47 replies to this topic

[Omnido]

An expert in a field (who's "expertness" can be narrowed down to a few differences in the interneuronal connection map) can solve a problem that a thousand newbies could never solve, and a transhuman expert could think thoughts entirely outside of the human sphere of experience

I completely disagree. As I have posted before, I too, profess to have the capacity to think thoughts "entirely outside the human sphere of experience", but thats is subjective Michael. For in truth, nothing is beyond our "sphere of experience", only that which is beyond our inherent sphere of perception. Still, concept alone has endowed engineers, scientists, and philosophers to create constructs that allow us as humans to experience realms that we could only conceive, but not biologically perceive.
A simple example: Infrared light.
We cannot perceive this wavelength, yet scientists and engineers conceived of its existence, tested their conceptions, and eventually produced technology that allowed for us to view through the use of false coloring, this other spectrum.

If "beyond the human sphere of experience" doesnt fit that description, then I think you will need a better example. I dont see too many children conceiving about infrared light, as it is beyond their sphere of experience. And yet, some scientist somewhere generated the concept: "I wonder what it would be like to see what I can feel in terms of hot and cold?"
The rest is history.

Could you understand the aesthetic meaning of a 50 dimensional alien art exhibit, intuit the culmative behavioral patterns of an animal with quadrillions of moving parts, or participate suavely in a "party" with augmented humans who are enhanced such that they can execute and comprehend a whole new range of body language and facial expression previously unavailable to baseline humans?

Sure I could. And apparently, you can too. You prove my case for me by your semantically conceptual example, so what was your point?[unsure]

If humans can conceive of "God" and "The Infinite", then it stands to reason that they could also conceive of that which is not nearly so "Godly" or "Infinite".

...being completely incapable of understanding or appreciating their art, science, culture, or whatever analogous pursuits that these transhumans engage in.

Completely incapable? I highly doubt it. Time dependant? Well surely, considering that it would be a new experience. But incapable is a huge assumption...
Is a young native from a primitive culture incapable of being edcuated? Obviously not. Many natives have been brought over to America, to be edcuated in language, mathematics, trade skills, and the like.
I think you make far to many assumptions Michael on what a human can, or as you presume, "can not" comprehend.

...freedom from distraction or rationalization, and so on, and so on...

Freedom from rationalization? I fail to see what productive output could be yielded with such a practice. Rationalization is how we prove/disprove thesis in context; the arbitration of conceptual and logical fundaments to establish a proposition.
How could anything that was "free from rationalization" in any way demonstrate "superiority" ? [huh]

[MichaelAnissimov]

An expert in a field (who's "expertness" can be narrowed down to a few differences in the interneuronal connection map) can solve a problem that a thousand newbies could never solve, and a transhuman expert could think thoughts entirely outside of the human sphere of experience.

I completely disagree.

Which part do you disagree about? That an expert could quickly solve a problem that a thousand newbies could never solve in a lifetime? That thoughts exist which humans can't comprehend?

As I have posted before, I too, profess to have the capacity to think thoughts "entirely outside the human sphere of experience", but thats is subjective Michael. For in truth, nothing is beyond our "sphere of experience", only that which is beyond our inherent sphere of perception. Still, concept alone has endowed engineers, scientists, and philosophers to create constructs that allow us as humans to experience realms that we could only conceive, but not biologically perceive.
A simple example: Infrared light.

I agree - but if I gave you a task which involved simultaneously keeping track of thousands of moving parts in a complicated device, you would surely fail without a slew of engineering generalizations which you could readily refer to. For devices involving millions or billions of complex moving parts which are independently important, you'd have to defer to a superintelligence to get the job done in any less than combinatoral timeframes.

We cannot perceive this wavelength, yet scientists and engineers conceived of its existence, tested their conceptions, and eventually produced technology that allowed for us to view through the use of false coloring, this other spectrum.

Sure, but we can't perceive of "xxxx". For every human word that makes sense, there are a multitude of words which refer to concepts so information-dense that humans would be hopeless at decoding their intricacies. We just don't run across such concepts too often because they don't naturally pop into our minds - humans are used to formulating and explaining problems in human-centric terms. When we see a problem, we break it down into human-edible pieces before we tackle it. Greater intelligences will be able to solve problems in larger chunks.

If "beyond the human sphere of experience" doesnt fit that description, then I think you will need a better example. I dont see too many children conceiving about infrared light, as it is beyond their sphere of experience. And yet, some scientist somewhere generated the concept: "I wonder what it would be like to see what I can feel in terms of hot and cold?" The rest is history.

I don't see many humans conceiving of "xxxx", because it hasn't been discovered yet. The scientific experience which allowed an individual to conceive of infrared light resulted in software changes upon the basic human hardware which we are all endowed with - but software changes are only skin deep. There is a whole world of knowledge only accessible through hardware changes of the mind. A dog smart enough to jump through hoops may be considered smarter than the average dog by some, but it's still a dog. A dog that can jump through hoops might be considered very impressive by fellow dogs, if they could assess impressiveness, but it's still a dog.

