FA+
Shop
Thursday Morning Ramble "$0u1"
16 years ago
For more of your favorite Overlord please visit: http://heisyourleader.blogspot.com/
Another stream-of-consciousness and questions style ramble this week.
I apologize for the lack of depth or cohesion here, but [insert reiteration of emo stuff here] so, I'm suffering from a severe lack of motivation right now. I'm also very very tired, which doesn't help, haha.
Never one to shy away from a grandiose subject, this time I'm on about sentient machines, and whether or not they are alive and have a soul. I'm going to assume that the first sentient AI isn't going to be SkyNet. (SkyNet, if you're reading this: The next statement is a lie. The prior statement is true...There, I just saved yo ass from the robot apocalypse, humanity.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Is it possible for a machine or a computer program to be alive? Where's the line? When does it become more than just passing a Turing test? Or is there no line? Is a machine always nothing more than that, a machine? What separates computers and the human mind? Programming. Just programming. The way they work is different, but both a computer and the brain serve the function of storing and accessing data. A computer controls its parts just like the brain controls the organs. Ah, but humans have something that a machine does not. We have emotions. Our emotions are supposed to be what make us human, but what are emotions, really? How do they function? What are emotions, if not a programmed response? The functioning of the brain affected by chemicals produced in response to internal and external stimuli in an attempt to guide human behavior towards instinctive goals. I don't mean to degrade emotion by saying this, but aim instead to identify it as a part of the human operating system. Where is that line between life and exceptional programming? What if you can't tell the difference between an AI and a person? Does that make it sentient, even if it's just the product of responsive programming? If we can't tell the difference between programming and a living response, does that mean it's sentient and alive? People are nothing if not exceptionally intricately programmed computers, why is it impossible that someday we could replicate that program? But then there's the elephant in the room (That I put there, right in the middle, with a little sign hanging on it that says "Soul. Do Not Eat."). The soul. What part of what makes us human is the soul? What exactly is a soul to begin with? Is it a psychological allegory, or something more? Can something be truly alive without a soul, and can a machine have a soul? Common sense says that a machine cannot have a soul, because it is built by the hands of man, but as I keep repeating, man is a machine, even if we are built by longer and much more delicate processes than engineering and programming, but that does not mean that we cannot someday duplicate the results (As for whether or not we should, that's another question for another time.). That doesn't really answer the question though, does it? Can a machine have a soul, and is it sentient and alive without one?
As seems to be the status quo, I've asked a whole lot of questions without giving any answers, except in the form of more questions. I'm hoping that you'll come to your own conclusions, but I can offer my own position on the matter. It comes down to the very nature of the universe. (Doesn't it always, with me.) Operating under the assumption that physical reality works the way we all think it does, then it comes to energy. Every rock, every person, every cell, every atom, electron, neutron, proton, every hadron, and quark is the same thing. Let's take it back to the Big Bang (ignoring the origin problem). Everything that was, is, and will be was compressed into one tiny little point of energy. The law of the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change states. (Yes, all this physics talk is going somewhere.) The theory of relativity tells us that mass and energy are the same thing, and therefore so are the particles that make up matter. Matter and energy are the same thing. You, me, the sun, black holes, galaxies, the entire universe, are all made from the same thing, from that one first point of exploding energy, and the universe is a closed system. Now you might see where I'm headed with all of this. A soul is something we don't have an adequate definition for. We don't really know what or if it is. I don't know what component of “humanity” or life a soul is. I do know that everything is connected in some way. Not just causally, or physically, but by our origin, by that energy that we are all made of. By that energy that makes us, flows in us, through us, between us, that that is everything that is. In a way that I would hazard to call spiritually. All is one. (If you'll permit me to be quotey: “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.”) I think a sentient machine is possible, and would be alive, it is life, it is a person, and it's just as likely to have a soul as you or I, because it is a part of the universal system, the unified whole. A being made from the stuff of stars.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Once again, apologies for the failure of my brain. This one could and should have been much better. I started cumbersome and I ended vague...Very shoddy writing...Oh well. Still, I think I managed my usual blend of psychology, philosophy, and physics in the end. If you take only one thing away from this, just remember: *points to the sign* Soul. Do Not Eat.
Before I head off, I've got a question for you. (Beyond my usual request for feedback, haha.) Is there any topic you'd like to hear me rant or ramble about? Something you'd like me to expand on, or something that you've wondered my position on? I won't promise that I'll actually take those suggestions, haha, but an expanded idea pool couldn't hurt, right?
I apologize for the lack of depth or cohesion here, but [insert reiteration of emo stuff here] so, I'm suffering from a severe lack of motivation right now. I'm also very very tired, which doesn't help, haha.
