what about the entire nest as a whole. The colony acts much more like a "normal" creature that each of the single ones do. I think this building of higher structure through small simple components was coined "Emergence" by an author I can't remember off the top of my head.

Does living necessarily have a dependence on self-reliance? A baby is considered alive, but they are unable to provide for themselves to sustain their own life. Is it possible that living things only need a self-awareness? This certainly makes it possible a machine to be living, you could even argue that they are living today.

So let's apply that to machines. A single computer sitting on my desk and recording every typo I type is not really alive. But what if we coupled it with a nuclear reactor core that generated electricity to sustain itself, then we add an assembly line robot to allow the machine to reproduce. Now we have a self sustaining machine that can let us play Quake anywhere in the galaxy.

The reproduction is a creation from pieces, this is not characteristic of the living. All living things start with everything they need already "in" them, they simply need time to grow and mature physically before they resemeble the final product. A computer doesn't resemble the final product at the beginning of the assembly line, because a harddrive has to be combined with a motherboard, video card, monitor etc before it has all the necessary parts to run.

I think the important part of the machine (the brains) is still to come. As Moore's law works it’s magic computers WILL supercede our brain's complexity. There is no doubt about that, it is the nature of economics :) . After all, our brains are really just a bunch of binary computers sending analog signals to each other.

Not only will the surpass out brain's complexity, but the interconnections between each sections of those brains will be hundreds of times faster that our sluggish neurons. So even with efficiency that is 1/100th of that which our brains (sometimes) enjoy they will be just as capable as us, and don't forget that we don't get twice as smart every 18 months like they do.

I agree that in the future machines will have brains better than ours, but when do they become conscious and make conscious decisions to revolt and rise up against us? When will they realize they are born/created into slavery?

Computers don't get smarter in 18 months, they get faster. Stephen Hawking shows that you must sacrifice speed for intelligence (or vice versa), you can't have them both without giving the other.

Ectropic

05-20-03, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by kyle_soule
The reproduction is a creation from pieces, this is not characteristic of the living. All living things start with everything they need already "in" them, they simply need time to grow and mature physically before they resemeble the final product. A computer doesn't resemble the final product at the beginning of the assembly line, because a harddrive has to be combined with a motherboard, video card, monitor etc before it has all the necessary parts to run.

True, but I would say that all living things need a means of spreading. And on top of that, a fetus does not look like a baby just as a pile of computer parts does not look like a computer.

I agree that in the future machines will have brains better than ours, but when do they become conscious and make conscious decisions to revolt and rise up against us? When will they realize they are born/created into slavery?

That is a good point, there are lots of ways to argue with it, but I don't think it will be a problem. The machines will not be competition or slaves. They will be part of us in a symbiotic relationship. Except for things like toasters and blenders. Maybe they are better off not being too smart. :)

Computers don't get smarter in 18 months, they get faster. Stephen Hawking shows that you must sacrifice speed for intelligence (or vice versa), you can't have them both without giving the other.
Yeah, I need to go back and read that. Could you tell me which book that was in? Because I don't think I understand it, but it sound familiar.

kyle_soule

05-20-03, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Ectropic
True, but I would say that all living things need a means of spreading. And on top of that, a fetus does not look like a baby just as a pile of computer parts does not look like a computer.

A fetus is all the needed parts in one package though, a pile of parts isn't in a package, it needs something to assemble it, humans don't need assembly, in this sense.

That is a good point, there are lots of ways to argue with it, but I don't think it will be a problem. The machines will not be competition or slaves. They will be part of us in a symbiotic relationship. Except for things like toasters and blenders. Maybe they are better off not being too smart. :)

I don't know if any species can live in harmony (on the same level). I think sooner or later one or the other would want to "put the other in its place" so to speak.

Yeah, I need to go back and read that. Could you tell me which book that was in? Because I don't think I understand it, but it sound familiar.

I believe it's touched on in The Universe in a Nutshell (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/055380202X/qid=1053451236/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-3613693-8795233?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), it seems that it is covered in more depth in another book, but I don't recall which book. :bugeye:

river-wind

05-21-03, 02:48 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992732

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/20/1023864460978.html

hmmmmmmmmm....