Could you understand the aesthetic meaning of a 50 dimensional alien art exhibit, intuit the culmative behavioral patterns of an animal with quadrillions of moving parts, or participate suavely in a "party" with augmented humans who are enhanced such that they can execute and comprehend a whole new range of body language and facial expression previously unavailable to baseline humans?

Sure I could. And apparently, you can too. You prove my case for me by your semantically conceptual example, so what was your point?

My point is that humans can't understand the aesthetic meaning of a 50 dimensional alien art exhibit, intuit the culmative behavioral patterns of an animal with quadrillions of moving parts, or participate suavely in a "party" with augmented humans who are enhanced such that they can execute and comprehend a whole new range of body language and facial expression previously unavailable to baseline humans. Similarly, human beings can't improve upon their own cognitive hardware yet, which drastically limits us intellectually. My angle is that intellectuals should be aiming to enhance their intellect on the hardware level. I don't understand how I prove your case for you by my "semantically conceptual example", but telling someone that they've proven one's case for them seems like a way of avoiding the central argument.

Freedom from rationalization? I fail to see what productive output could be yielded with such a practice. Rationalization is how we prove/disprove thesis in context; the arbitration of conceptual and logical fundaments to establish a proposition.

Whoops, forget about rationalization. I want your comments about the other stuff. Would you care to respond, as if you were a Devil's Advocate arguing for my side of the argument? I can do the same for you - it's good practice for dispelling any potential stubbornness in either party by lowering the psychological attachment to one's own stance, and letting the intelligence of both individuals flow in both directions of the argument, so the truth can be more closely approximated.

[Mangala]

Sure I could. And apparently, you can too. You prove my case for me by your semantically conceptual example, so what was your point?

If humans can conceive of "God" and "The Infinite", then it stands to reason that they could also conceive of that which is not nearly so "Godly" or "Infinite".

The point was that you can only conceive of it, and yet you state that an SI would be able to perceive it technologically. If by definition it could perceive something while you could only conceive of it, and you would need some kind of technology to actaully perceive it, the SI would be more intelligent than you were before you received the technology. This means that your previous statement that SI's cannot become more intelligent than you are is contradicted.

What makes you think the software is *so* far out, especially with hyperexponentially accelerating technological progress?

First of all, I hardly believe in that flights of fancy graph by Vinge about "exponentially increasing technological progress." The analysis put into that chart is relative and completely without scientific backing. Just because you can put a toaster and a microwave next to eachother does not mean the microwave is exponentially better technologically than a toaster. Second of all you made a logical error. Technological progress does not go hand in hand with software development as I have said before. Rather it almost is an inverse graph whereby the rate at which things are getting more complex codewise is getting worse. I mean look at the easy ones, Windows 95, 98, and XP. Now come on, you all know Windows XP is not exponentially better than 95, its proboably not even two times better than 95. I mean, imagine if the operating system you bought was two times better than the one before it. Wouldn't that just be amazing? But no, the leap from 3.1 to 95 is exponential, the leap from 95 to XP is marginal and I will not accept a claim that software is getting more complex. It may be getting faster which I agree with Omnido is not all that great, but it still is as complex as a few years ago. Given this, I hate that exponential belief and I think it reduces the progress of the Singularity by posting an invalid timetable. I mean, Christians prepared for 100s of years for christ to return, only to have it be 2000 and still be waiting for their false God.

Also, collaborative tools will allow software engineers to cooperate more effectively, allowing us to get more done in a shorter period of time. Rudimentary brain-computer interfaces or more intuitive programming tools could also improve the situation substantially within a very short amount of time. Most of the human brain's functionality wouldn't need to be duplicated in an AI, either, because it's specialized for "physical" rather than "virtual" entities. And last but not least, a subhuman AI could serve as a very valuable assistant for further programming.

Eh, I like the subhuman idea but even that could take awhile, I mean we're talking about computers today that have the intelligence equivalent of a bacteria rather than even a dumb human (integrated into a computers frame of mind no less). About collaboration, Collaboration has always been a factor in computing, and the new tools are simply conceptual rather than hard code, meaning basically we're trying to take the easy road while easing by the nitty-gritty. You singulitarians go to far and forget about the limits of your trigger happy statistic. The Hardware is getting better, but software is not getting two times as great. Haha, think about AOL...god I hate all these retarded versions. Even games, the paramount of code building, is lacking in technological prowess. I mean the graphics from mario to perfect dark might be amazing steps up, but look at all these new blocky 3D games. I hate the idea that every new 3D game is twice as technologically complex than a 3D game from the past. Actual game enjoyment, however, need not be spoken of.

Edited by Mangala, 14 January 2003 - 01:02 AM.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Hi Mangala,

First of all, I hardly believe in that flights of fancy graph by Vinge about "exponentially increasing technological progress."

Do you mean the graphs by Raymond Kurzweil? Vinge didn't make any graphs, to my knowledge. Read "The Singularity is Near" precis by Kurzweil on KurzweilAI.net, there's about a dozen graphs filled with hard data from various sources. How are they "a flight of fancy"?

The analysis put into that chart is relative and completely without scientific backing. Just because you can put a toaster and a microwave next to eachother does not mean the microwave is exponentially better technologically than a toaster.

But the only measurements done so far have been quantitative. No one said a microwave is exponentially better than a toaster. Can you point me to this chart you're talking about?

Second of all you made a logical error. Technological progress does not go hand in hand with software development as I have said before.

Of course not, comparing accelerating technological progress to software progress is only a very general comparison; I didn't choose to elaborate extensively on the software aspect in that one paragraph, I guess. Would you like me to?

Rather it almost is an inverse graph whereby the rate at which things are getting more complex codewise is getting worse. I mean look at the easy ones, Windows 95, 98, and XP. Now come on, you all know Windows XP is not exponentially better than 95, its proboably not even two times better than 95. I mean, imagine if the operating system you bought was two times better than the one before it. Wouldn't that just be amazing? But no, the leap from 3.1 to 95 is exponential, the leap from 95 to XP is marginal and I will not accept a claim that software is getting more complex. It may be getting faster which I agree with Omnido is not all that great, but it still is as complex as a few years ago. Given this, I hate that exponential belief and I think it reduces the progress of the Singularity by posting an invalid timetable. I mean, Christians prepared for 100s of years for christ to return, only to have it be 2000 and still be waiting for their false God.

Software creates more productivity than it ever has before. There are more programmers than ever before. Of course, not in every single instance is a given piece of software exponentially "better" than its precursor. I'm just saying that the *average technological trend* is exponential, I wasn't necessarily saying that about the betterness level of software. The main idea is that seed AI won't be impractical to do for a few dozen million dollars in 2010-2015. A mind is the most complex thing in the universe, but it isn't infinitely complex, especially when subjected to fine-resolution fMRI scanners and terabyte hard drives.

Eh, I like the subhuman idea but even that could take awhile, I mean we're talking about computers today that have the intelligence equivalent of a bacteria rather than even a dumb human (integrated into a computers frame of mind no less).

In comparison to the gulf between a human and a bacteria, the difference between a dumb human and a genius one is essentially zilch. We're sensitive to the tiny differences in intelligence we have between each other because we evolved that way. There are robots out there today with "equivalent intelligence" to advanced insects, and the bulk of progress has been made in the past few years. Cognitive science is exploding as a field, and the functional mechanisms underlying the mind are becoming more and more uncovered. Just because Windows today has the complexity of a bacterium doesn't mean that a directed effort couldn't create a seed AI in the relatively near future, does it? The Internet was non-existent only 10 years ago, remember.

About collaboration, Collaboration has always been a factor in computing, and the new tools are simply conceptual rather than hard code, meaning basically we're trying to take the easy road while easing by the nitty-gritty.

Collaborative filters, wireless computing, Segway Ginger technology, P2P applications, @Home computing, experimental intelligent environments, international research programs on BCI, neuroengineering labs at the finest universities, humanoid robots made in private industry, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all within the past few years. I'm not saying that this means we're all inevitably headed towards a joyous techno-rapture, I'm just saying this means that information is getting easier to deal with nowadays, and the trend is showing no signs of slowing down.

You singulitarians go to far and forget about the limits of your trigger happy statistic. The Hardware is getting better, but software is not getting two times as great. Haha, think about AOL...god I hate all these retarded versions. Even games, the paramount of code building, is lacking in technological prowess. I mean the graphics from mario to perfect dark might be amazing steps up, but look at all these new blocky 3D games. I hate the idea that every new 3D game is twice as technologically complex than a 3D game from the past. Actual game enjoyment, however, need not be spoken of.

I think you're interpreting our arguments incorrectly. Moore's Law and the Law of Accelerating Returns aren't promises that you'll enjoy the newest round of video games. What did you read which gave you this impression, exactly?

[Mind]

Omnido: I respect your point of view and agree on a "theoretical" basis. My point is one of results. Judging by results, an augmented human, or an AI, or whatever higher-level intelligence you can dream up will achieve greater RESULTS than any PRESENT DAY human. It is theoretically possible - given enough time - that a human may understand the problem or achieve the same results using its current brain. However, the difference in time could be years or thousands of years.

So if we were to be judges in an intelligence contest based on the results produced at a specific instance of time (not the potential for producing results at some point in the future) then computers already win hands down in many areas and there is nothing stopping them (or silicon enhanced human brains) from winning in every concievable area of study/intelligence/cognition in the future.

I am not trying to make any moral arguments (like computers are better than humans, or humans should emulate computers, or everyone should strive to be transhuman...etc), I am just trying to differentiate different levels of intelligence by results only. I guess it boils down to my belief that speed and memory are components of intelligence. I know you believe otherwise.

[Omnido]

Mind, I couldn't agree with you more.

However, while you are correct with regard to the production of "Useful results" in a timely fashion, it still only represents an increase of speed. The fundamental "Stuff" of conception still originates from biological hardware (funny how that sounds contradictive) and is still quite superior to any computing system at present.

Now while granted, a computer could calculate billions of math problems in the time it takes me to do a single one, one must remember that the human being designed and created that computer. It is an extension of the already conceived and demonstrated intelligence of a human. The computer cannot say; invent new types of math that it isn't endowed with, unless it is programmed with a capacity to do just such a thing. Still, that "program" would have originated from its creator, namely the human. The source of the computers vastly superior speed still originates from the slow-turtle human.

Now in argument for Michaels proposition, we as humans would design systems that could eventually be self-substantial; insofar as they could then proceed to design for themselves their own advancements.
There are so many variables involved there; what the computer's needs for new designs are based upon its pre-programmed "goal" etc, to explain within this post.
While the systems that we the humans would design are vastly superior to our own biological hardware, they are still the sum of our parts, merely with a "whole new bag" of tricks to augment them.
We designed them to increase productivity and efficiency on our part, knowing that we can and do make mistakes. While some of these mistakes are attributed to "Human error" I have found that 99% of most human mistakes are not due to inferiority of design, but rather excessive distraction.

Take a mathematician. Sit him/her down in a chair and ask them to solve problems on a board.
Put them in a room with no distraction, adequate lighting, food, water, and hygiene facilities, and let them have at it.
If they are driven and determined to succeed at any cost, not distracted by any consequence outside of that room, they will endeavor nearly flawlessly to perform their tasks, yielding around the 99 percentile of success with correctness.

That is a dream (or a nightmare). Human lives are far more complicated than a simple room with problems to solve. Everyday we have to interact with one another to perform multitudes of tasks involving nearly countless numbers of variables.
We direct ourselves toward our tasks based upon priority, difficulty, and net gain/loss.
We all know that humans who specialize in a specific task or sets of tasks, usually master them with amazing accuracy and precision. Such is demonstrated by athletes, engineers, musicians, etc...
All the computer has done is reduce the distraction(s) involved in accomplishing human tasks.
A simple example is the age old question: "What is 1+1" ? Any human versed in even the most basic of mathematics can answer that question. And I highly doubt that any human even under todays modern sociological stresses can answer that question wrong.
It has become so ingrained within our biological hardware, that its nearly impossible for us to make a mistake on the answer to that question.
And then there is the computer...a machine that has mathematics literally physically ingrained within a silicon/electronic medium, that is otherwise incapable of rendering an incorrect mathematical answer unless its physical hardware is somehow damaged.
Well the same argument can be applied to Humans. We perform flawlessly until another circumstance or cause & effect renders resistance against us. There are many such occurances, far to many to list.
So we the humans, endeavor to create more constructs that will perform our tasks for us, allowing us to concentrate on different circumstances for whatever reasons we have pre-conceived.

Nothing I have said is incorrect, it is all empirical fact.
However, I think the issue of disagreement lies within the definitions that we all use. Our interpretations of what is subjectively "Superior" versus what is objectively "Superior" remains an obstacle that inevitably hinders us all.
Perhaps Steps might work better:

1) Humans create computers.
2) Computers make life easier for Humans.
3) Humans make computers more "productive" than they previously were, as time goes on.
4) Computers yield ever better results and prove to be more productive an useful at many tasks than humans would be without them.
5) Humans endeavor to make computers self-substantial, for the purpose of advancing themselves faster than they would normally accomplish.

It is 5 that I disagree with.
It is my opinion that all human evolution be carefully thought out, planned, and agreed upon by the ones to be evolved, not simply handed over to a machine that has been designed to run amuck with our base conceptions and knowledges.
There are just so many variables...many of which have been addressed before. I wish there were some compositional work that outlined all the steps involved in such an evolution, as well as all the comprehensive variables involving all human endeavors and interactions.
Such would be a marvel of human works, and a comprehensive step by step outline of how to achieve it.
Id love to know if such a compilation was either in the works or already produced.

