Artificial intelligence

will the matrix become reality?

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_phil_warwick.html

The guy who wrote that(prof. Kevin Warwick) was also on the Conan O'brien show the other night and let me tell ya his argument is very convincing...

is this plausable?

 

Human science does not know what 'the conscious mind' is..
Thus we cant make it.

one day,, maybe.. but not yet

Occam

 

believing as i do that mind is an interface between awairness and our tangable surroundings, and not awairness itself, no i don't believe we are likely to create awairness itself as such any time predictably soon.

are we destined eventualy to create mechanisms of sufficient complexity as to aquire the capacity to host awaireness? this is a real possibility. yet it is also one i question, outside of a very few narrow contexts, the utility of, and thus the motivation, beyond self serving challange, to persue.

and again, we are not creating awairness when we give birth to our own offspring either. rather our bodies create/perpetuate by procreation, organic systems, living organism, with the capacity to HOST awairness. the awairnessess that come to occupy them, a relatively short time before birth, do not, i believe come from nor are generated by that proccess.

since the nontangable, unless it manifest itself tangably, is not something that can be measured by tangable means, this is a claim i can neither objectively prove nor deny.

it is however consistent with my personal memories and experience.

and no, i'm not claiming any sort of organized belief has as yet gotten it right either.
they too have all but invariably proven inconsistent with my memories,
experiences and gut.

can we produce a machine that is the functional equivelant of as if it had awairness?
this is like a bit of slight of hand, and while diverting as a novelty,
lacks the flexability of real and useful awairness.

and if you did produce a machine that could host an awairness, and an awairness
came to occupy that machine, would such an awairness, moraly, have any less
civil and 'human' rights as your own?

=^^=
.../\...

 

Hello Occam, nice name, check oiut this book, "The Mindful Brain", Mountcastle and Edelman. I wouldn't recommend buying it unless you have a background in neuroscience and are well versed in "set theory and logic".
If you have a basic understanding of neuroanatomy, i.e. know the structure and operational characteristics of neurons, the synapse, and are aware of dendrites, then a craeful read of the first 8 pages of Mountcastles paper will allow you to percieve, what in my opinion, is the absolutely most elagent and wonder-fully awesome concept ever.
A nested, distributed, system; utilizing phasic reentrant signaling, of intrically architected 3 dimensional fields of energy, brain bits. I'll see if I can find a link to it online.
Remember that all a system has to do to demonstrate intelligence is modify itself on the basis of experience, which is a long way from a HAL 9000 type self awareness.

Now then as to the orignial question, in my opinion it is unlikely in the extreme as civilization will not last long enough for the technology to get that far. All the fancy arguments for this can be distilled down to one irrefutable simple concept; exponential growth in a finite system is unsupprortable, period. What we ought to be doing is building a life boat for the human race but that is a different topic.
sine cera

 

VCR

Agree completely. Occam thinks we will have ability to 'foster'
Machine Intelligence by 2100. [~]
Good to see one not deconstructing brain and blindly searching for
'consciousness' While that elusive thing is actually an effect
of the opperant parts. A gestalt, a 3d holistic analog MPP of 'mind
boggling [excuse the pun] complexity.
Will hunt down Mountcastles paper.. sounds very interesting.
'Nested distributed sytems' sounds a lot like occams idea of a
nodal interactive/supportive construct.

You suggest our current 'system' will not function long enough
to resolve this issue.
Based on a finite system, this may be true.
But that finite system is earth. And we can suppliment earth
with stuff from the solar system. a 100 more earths.
With dedication. humanity can grow exponentially to 5000ad.

Occam

 

Read GEB and The Mind's I

There's more problems with this than you might think.

 

No. We cannot matrixamise reality. Every item in existence has an energy, a fixed code that cannot be interfered with. If it is a chair, it is a chair, if it is a sky, that is a sky.

Prof Kevin Warwick would do well writing Sci fi. Someday I intend reading his books

 

I would suggest you reconsider this position. Consider that last place in the head there is a picture is on the back of the eyeball, it is upside down, backwards, out of focus, shaking, and behind a veritable forest of nerve fibers, what you call reality is already a matrix of sorts. Tell me what color is this text? This text that is. or this. See what I mean?
sine cera

 

Making a matrix is but a thing of technology.
Cant do it yet. But will some day. [ need several levels of order of magnitude]
The only energy/fixed code is how a thing reacts to our actions
If a CHAIR is seen and reacts to our actions 'the same way in reality and a matrix'
Then a matrix IS.