Mystech

05-21-03, 07:22 PM

kyle_soule

05-21-03, 07:53 PM

Are we truely amazed when a dog sits? We call the dog that learns lots of tricks smart, but we call a kid that has trouble grasping Calculus stupid.

By the same token, are we amazed that the robot moved? and just so happened to move outside of it's 'cage'. We shouldn't be, nor should we believe this to resemble intelligence.

As for the first link, they created that to 'evolve' into something else which is the same as creating a CD player to play a CD, we aren't surprised that it can play ANY CD we put in as long as it's music, so why should we be surprised that the machine evolved like it was supposed to?

Ectropic

05-21-03, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Mystech
Go take a few programming courses, you'll learn that computers are as smart as an abacus, there's no intelligence there, not even in AI.
That might be true, but they are still slow. How smart are a few dozen of your neurons?

ProCop

05-22-03, 03:10 AM

Ever heard of Deep Blue? This abacus beated the worlds best human in chess (Kasparov). Please read news once in a while.

In May 1997, IBM's Deep Blue Supercomputer played a fascinating match with the reigning World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov. The event was captured live only on this Web site, where millions of chess and computing fans tuned in to witness the event in real-time. This Web site is an archive of that event, and information on this site has not been updated since the end of the match. Some content may no longer be relevant or up to date, and some links may not function. In particular, the audio and video clips are no longer available. Current information about IBM deep computing can be found at the IBM Research home page.

If the computers were thinking already we wouldn't know that would we. If the computer develops consciousness for some very short periods in intense computing it cannot be contacted because there are no contact chanels. I believe that if consciousness is a byproduct of thinking, (which is moving infos from one place to an another place and comparing them) then computer (does thinking and therefore) has or will soon have consciousness.

Ectropic

05-22-03, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by ProCop
Ever heard of Deep Blue? This abacus beated the worlds best human in chess (Kasparov). Please read news once in a while.

If the computers were thinking already we wouldn't know that would we. If the computer develops consciousness for some very short periods in intense computing it cannot be contacted because there are no contact chanels. I believe that if consciousness is a byproduct of thinking, (which is moving infos from one place to an another place and comparing them) then computer (does thinking and therefore) has or will soon have consciousness.
Thanks for the news flash. I disagree though about whether or not it is thinking. That computer was doing the same level of thought that your pocket calculator does when you use it. It was just doing that more times.

That machine was a brute force computing machine that just calculated every possibility after being fed values for what a good move was.

I read on one of these threads about a thought experiment called the Chinese Room. It goes something like this:

A man is in a room totally isolated. There is a slot in the wall where pieces of paper come in. They have symbols on them that he doesn't understand, but he has instructions in his language on how to reply to them. He looks up the symbol and gives back teh response in the book. What is happening on the other side is Chinese people are sliding in Chinese characters and getting replies. So they assume that whatever is in the box speaks Chinese.

That man doesn't know Chinese at all, just as Deep Blue had no idea how to play chess. They just have rules and follow them. It is when parallel processing is happening and software is being written by algorithms on the machines through evolution that things will really get interesting.

ProCop

05-22-03, 09:48 AM

A man is in a room totally isolated. There is a slot in the wall where pieces of paper come in. They have symbols on them that he doesn't understand, but he has instructions in his language on how to reply to them. He looks up the symbol and gives back teh response in the book. What is happening on the other side is Chinese people are sliding in Chinese characters and getting replies. So they assume that whatever is in the box speaks Chinese.