In any case, it has never been my intention to argue against the machine. In fact, I am all for the machine, Provided that any mechanical or electronical system that is designed to augment human capacity on a fundamental level be carefully scrutinized by the would-be augmentees, and not merely toss all concern aside on the assumed basis of "Superior technology" or intelligence

Mangala Posted:

The point was that you can only conceive of it, and yet you state that an SI would be able to perceive it technologically. If by definition it could perceive something while you could only conceive of it, and you would need some kind of technology to actually perceive it, the SI would be more intelligent than you were before you received the technology. This means that your previous statement that SI's cannot become more intelligent than you are is contradicted

Actually it is not contradicted. Perception versus conception proves nothing. Anyone can conceive of that which is not tangibly perceived, and such conceptions do not render them inferior or objectively incorrect against conceptions that are perceived. It merely attributes the perceiver with an added "advantage" in discerning immediate consequential and/or empirical evidence. That advantage has nothing to do with objective superiority, but as Mind stated, is a matter of "Immediate Results."

[DJS]

We have already built a machine that can beat the world's best chess player. Now...I know this is just one specialized machine and its program. I know that anyone could argue about how Deep Blue is not intelligent...not in the sense that humans are. I am just talking about the result. Based on the results, the greatest chess player in the world is a computer. No human mind can calculate fast enough to beat Deep Blue. Humans could beat Deep Blue in any other activity you can name. We would whip Deep Blue in any other game. But not chess. We have created a machine that is better than any human at playing chess.

Kasparov blew the last game. A thorough post game analysis revealed that the game should have been a draw (AKA, Kasparov let his emotions get the better of him, by resigning prematurely on move 19). Second, Deep Blue was aided by its programmers and updated throughout the match, which means that the match was really a human against a super computer and a team of humans (programmers, researcheres, chess grandmasters, etc.) Are you following me here!! THE DECK WAS STACKED.

After the match Deep Blue was disassembled, never to be seen again. IBM had succeeded in their ellaborate hoax.

Let me concede a few points. Back in the 80's all of the leading Grandmasters said there would never be a program that could compete with them. At the time they were competing with some very rudimentary programs and did not foresee/comprehend the impact of the exponential growth of computing power.

In the not too distant future chess programs will exist that will be unbeatable, or at the very least technically perfect. A few months ago I posted an article titled, "He held his own against machine". In a rematch, Kasparov tied Deeper Blue, a predecessor of Deep Blue, and by most accounts a superior chess program. I attended two of the games in that match. Observing the position of the game from one screen, and Kasparov from the other. Kasparov rarely moved. His head was pointed down, his gazed locked on the board. His hands gasped both sides of his head like a vice, so as to squeeze out all of the precious secrets he had learned about chess throughout his life onto the board. The highest rated chess player in the history of the world (2805) was playing not just for himself, but for humanity. After the last move, with the draw secured, Kasparov came to gallery and pumped his fists. The spectators applauded at first, then they began to roar. This is a moment I will remember for as long as I live. It is a tragedy it was not better covered. By all accounts, the match was technically flawless (AKA, no obvious mistakes were made).

Admittedly, its computational abilities were significantly lower than Deep Blue (2 million moves per second to Deep Blue's 100 million moves). This, however, is not as important as it may seem and let me explain why.

Deep Blue operated on a system of brute force. Its moves were based on the computations it made in a given period of time at a speed of approximately 100 million moves per second. It calculated all moves..good, bad, stupid, repetitious, etc. Its final assessment of a position and its decision on a move was determined by its calculation of material lose/gain. It did not think at all. Further, it did not even have a strategy. It simply took a given position as far as its computational power would allow it (its event horizon) and then picked the path with the best material outcome. It was also suppose to have access to a game archive giving it instant recognition of identical position of games played in previous matches (say Capablanca vs Marshall 1923) and the result of said game. It was later revealed that this part of Deep Blue was not functional. Deep Blue was a purely tactical machine.

Deeper Blue is a different animal all together. Besides from having superior computational abilities to that of a human, it also has a fully functional archive, and the ability to formulate strategies. That last part is important. It understands the importance of double bishops in an open game. It understands the objectives it should be playing towards when it defends with the Sicilian. Maybe understands is the wrong word. I should say, it has many complex systems built into it that add more dimensions to the decisions it makes with it superior computational ability.

Kasparov said after the last game of the match that he was afraid to continue to play the last game even though he thought he had a slightly superior position. He lamented that even a slightly inferior move would have been severly punished by Deeper Blue. Mistakes were not an option against this machine.

But the fact remained! The human, with his very limited computational abilities still drew the machine!! Deeper Blue, just like Deep Blue, does not think. It uses its programs to perform a task. I am still not convinced that even with all of the computing power in the world a computer would become conscious/ a being of reason. I have nothing to back this up, but I believe that computational power has nothing to do with consciousness or reason. The answers are still out there waiting to be discovered.

Edited by Kissinger, 17 June 2003 - 03:22 AM.

[DJS]

That is a dream (or a nightmare). Human lives are far more complicated than a simple room with problems to solve. Everyday we have to interact with one another to perform multitudes of tasks involving nearly countless numbers of variables.