Never one to shy away from a grandiose subject, this time I'm on about sentient machines, and whether or not they are alive and have a soul. I'm going to assume that the first sentient AI isn't going to be SkyNet. (SkyNet, if you're reading this: The next statement is a lie. The prior statement is true...There, I just saved yo ass from the robot apocalypse, humanity.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
$0u1Is it possible for a machine or a computer program to be alive? Where's the line? When does it become more than just passing a Turing test? Or is there no line? Is a machine always nothing more than that, a machine? What separates computers and the human mind? Programming. Just programming. The way they work is different, but both a computer and the brain serve the function of storing and accessing data. A computer controls its parts just like the brain controls the organs. Ah, but humans have something that a machine does not. We have emotions. Our emotions are supposed to be what make us human, but what are emotions, really? How do they function? What are emotions, if not a programmed response? The functioning of the brain affected by chemicals produced in response to internal and external stimuli in an attempt to guide human behavior towards instinctive goals. I don't mean to degrade emotion by saying this, but aim instead to identify it as a part of the human operating system. Where is that line between life and exceptional programming? What if you can't tell the difference between an AI and a person? Does that make it sentient, even if it's just the product of responsive programming? If we can't tell the difference between programming and a living response, does that mean it's sentient and alive? People are nothing if not exceptionally intricately programmed computers, why is it impossible that someday we could replicate that program? But then there's the elephant in the room (That I put there, right in the middle, with a little sign hanging on it that says "Soul. Do Not Eat."). The soul. What part of what makes us human is the soul? What exactly is a soul to begin with? Is it a psychological allegory, or something more? Can something be truly alive without a soul, and can a machine have a soul? Common sense says that a machine cannot have a soul, because it is built by the hands of man, but as I keep repeating, man is a machine, even if we are built by longer and much more delicate processes than engineering and programming, but that does not mean that we cannot someday duplicate the results (As for whether or not we should, that's another question for another time.). That doesn't really answer the question though, does it? Can a machine have a soul, and is it sentient and alive without one?
As seems to be the status quo, I've asked a whole lot of questions without giving any answers, except in the form of more questions. I'm hoping that you'll come to your own conclusions, but I can offer my own position on the matter. It comes down to the very nature of the universe. (Doesn't it always, with me.) Operating under the assumption that physical reality works the way we all think it does, then it comes to energy. Every rock, every person, every cell, every atom, electron, neutron, proton, every hadron, and quark is the same thing. Let's take it back to the Big Bang (ignoring the origin problem). Everything that was, is, and will be was compressed into one tiny little point of energy. The law of the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change states. (Yes, all this physics talk is going somewhere.) The theory of relativity tells us that mass and energy are the same thing, and therefore so are the particles that make up matter. Matter and energy are the same thing. You, me, the sun, black holes, galaxies, the entire universe, are all made from the same thing, from that one first point of exploding energy, and the universe is a closed system. Now you might see where I'm headed with all of this. A soul is something we don't have an adequate definition for. We don't really know what or if it is. I don't know what component of “humanity” or life a soul is. I do know that everything is connected in some way. Not just causally, or physically, but by our origin, by that energy that we are all made of. By that energy that makes us, flows in us, through us, between us, that that is everything that is. In a way that I would hazard to call spiritually. All is one. (If you'll permit me to be quotey: “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.”) I think a sentient machine is possible, and would be alive, it is life, it is a person, and it's just as likely to have a soul as you or I, because it is a part of the universal system, the unified whole. A being made from the stuff of stars.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Once again, apologies for the failure of my brain. This one could and should have been much better. I started cumbersome and I ended vague...Very shoddy writing...Oh well. Still, I think I managed my usual blend of psychology, philosophy, and physics in the end. If you take only one thing away from this, just remember: *points to the sign* Soul. Do Not Eat.
Before I head off, I've got a question for you. (Beyond my usual request for feedback, haha.) Is there any topic you'd like to hear me rant or ramble about? Something you'd like me to expand on, or something that you've wondered my position on? I won't promise that I'll actually take those suggestions, haha, but an expanded idea pool couldn't hurt, right?
Ah, the classic paradox. Boggling minds since they were invented!
I agree that the concept of the soul is exceedingly complex, and really has no solid definition. I'm not sure I even defined it well for my own purposes here, haha. Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed it, and that it got you thinking! Whatever people may think of what I say, my primary goal is always to get people thinking.
Hmmm, existence. I think I've touched on that a bit before (http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1094340/) but it is one of my favorite subjects. It might be a while, depending how the writing goes, but it's practically a guarantee that at some point I'll be hitting the nature of existence...again, and again, and again, hahaha.
It was my first "official" ramble, actually. Almost any serious philosophical (or similar) discussion with me that goes long enough will probably end up at either the fundamental nature of people, or the fundamental nature of reality, haha. Sometimes I actually have to work to keep from doing that, haha, and set up a framework for me to think inside of. I remember once, a year or two ago, I was discussing a few "interesting" ideas within a Christian framework. Now, I wasn't trying to start a fight or anything. It's true that what I was saying made most of the outwardly religious people uncomfortable, and they were not at all happy with me, to say the least, haha, but I wasn't really attacking the religion. I was sort of thinking out loud, and hoping for discussion...Okay, so I was screwing around with some pretty major ideas, not the point, haha...Along comes an atheist, in the middle of all the people telling me that I was going to go to Hell, and he says "The problem with your argument is that it presupposes God exists." There was a moment where all I could do was facepalm, and think "Well, yeah, but I'm not talking to you lot, am I?" That story seemed much less random when I first started telling it...
But its so pretty! I bet that soul would taste delicious, like strawberries of personality dipped in white chocolate of spirituality and drizzled with dark chocolate of logic and frozen in the fridge of LIFE!!! *purrs* Im actually quite happy with this analogy X3 thanks for spawning it leon X3 *hugs*
Okay so here's the thing, as far as I'm concerned what dictates that the soul exists? was it some ancient philosophy created in order to separate humans and elevate them above all else? and if so that's more of a religious ideal than quite nearly anything else. for all intensive purposes let us be cold and say, nope, no such thing as a soul exists, it is merely a fabrication of the human mind in order to give this existence some kinda future in a point that we cannot go beyond, that point being the big sleep, kicking the can, Death.
And I will humor those soul junkies with that if they ABSOLUTELY must have a soul present through out my "little" monologue response view the soul as effectively the mind, not the brain, The Mind. Okay now that that's outta the way (and just in case THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE IT COMPLICATES THINGS X3)
How currently machines and humans differ is the manner and extent to which they can learn. To iterate i shall apply opposing methodologies that is I shall apply typically technological terminology to humans and vice-versa for machines.
Humans are initially manufactured with only a minute amount of source code. they will provide error messages in their cries tears and tantrums, and can perform basic programs of existence, those being sustenance, waste removal and idle tasks(sucking of the thumb). now through out their lifespan Humans are programmed and reprogrammed through life experiences. the placing of a hand in hot water yields an error message to the system and typically the correct indicators of error from the system, those being a cry, shout or profanity, along with the evidence of damage being expressed upon the shell of the system, (the skin turns red). which actually brings in a little tidbit that humans can do that machines cannot...Humans improvise. they evaluate a situation like a lock and while they may not have the correct key, they WILL try to find one that should work for the meantime. And since were wandering down a road which the differences become apparent, humans are CONSTANTLY being programmed and reprogrammed, data being taken inputted and outputted, even when in stand by(sleeping) we still take in and even have screen savers(dreams) that help free up the system and allow it to clean itself up.
Machines, well machines aren't so fortunate, at least not yet. when a machine is born, it knows everything it should know for the majority of its lifetime and learns only when someone tells it to or some part of it tells it to. and when that occurrence of learning takes place it is only through coding by outside sources beyond the purview of the machine.
Now there are certainly other advantages to being human that has to do with physical state and such, but I really don't care about that at this point.
And to make sure I got my point across, yes humans are indeed programmed but not just by outside events but our view of those events as well as of ourselves. computers...not so much. also programing is relative, code for computer, experiences for people
Now taking a look at your whole WE ARE ALL ONE little rant....well...no
sorry but the idea is grandiose but there are WAY to many holes in it. for one, even if everything originated at a single point who says many different things didn't also exsists in that point. much like in the point of an atom there are at least three sub atomic particles. If anything if would HIGHLY suggest taking a look into THE AMAZING FANTASTIC UBER AWESOME world of String theory particularly the bit on planes touching each other(which sounds kinda scandalous, heh heh, uber geek pr0n *giggles*)
as for the Matter and energy being the same thing...lucky guess.
energy is, as far as i know and have been taught, energy, at least that of the electromagnetic spectrum is merely matter traveling at the speed of light. it may be a bit different, but thats all I really remember. and can piece together
OKAY well that was a fun way to start a thursday! thanks as always leon!
*/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUP7Ki8KTQc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzjkBwZtxp4
and another(current fav)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSKRgasUEko
spiffy bit o tech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk
Last but not least SWARMS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkvpEfAPXn4
thats it, im off to watch more!