OK. Lets take a different Chinese room called Child's scull. It gets picture through one window and from an another opening it hears its mother saying "this is a table" and so on. What's the big difference? Human consciousness is a sort of modern fairy, otherwise we would have a photo of it. There are processes concerning collecting, evaluating and processing information which computesr can do as well (and sometimes even better then) the humans. Humans have consciousness not as a gift from whoever but as a necessary coordinant of massive info-flows. This coordinant (consciousness) is in some premieval form probably already present in P4 (like some onecell org). In a metaphorical language: if you beat on a drumm it produces sounds in that process, if you beat on an established concept of info/philosophy it produces "consciousness". If you stop drumming/thinking the process stops. Consciousness is a dependat of thinking / not the other way round. The computer proves that.

kyle_soule

05-22-03, 10:09 AM

I would expect a computer to beat a human in a battle such as chess, although, when playing a computer it is no longer a battle of whits, but of strategy. This is where the computer has an advantage, they have no personal bias towards one move or another.

Also, who programmed that computer? It didn't just develop itself and then challenge the world champion.

Dudeyhed

05-22-03, 11:07 AM

I'm no expert in the field of AI, and I'm not even well informed on it, but I do recall things about computer AI 'learning'.

You say, who programmed that computer. I suppose the same question could be asked about me, or you, or anyone else. I didn't just know Pythagoras' Theorum, I had to learn it. Of course, with humans, we frequently learn things for ourselves, but like i said first, I remember hearding or reading about computers learning themselves.

I'm guessing that the way they learn would be restricted to the rules that have been placed on how the computer goes about learning, but you could say there are also restrictions on humans. Maybe a computer soon would be able to learn a lot for itself but would be unable to comprehend love, much like we cannot comprehend the beginning of time. This may be due to the restriction of the computers 'learning code', and similarly, humans may have their own 'learning code' which is also restricted.

kyle_soule

05-22-03, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Dudeyhed
I'm no expert in the field of AI, and I'm not even well informed on it, but I do recall things about computer AI 'learning'.

You say, who programmed that computer. I suppose the same question could be asked about me, or you, or anyone else. I didn't just know Pythagoras' Theorum, I had to learn it. Of course, with humans, we frequently learn things for ourselves, but like i said first, I remember hearding or reading about computers learning themselves.

I'm guessing that the way they learn would be restricted to the rules that have been placed on how the computer goes about learning, but you could say there are also restrictions on humans. Maybe a computer soon would be able to learn a lot for itself but would be unable to comprehend love, much like we cannot comprehend the beginning of time. This may be due to the restriction of the computers 'learning code', and similarly, humans may have their own 'learning code' which is also restricted.

Evolution...we have learned everything for ourselves. As for not being able to understand things, perhaps we aren't the pinnacle of intelligence. Just because you didn't learn pythagoras theorem on your own doesn't mean you couldn't have, if you had the proper motivation and reason, just as the Babylonians did 1000 years prior to Pythagoras, who was simply the first to prove it.

Also, the beginning of time is comprehensible, perhaps you cannot imagine it, but it is clearified by many scientists.

moementum7

05-24-03, 12:50 PM

awnsering these questions is paramount to the very same questions brought up with human existence. whats constitutes free will/consciousness/alive what ever concept were trying to squish into one. just a thought but i would consiser computers to become alive once it would not allow any actions upon itself that would be contradictory to its own existence, such as being shut down or having memory removed.

moementum7

05-24-03, 01:08 PM

this may not be the right thread for this comment but it was in here that i became more clarified as to the relationship between reason and faith. what is it that they both have in common, that so vitally seems to seperate the majority of advocates on either side. CONSISTENCY. the more conistency one can experience, in what ever feild...reason...faith.....feelings....any type of validation that makes a person feel whole. a conviction to gain momentum towards theyre chosen arsonal for dealing with reality. the people of faith have gone in the direction of beleiving in a higher existence up above or where ever it is, commiting to tottaly packing up there bags (consciously anyways) and waiting to experience theyre fullly validated existence later or somewhere else, while those of reason commit to living in this existence and live fully on this earth here and now. and as your life time runs out one is more and more pressured into joining which ever category that has given one the most stimuli. From parents ...freinds....books....and general experience with and without all of these. And then there is everybody in between who is swayed from one side to the other depending on what they saw on tv or when listening to whoever is the loudest. any way, sorry if there is no relevance what soever to this thread.