This was another point brought up about Kasparov vs. Deep Blue. Deep Blue was simply a glorified calculator. Kasparov was a human being, playing with the weight of the world on his shoulders, having to enduring physical fatigue, emotional variances, etc. Humans have more to deal with than emotionless computers.

[Mangala]

Why do most humans think emotions are magic? Why is it that many humans believe that their brains are somehow beyond the laws of science? As if for some reason all computational structure of the brain is impossible to copy. Obviously it is hard to think about biological systems being copied onto technological systems, but they are both fundamental computers. So really, we could build a computer out of nerves and brain fluid and copy the human brain atom for atom. Why do people belive a roof is then formed on intelligence at that point? The human brain has been expanding in intelligent capability for millions of years, why is it suddenly impossible to go any further now? On Star Trek, every single creature is either as intellgent as a human, or less intelligent, and for some reason that is the end all in computational ability for any being throughout the galaxy. Why?

Just as many people find it impossible to believe the human brain can be studied and improved, I find it just as impossible to understand how a human being is for some reason the most intelligent thing ever created and that will ever be created. Has evolution stopped for some reason? If so, I find that very depressing. Because that would mean religious people believe God woudl have to be just as intelligent as a human, meaning he could make mistakes, meaning he could also forget. Meaning the holocaust could happen again and again at any time or place. Just another reason being an atheist just makes more sense.

Lets all sit down and pray that their's an SI watching over all of us.

Edited by Mangala, 17 June 2003 - 04:05 AM.

[DJS]

On Star Trek, every single creature is either as intellgent as a human, or less intelligent, and for some reason that is the end all in computational ability for any being throughout the galaxy.  Why?

Have you forgotten Q?? lol What about Vulcans??

[Mangala]

Q and the Vulcans are just as intelligent as any of the other humans. In fact, many times the humans have this superiority complex which leads them to laugh at the Vulcans and the Q for being so narrow and stupid about things. In one episode, one Q sends his child on board a star trek ship to learn what it is like not to be all-powerful. Within just a few minutes it becomes obvious that the Q are just as arrogant and foolish as any of the other humans. The Q child makes very human choices and in the end it is the humans that have to show the Q son how to be intelligient about his decisions.

No one should ever use Star Trek to understand what it would be like to meet a being with greater-than-human intelligence. All the races have just about the same advances in technology or less and all of them have human emotions and goals. That entire show used to make me so mad at the writers for being so infantile in their thinking about meeting other types of intelligence. It still does, but I watch the show because I do not take the show all that seriously anymore.

The Vulcans are the only race I have seen that might possibly be a little more intelligent than humans. They come up with better ideas in less time than the humans but they continue to make bad choices just like the humans do. And sometimes they even say dumber things for comic relief no doubt (thats why Star Tek isn't a good example, its a tv show, not a well thought out book or paper).

And the robots on the show. Do not even get me started. Every single robot is summarized as a human who thinks he is not human because he is made of metal and therefore wants to become as human as possible, and chooses to be a bad AI.

No one ever beats the humans intellectually because the humans are idolized on that show.

WHY IS HUMAN LEVEL INTELLIGENCE THE END-ALL???

This is really annoying me! How can you assume evolution has stopped? That for some reason the human mind is the goal of 13 billion years and now the universe can stop working towards even better forms of computation. The human mind is not even the product of trying to increase computational ability, it is simply designed to protect a type of mammal with no other basic defense! The ability of man is to create something that is not trial and error. With our level of intellgence, we can directly work to create something that can think faster and hold more information at one time.

At least answer me this, is it completely impossible to one day (lets say 3 billion years from now to be on the safe side) directly interface a human mind with a calculator making it possible for engineers to think faster and therefore be more intelligent?

Because if this is totally impossible and unreachable and you can give me a good well thought out answer right now, I will give up on the singularity and realize that the human brain is completely set in stone and we as a race will never be able to reach anything more impressive than semi-reliable memory and the inability to conciously exist in our dreams.

[Lazarus Long]

Your reasons for being upset with Star Trek are entirely valid. It was my disgust with the horrible physics of the show which lead me to start writing the Age of Relativity, because the show attempts to constantly sidestep the very real issues Einstein represents to a writer.

Simultaneous experience is the omniscient prerogative of authors, narrators, and Gods but it is not “reality”. Just saying we don’t like Einstein’s conclusions does very little to discredit them. Relativity and simultaneity cannot co-exist. This paradox can only be overcome by appealing to a objective externalized frame of reference taht as yet is neither defined nor perceived but for everyone living in different parts of THIS universe "reality," as we experience is relativistic for BOTH space and TIME.

Forget Warp drive for the moment, or any number of "theoretic" loop (worm) holes, there is no way to maintain temporal simultaneity while having lots of characters traveling around at SUBLIGHT speeds on impulse drive, even for a few minutes.