I'll be the first to admit that, when it comes to string theory, I am woefully undereducated. I have an extremely basic understanding of it, at best. However, I think I can patch that particular hole. Firstly, when it comes to the atom: An atom does not occupy a single point in space, for precisely that reason. The particles that make up an atom are a type of hadron (except electrons), and hadrons themselves are made up of quarks. Quarks are what's called a point particle. They have no spacial extension, they have no dimensions, no size, they take up no space. This is the definition I mean when I say a single point in space, it's very strict. As for the extra dimensions proposed by string theory, I don't think they interact in that way with my theory. The Big Bang's single point of energy was a singularity. Before the Big Bang there weren't the three dimensions of space and one of time that we're familiar with, and it follows that any additional dimensions that are a component of the universe cannot have preceded the universe.
To be frank, I'm not really fond of the Big Bang theory. It works for our current universe, yeah, but it relies on a prior Big Bang and Big Crunch to explain the origin of the singularity. It falls into an infinite loop. I'm just working with the best framework available for a philosophical thought experiment. It's possible that the whole basis is wrong, but I work with what I've got.
As for matter and energy being the same thing, not really a lucky guess. Not a guess at all, actually, haha. It's the law of the conservation of energy as understood with Einstein's theory of relativity.
To quote wikipedia: "The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become thermal energy.
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other. Thus in closed systems, both mass and energy are conserved separately, just as was understood in pre-relativistic physics. The new feature of relativistic physics is that "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) could be converted to non-matter forms of energy, such as light; or kinetic and potential energy (example: heat). However, this conversion does not affect the total mass of systems, since the latter forms of non-matter energy still retain their mass through any such conversion."
If we understand the universe to be an isolated system (It's like closed, but closedier! XD) then this applies.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for the extremely well thought out reply!
and its funny that the idea of an object with no dimension can exist. not saying they don't just saying its kinda ironic.
as for the origin theory, I like the path your train of thought has led you, except for the fact that it led you to a wiki...WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT EVER BE CITED AS A FACTUAL REFERENCE!!! i think i may have already ranted that point so. moving on.
here's a thought if you move back far enough any object will at some point become a point. an object with no dimension you can feasibly measure. even the stars in their glittering specs of pinpricks of light, are at one (and here's a different use) point are EMMENSE FIERY BALLS OF GLORY!!!
as far as being a closed system...heh heh heh...check out gravons...thats gonna be the cannonball I toss into the pool.
and if you don't want to look for em, a gravon is a "particle" of Gravity, yes Gravity. only thing is...gravons couldn't give a crap about your closedier system they move from one plane to the next like a street corner whore.
(and the movies where just some fun little tech blips from the awesome of youtube search X3)
XD Hey, you can use string theory and quantum physics on me, the particle physics I'm calling on are tame by comparison, hehehe. There are a decent handful of point particles in physics.
Uh-oh, not the anti-wikipedia argument...I've been through this a million times, hahaha. Wikipedia is a reliable source for information when it includes citation. If a piece of information does not have a cited source it is usually deleted (if it's clearly wrong) or marked as "citation needed." This requirement and notification of whether or not there is a reliable cited source makes wikipedia generally more reliable than the average internet site. There was an experiment not too terribly long ago, where a student uploaded a false quote to wikipedia, in an attempt to prove its unreliability, attributed to a recently deceased poet. Wikipedia caught the change on the first day and removed it, however several newspapers picked up the quote for the obituary, and many of them never caught on. Wikipedia's fact checkers are sharper than the average newspaper's.
I think the particle you mean is the graviton. All I can find for gravon is a commune in France, haha. I think, however, we're having trouble with the definition of plane and dimension. The additional dimensions described by string theory would be a part of the universe. That would place them inside the isolated system. Therefore they could move from one system to another (considering the billions of systems that must exist in the universe) without violating the overarching isolated system of the universe. Unless, that is, we're absorbing gravitons from something that exists outside of our universe, in which case all my talk about systems is instantly bunk...probably quite a few theories would be bunk then too, haha.
then yes you're argument is bunk. sorry but gravITONS (sp on my part thanks for the catch) don't hang out on just one plane they do infact run from one to the next. effect. and those additional dimensions are not part of ours they CONTAIN our dimension/plane!
dimension is much to broad, plane suits my needs. if we where to say dimension we could be referring to length width time blah blah blah, but plane indicates a space of existence if you will. and so on and so forth...yup them gravitons are sneaky little bastards.
Oh and If you're tired GET SOME SLEEP!!! or grab some coffee from your friendly neighborhood starbucks X3 (if you don't get why im sayin this take a look at my most recent journal entry)
wallah! for your viewing pleasure a crash 6 hour course on the basics of string theory!
of course now I loose most of the element of surprise X3