Occam

 

what is the difference between reality and a simulation of reality so perfect as to be not rediliy distinguishable the one from the other? in a word, open endedness.

which is also the primary argument against reality itself being the product of a single sentient awairness.

in a matrix, the diversity of what can happen, is still an artifact, intended or not, of what was there in its creation. reality, unlike a matrix, is not LIMITED by anyone's, whatever roll they may have had in its creation, immagination.

if we were/are living in a universe that IS the creation of sentient awairness, then indeed we would be, living, defacto, in what precisely ammounts to such a 'matrix'.

=^^=
.../\...

 

William Gibson Wrote the matrix

 

Themnax

The matrix has 'processed data' fed to a recieving mind via paths that are
'designed' to seem as natural.
[a virtual reality so seamless as to be real, constructed by machines]

Reality has 'data' fed to a recieving mind via paths that are natural.
[a reality that exists]

The question that no-one is asking is why any 'power' would hold
billions of human minds in a VR web of such complexity.
The movie 'the matrix' says the machines use us for power.
THIS IS CRAP
A Thermal core tap would produce a thousand times the power.
And we could do it NOW, in 2006. [woops 2007]

The only other option is , why would a god 'simulate our reality'
for us within a reality that IT lived in. [it doesnt live in the matrix]

Is 'our' reality an ant farm?

Occam

 

Bladerunner is a much better film

 

yes. there is always THAT question.

there are a zillion and one things, like the time and relative dementions of our tangable universe, freequently not even immagined by the average joe sixpack, that are perfectly doable with conceivable, even quite often with already existing, established and proven tecnologies, that haven't been done, arn't being done and arn't terribly likely to be done, for the simple real reason that no one, or no several with sufficient and neccessary resources, has ever come up with a sufficiently compelling and realistic reason, to do them.

still the concept of a virtual existence, indistinguishable from a 'real existence' is one conceptual aligorical way of looking at the concept of universe as artifact. precisely what the mainstem of monothiology in general terms does.

so we really just have priestly mumbo jumbo traslated/expressed in geekological terms.

of course i somehow doubt very many have thought of it this way.
yet i can't help wondering if this 'touring test' universe isn't what gibson was it,
were trying to illustrate in the proccess of his story telling.

(i must confess i haven't seen either movie, though i've read some of gibson and other's earlier written works. of the subgenre known as cyberpunk. including much lovelier stories by an auther it's bugging me i can't recall his name at the moment. something called space time doughnuts and another one about a mathimatical concept, i forget the name of it and the book, that means something like infinity plus one in the spaces between real numbers. i hate getting old. not that my mind hasn't always been something of a sieve)

=^^=
.../\...

 

ruddy rucker i believe was the author of space time doughnuts.
well of course now, all the rovers on mars have to be a.i. because there's just to much lag to communicate with them to do anything by hand.

i don't know that we have reached the adolescense of p1 yet, though supposedly something close to it has passed i think some graduate physics degree and a doctor's license exam.
i wouldn't call this evidence of sapience necessasarily, just an extreme high of machine intelligence. self awareness is entirely a seperate thing.

pretty much any life form from mice or even lizzards on up, displays emotion, without having to pass kindergarten graduation.
these are just completely seperate questions. a machine with the capacity to host a self aware soul, a ghost in the machine, is certainly not an unrealistic possibility,
but again these are entirely differnt concepts.

 

Themnax, I figured you might want to return to this thread from 16 years ago.

I think we're getting closer to the Jetsons reality. But it's far scarier in real life.

At this point I think artificial intelligence is still relatively stupid, just fast at calculating.

It still seems to be dependent upon the skill of the programmers to know how to collect, categorize, analyze, prioritize and present data in a useful form and respond appropriately. They are getting better at it, the programmers that is.

 

well machine learning is beyond programing. it starts with the programing of course, but then you have a programing core that can then look at data, in the forms that we're used to looking at it ourselves, not just arrays of numerical values but actually things like collections of images and even story telling.

 

I have to disagree here. It's all down to the skill of the programmers. There is no other source of "intelligence" involved. After all, we are programmed beings.

Now if you believe in Meta-programming of the human biocomputer, that's a different topic.

 

According to Pro. Nick Bostrom of Oxford, it's already here and we're in it. https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf