Early Reviews - Terminator Salvation at 14% on Rotton Tomatoes

[Alan Skinner]

That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

Hmmmm, so far this thread has covered all of the bases. From a Scifi movie to conjecture to fantastic deviations from reality.

Thought I was still on topic with my Hippo-pothesis!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Resistance is FUTILE, Rado!

Nevaaaa! :sifone:

 

[Alan Skinner]

That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

I think,........... therefore I am.
I think not,.............. "POOF!" :head_explode:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

While I'm with you on most of your comments regarding true consciousness or self-awareness, I don't believe it's entirely beyond the realm of human science.

I think it may be possible to create a truly intelligent system that could ultimately achieve consciousness through it's own development. Consciousness or self-awareness is something that will probably never be something that is hard-coded into a design. It must emerge under natural progression of an intelligent being. For now, that is beyond what our current technology allows. But I don't think it's that far off.

As for "artificial intelligence", key word being "artificial", I think that's a term that doesn't fit what many current developments are capable of. Some of the latest learning systems are truly capable of learning on their own and deriving intelligent and rational decisions based on facts and experiences. To call something of this nature "artificial" doesn't seem right. It's not artificially intelligent, but rather man-made intelligence or synthesized intelligence in a way. But yes, nowhere near self-aware or conscious.

 

[J. P. Sendall]

That's just hipotheses.

The consciousness is not directly observable, therefore - not a legitimate object for testing and scientific analysis, therefore - beyond the field of human science.

... Ergo... my mind... is... gone... :sifone:

So that field is closed to us? You may be right but I'm not so sure. The mind is not observable as a thing perhaps but it is observable as a process. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Is thought a wave in particle (cell) form? It may have to eventually come down to that as a scientific study, thought as energy beyond the molecular but operating within it. Hold on...message coming through...yes...got it.

The wave (as thought) creates another wave (as image) of self based upon experience (past waves) which then go on to create more thoughts. Perhaps it's not that consciousness exists or not, or is a process or not. The real question is what happens when it stops?

you can be perfectly self-aware and conscious without actually thinking.

Well I'm afraid it takes thought to say that so really you haven't stopped thinking at all. You cannot truthfully say anything exists outside of thought, that self awareness exists, that there is consciousness outside of thought since it is thought that takes up that point of view, you see. These are the subtle tricks that thought plays in trying to convince itself it exists and is valid in the 'real' world. I mean if thought began to entertain the idea that it doesn't really exist insanity is a very real outcome. All the buffers it has built up suddenly collapse and the insignifcance of self becomes terrifyingly real.

Even as I write this I feel the pit in my stomach opening up.

 

[Coco B]

I was knocked UNconscious once (ok, twice).

And I really didn't remember anything.

It ain't easy without consciousness.:beer:

 

[PaulClements]

I just need a couple weeks sitting beside a picturesque creek in the High Sierras with a cooler full of beer, a bag of weed, a blank yellow pad, and a pen.

Hi Tom,
I have a script or ten I need to write, any room on that Creek?
Paul

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Many things exist which aren't directly identifiable. Where is the "Go" in a motor? The reason you can't find it is because you're searching for the result not the process.

It's my belief that you can't create an even slightly intelligent application without consciousness. It's not an optional component that you can run on top of an autonomoton. It's the process by which intelligence emerges.

Most 'higher life forms' on earth are conscious and sentient. Any animal which doesn't live completely *IN* the moment has to have consciousness.

If you have software which understands three things simultaneously while having a learning subroutine running on top which can combine all three you probably will be conscious:
1) The way the world was.
2) The way the world is.
3) The way the world probably will be.

I don't see how you could possibly have even a marginally intelligent bot that wouldn't be conscious and vice versa.

A program which can open a new kind of door knob for instance I would consider conscious.

