Ai Forums Home Welcome Guest    Monday, April 23, 2018
Ai Site > Ai Forums > Language Mind and Consciousness > The New Era Scientists Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register
Topic: The New Era Scientists

posted 3/8/2012  13:16Send e-mail to userReply with quote
True AI is an ocean, immensely lot there, and immensely lot of possibilities. So i found only one thing to simplify it all. And it is that the basic mechanism of True AI has to be self-developing and unrestricted. As a requirement this is very strict, and thus there are a very few number of possible mechanisms which satisfy that requirement. I derived the basic mechanism from that requirement, implemented and tested it, this is what the project at the link below is about.

Behaviorism is not about that the system has some behavior, sure it has, it is that behavior is all there is, which is wrong. Now they justify killing infants in a scientific journal by behaviorist arguments, that all what human is is the behavior, ignoring the unlimited potential which human has. This unlimited potential to develop is the real human value and they completely ignore it.

The science today has discredited itself in many ways, including morale because it has no theoretical foundation to justify morale. This theoretical foundation should come from knowing more about what human is, that is about human mind. Researching True AI provides that knowledge because it shows how advanced the human mind in its essence is, the unlimited abilities and infinite potential which it has.

We are THE NEW ERA SCIENTISTS because the system which we see now would completely collapse soon (the industrial era), including science. Then we create a new science which includes that which science ignores today, and which goes ahead where the old science was not capable of, because of what it ignored.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project

posted 9/1/2012  22:02Reply with quote
It sounds like you mean "morality", not "morale".

If that's the case, then you're wrong: there have been studies into morality: what it is, whether it changes in time, whether it differs between cultures, and so on. The conclusion of such studies was that there is a common thread of morality between most cultures throughout all of history, which boils down to two rules of expected conduct: (1) Be kind and respectful to others; (2) Be kind and respectful to yourself, as well. If you want, I'll take time out to look up references, but you could do the same. One book where I read that was a book on Rational Emotive Therapy.

My main point is that science can be and is applied to more abstract issues like happiness, emotions, "altered consciousness", and morality. I believe the reason science is not applied to such fields more frequently or more intensely is because of politics. Politics is like the filter that attempts to regulate the output of everything on the planet, from science to religion to the environment to human behavior to life itself, usually to serve the few people in power who exert that control out of self-interest. People often complain that they don't like science because it doesn't deal with issues that are important to people, but I believe what those people really don't like and don't even realize it is the fact that science is being skewed to serve the people in control, not that science itself can't address their personal concerns. Science is wonderful and can be applied to virtually any problem by virtually anybody with great success. It is the self-serving elite who operate behind the scenes who indirectly give science a bad name.

Last edited by simnia @ 9/2/2012 12:09:00 AM

posted 9/2/2012  03:40Send e-mail to userReply with quote
No, i meant moral, not morality. What is the human's value and what is necessary for human because of that value. This is fundamental and thus does not depend on culture or religion. Some want to argue that all truth is only relative to the point of view, which is convenient, but even what everyone think doesn't make false true or vice versa.

Science, it depends what one means by science. As an institution it is rather authoritarian with only some primitive forms of democracy, with the primary function to force the stereotypes of thinking and judge sanity. Scientific method is also problematic because it is based on the requirement of verifiability, a requirement theoretically impossible to satisfy.

What concerns moral, look at the image below. You likely would like to say it is fake, but one day you may have to say it is good, to be considered sane, so think twice. It's more convenient to adapt than be against, and how does adaptation to these things depend on local culture?

 Genetic experiment?
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 9/2/2012 3:46:00 AM

posted 9/2/2012  05:13Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tkorrovi wrote @ 9/2/2012 3:40:00 AM:
Science, it depends what one means by science. As an institution it is rather authoritarian with only some primitive forms of democracy, with the primary function to force the stereotypes of thinking and judge sanity. Scientific method is also problematic because it is based on the requirement of verifiability, a requirement theoretically impossible to satisfy.

All good points.

I happened to look up the definition of "science" online today in case I ever get asked that on a job interview. Here is what I found:

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

I think that's a good definition. That's exactly what I meant, rather than the de facto institution of science we see nowadays.

Science is really just an objective way of thinking and problem-solving. People don't realize how much science and math pervades our lives everywhere, everyday, in every way. One time I gave advice to a young guy in high school who was trying to determine which girl he should pursue and I showed him that simple multiplication of likelihood versus benefit allowed his alternatives to be accurately considered. Another time I showed a girl in high school what she was trying to say regarding dating older guys, that there was a difference between subtracted age differences and percentage of age differences, which was much more clear than the comment she made to people "kinda a big difference but kinda not". These are typically the kind of anti-intellectuals who think that math has nothing to do with love or romance or happiness or their own lives. If high schools aren't teaching these people how math applies to their lives like that, then education is failing badly for that reason alone. My current manager is not college-educated and he keeps swearing that science is irrelevant in his line of business, yet he foolishly keeps requiring his employees to spend a lot of extra time on highly repetitive tasks, which is a major time killer well-known to computer science people when dealing with the innermost loops of computer programs. I can't even advise him because of his outrageous ego, so he keeps losing money every day from wasteful inner loop type activity. All day long I see people making foolish mistakes like these because they want to think with their emotions rather than with their logic circuits, and as a result they lose money, lose their sweethearts, lose their spouses, go out of business, and worse.

You can't beat science for understanding how things work, what the future holds, what the nature of truth is, and ultimately for finding one's place in the world and how to be happy. It doesn't have to be formal or institutionalized science: anybody can do their own mini-science experiments to find which combinations of things in which circumstances tend to bring the most success or happiness, whether making friends or lovers, growing flowers, making sales pitches, baking cakes, finding jobs, or whatever.

I don't understand why you think that verifiability is theoretically impossible to satisfy. However, there is one other thing that potentially concerns me about science: the supposed requirement for repeatability. Some phenomena simply don't repeat themselves, like specific environmental disasters, specific UFO sightings, specific supernovas, rare animal behavior, or medical miracles. Some religions like to discredit science because of that aspect, and if their claims are true then the scientific method does have a flaw, because such events can be captured on film or in other recordings, which makes them about as real as they can be, so repeatability seems to me to be unnecessary for proof of existence. I haven't researched that topic yet, so if anyone has some insights they want to impart before I get around to researching this, please let us all know.

Last edited by simnia @ 9/2/2012 5:53:00 PM

posted 9/2/2012  10:10Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Verifiability is showing that there are no other possibilities than the one claimed. Like you cannot say that crows are black, until you kill all crows and show that all of them were black, which is impossible. An alternative to verifiability is falsifiability, which should be sufficient. Like when one takes an ufo picture so that a picture with that same quality and details can be found to be faked if it were faked, then this evidence is verifiable. But science dismisses that evidence and requires verifiability. The opposite example is the moon landings blurry tv images. These were too low quality to establish what they show or where they were taken, thus they are not falsifiable and cannot be considered an evidence. But science considers them as evidence.

'Send Send email to user    Reply with quote Reply with quote    Edit message Edit message

Forums Home    The Artificial Intelligence Forum    Hal and other child machines    Alan and other chatbots  
Contact Us Terms of Use