This little flaw in their science drove me crazy.

At any significant percent of light speed there will temporal dilation/inflation effects relative to people living at a significantly different percentage of C. In other words, even WITH sub-light transmission ability there will be no ability to have everybody remain alive in the same temporal reference.

Now it so happens Mangala that this is ALSO a serious problem for singularity theory, though once simultaneous awareness is resolved through a better Unified Field Concept then perhaps an event like the Singularity may take place, but so long as the computer communicates at light speed the ability to go far beyond "local space/time" referents is impossible because the farther away the greater the need to create an alternative, independent awareness that is “immediately responsive” to the other local environment, if for no other reason than survival. Hence the singularity begins to bud like an amoeba.

That is part of the back drop in the short story of the Meme Makers were my Borg colonies on the moons of the gas giants are plotting to build a Jupiter brain to first fight back against the domination of the Earth based Gaia mind and second through the discovery of FTL extend their own domination over the entire Sol System and beyond.

Well back to writing. )

[Discarnate]

From the top of page 4:

-snip much good conjecture-
I have nothing to back this up, but I believe that computational power has nothing to do with consciousness or reason.  The answers are still out there waiting to be discovered.

Kissinger - I think you're partly correct. If the algorythm ain't right, no number of computations per second will make it work. However, if you *do* have an algorythm which 'thinks' (whatever that ends up exactly meaning), a faster machine will learn faster, react faster, and be generally better.

This is the core of the 'hard' or 'fast' Singularity scenario - a machine is made which can remake itself better. It then remakes itself again, in whole or in part, and keeps on doing it until it's done, whenever/however that may be....

  Why do most humans think emotions are magic? Why is it that many humans believe that their brains are somehow beyond the laws of science? As if for some reason all computational structure of the brain is impossible to copy. 

I'd hazard a guess in that it's the apparent randomness of emotional response which makes it seem so 'magical' to use your term. Also, we're pretty much hard-wired to think of things just making incremental adjustments over long periods - which is what we've mostly seen. Moore's so-called Law (IMO a better label - Moore's Observation & Prediction) indicates that those halcyon days of yore are just that - past. Things are speeding up in ways we, as a species, haven't experienced.

As for brains being beyond the laws of science, most people don't really grok science. They believe in science, but they don't really understand it. That is, they can spout the Pater Noster, the General Theory of Relativity, 'Darwin says we evolved from monkeys' and similar catechist fodder with equal facility. (Pater Noster = Our Father, for those who didn't catch the joke.) People don't understand how to use the scientific method, don't have the background of knowledge needed to determine scientific validity or just a good arguement, etc.

Not knocking people - there's plenty of things to know in this world. It's just that science is one of many subsets of human knowledge, and we have limited time at the moment to learn what we need to exist. (That ability to continue to expand knowledge is what I would most enjoy about an extended lifespan, that and the hope that joy would continue as well.)

And as for copying how the brain works - well, we just haven't. Yet. *shrug* I'm hopeful, but I don't *KNOW* we will succeed over a meaningful time scale, or not.

As for Star Trek - if someone wants to enjoy a fantasy, that's perfectly fine. If the rules of their fantasy include that there is nothing available of higher intellect than Homer Saps, so be it. *shrug*

The problem *I* have with Star Trek is the backbreaking contortions they engender trying to fit outdated technical possibilities into a 'real' tech environment. Also, the inconsistancies ruin much of it for me. Example - first episode of Enterprise has a crewmember mention the nanotech self repair features of the hull. Then later - the same show! - they show a crewmember welding the hull to repair it.

*blink* Huh?

ANYways - please don't get me started on sci-fi, even if I've contributed more'n my share to it. See www.orionsarm.com for some of those contributions...

-Discarnate (plugging away madly)

[hodnasse]

On Star Trek, every single creature is either as intellgent as a human, or less intelligent, and for some reason that is the end all in computational ability for any being throughout the galaxy. Why?

I think because humans can't comprehend what beyond human intelligence is. If we could than maybe its not beyond human intelligence.

[Utnapishtim]

I am amazied that ANYONE invests serious thought in Star Trek.

I mean come on. If you can accept planets filled with Romans, Chicago Gangsters, Nazis and Greek Gods, all speaking in english, then you can accept faster than light speed travel and an anthropomorphic view of intelligence.

[Mangala]

OK, I realize now I am in error by not separating my argument into attacking the show that is Star Trek and attacking the process by which humans are fooled into believing a childish understanding of Einstein and intelligence.

Hodnasse is right. Of course it would be impossible vor a show like Star Trek to depict a universe in which greater than human intelligence is in contact with human, or even less than human beings. Therefore, arguing about Star Trek's plot choices should be in another post.