How can you learn if you don't reflect on past mistakes? Identify them as mistakes and develop improved methods? #3 is the tricky one. All of "human intelligence" is just the ability to predict outcomes accurately based on #1 and 2.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Again. If we want comparably intelligent computers they're going to have to be able to think abstractly/imagine/dream. A computer which can't imagine a possible future isn't very intelligent. IF we want to co-exist with them they'll have to be compassionate. There's nothing magical about the brain. It's a chemical computer. Just like there is nothing magical about the heart. It's a biological pump. Or anything magical about the stomach. Anything that exists in this universe can be recreated and or simulated. It's all physics. Unless of course someone is suggesting that part of you is thinking in a universe outside of physics?

That would be an incredibly dubious claim to make since choice/personality/behavior is so easily manipulated through physical means. I have a good friend of the family who has electrodes all throughout his brain and a computer to control them. The computer can change his personality and mood in a matter of seconds depending on the programming. Tumors and drugs are well understood to change people's interests, personalities and thinking.

With sufficiently advanced technology we could skip the programming step and just create a virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain. It would be as brainy as any other brain... just in a virtual world instead of ours. They've already started this with worms and mice. By next year we may have a mouse's visual cortex running in emulation.

Also most complaints about computers can also be made about humans. I know someone who claims (and I believe him) that he doesn't feel any emotions except for degrees of "good" and "bad". That's the extent of his emotional range.

I've met tons of people who are completely incapable of thinking in the abstract.

If you take a careful look at child development you would easily see that millions of 'humans' lack all of the abilities we hold up as being uniquely human. Either we would need to define children as "not yet human" or we would need to recognize computers with comparable levels of sophistication as say a 6 year old as also worthy of human rights.

End computer bigotry!

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It's all physics.

No, it's not.

And, BTW, what does *physics* mean?

I have a good friend of the family who has electrodes all throughout his brain and a computer to control them. The computer can change his personality and mood in a matter of seconds depending on the programming.

Come again?

:crying:

 

[Alan Skinner]

No, it's not.

And, BTW, what does *physics* mean?



Come again?

:crying:

Read Michael Crichtons' "Terminal Man": Guy has a real bad problem with rage. They place electrodes in his brain and a small computer to control it. Unfortunately, the computer has to keep upping the power after each episode resulting in worse rage attacks than ever. Even bigger problem: the guy is an explosives expert.................. :head_explode:

I think Mr. Crichton would be comfortable next to that river with Tom and a big four finger bag....... :sifone:

 

[Coco B]

If you take a careful look at child development you would easily see that millions of 'humans' lack all of the abilities we hold up as being uniquely human.

Humans are alive.

"A virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain" is not.

Just a little tiny difference.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Humans are alive.

..

Just a little tiny difference.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Humans are alive.

"A virtual 1:1 molecular simulation of an existing human brain" is not.

Yes, but would that simulated brain know any different?

 

[Tom Lowe]

The real fireworks will begin once a computer can begin to redesign and improve itself, making itself ever more intelligent. This creates a positive feedback cycle that will take place at lightning speed. Beyond that point you reach an "event horizon" -- about which no human can speculate. It would be like a hamster trying to speculate about radio telescopes. To say that any of us know whether these intelligences will have a "soul" or whatever is impossible for us to say now. This would be like 14-Century dog claiming that powered flight is impossible. How on earth would HE know?

 

[Vince K]

The real fireworks will begin once a computer can begin to redesign and improve itself, making itself ever more intelligent. This creates a positive feedback cycle that will take place at lightning speed. Beyond that point you reach an "event horizon" -- about which no human can speculate. It would be like a hamster trying to speculate about radio telescopes. To say that any of us know whether these intelligences will have a "soul" or whatever is impossible for us to say now. This would be like 14-Century dog claiming that powered flight is impossible. How on earth would HE know?

It seems we're not that far off.....

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/30/shape-shifting-robot-can-reassemble-after-crashing-apart/

http://www.break.com/index/chair-can-fix-itself.html

very interesting indeed....

 

[Tom Lowe]

IBM is prepping a super-computer to appear on the TV show Jeopardy.

http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/

:thumbsup:

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I dread the day when RED cameras [also famous for their modularity] become self-aware and start shooting everything in sight...

 

[Coco B]

Yes, but would that simulated brain know any different?

Yes, but would it's ignorance make it alive?

Brain input from the body is needed from both chemical and nervous pathways for the production of self-consciousness.