However there is still the issue of what happens when those uneducated many misunderstand the world around them by watching this show. I have talked to people who really believe they are learning more and more about science every time they watch Star Trek. Maybe there should be more of an effort to make the show seem make-believe. I was happy when I saw one episode of Voyager in which the year 2001 was the year the whole world came together and built an enormous self-contained environment. This "millenium gate" as they called it, signified that the Star Trek Universe cannot be taken sriously even to those who do not know much about Einstein. However many other parts of the show (warp drive and simultaneity) are still believable. Maybe there should be a special about why Star Trek makes no sense. Hmm...maybe I could really pitch that to some Discovery channel people...

I must also point out why believing in Star Trek openly goes against singulitarian main goals. The Singularity is based on the idea that humans are not special and can therefore be improved, but Star Trek goes against this very idea by idolizing the human mind and body.

When the human body is idolized, Kissinger's thinking can go on and openly work against progress. When people believe humans can never be surpassed in intelligence, less people see the SI as a possibility. Therefore less people see the value in my ultimate solution. This solution will bring us closer to the Singularity in less time than ever before.

Here is my idea: STOP WATCHING STAR TREK and believing the future will be filled with us meeting aliens with spaceships. This belief is what is stealing valuable funds away from the Singulitarian movement. If more people were given the real idea of what is the future of Earth, more people would DO AWAY WITH NASA. Well, not all of NASA. Just the part that wants to spend billions on going to Mars or Venus, or building a moon colony. The idea born from Science fiction writers from years past that we will all one day be living in a world much like Buck Rogers leads people to fund the wrong futurist programs.

Do away with NASA, give us the National Singulitarian Project. If we were able to have an association like NASA that worked every day towards building an AI, our world would benefit all the time. In our quest to build the first succesful AI, we would overcome technological hurdles with the billions of dollars at our disposal and be able to sell them to companies, increasing both the progress of man and the progress towards the SI. The NSP would be more scientifically involved than any other university before, and have the capability to make their project profitable as well. With every advance towards the SI, we could become closer to building other forms of AI that could be used for robot labor.

The problem with NASA is that going to space is not profitable almost at all. Hardly anyone is interested anymore in going to space except those few billionaires that can afford it and going to space is so expensive, that most of the programs are wasteful.

I don't know I'm not in my best writing form today. Does anyone else agree that there should at least be an NSP?

Edited by Mangala, 19 June 2003 - 06:34 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Do away with NASA, give us the National Singulitarian Project. If we were able to have an association like NASA that worked every day towards building an AI, our world would benefit all the time. In our quest to build the first succesful AI, we would overcome technological hurdles with the billions of dollars at our disposal and be able to sell them to companies, increasing both the progress of man and the progress towards the SI.

You see there you go again with the Politically Correct false dichotomy, take funds away from NASA for the NSP?

Why? [B)]

There are lots of reasons to fund other projects, but take it way from the defense industry; most Defense Budget is Black Hole anyway. This is about as politically astute as suggesting that we put the Dalai Lama in charge of the State Department. Regardless of the soundness of the idea to quote Bush senior, "Not gonna happen".

Why is it that everyone gangs up on NASA? [?]

I think they should be reorganized but get real their budget is pennies compared to so many others. And I will be the first to criticize them for mishandling funds and programs but DARPA is already offering to fund ideas like yours Mangala because they see it for its weapons potential, as in the ultimate weapon.

Oh that is not what you had in mind?

Well children you are playing with the both matches and the gasolene. [ph34r]

By now maybe you can get a clue, kill NASA and you aren't killing the Space Program you are just turning it into pure military operations. All the money will go to the Defense Budget and the the entire rocket and shuttle fleet as well anyway if you kill NASA, because the military wants SDI and high suborbital Space Planes for intercept & assault.

I suggest you focus on friendly software and realize that no matter how good your intentions, you are working on a Road Project to Hell. The Highway to Hell being as good a summer job as any. [wacko]

[Mangala]

Well I'm obviously not suggesting we only kill NASA. I have never heard of DARPA, I will investigate.

I just think we should sway congress to support an organization like
the NSP. I just think that many will see it as just another frivolous program like NASA. NASA wastes money every year becuase it is so disorganised and refuses to become more of a business-like organization.

Even a Socialist has to realize American government services do not work as well as today's businesses in getting the job done. The IRS, the post office, the CIA, and NASA all have terrible flaws in the way they do business.

Lazarus, this isn't a definite outcome. The American people will only get rid of NASA if they see a more important objective in their midst. The only way to do this is to pitch the NSP. Not everyone wants even more money for military. By your logic NASA would already have to be an extremely militarily oriented organization simply becuase of the weapons potential in space. People are not drones.

Maybe you are right, maybe we do not have to destroy NASA in order to make way for the "NSP" but I think it would sound a whole lot mroe economical if we ever pitched it to congress.