Intelligent Design Theory and Gaming AI
I dont advocate "Intelligent Design", it doesnt make any sense with respect to life itself, but i would like to know how we could come up with realistic Game AI without it.
My bet on life itself is because we had billions of years to evolve, but do we have that much time to give birth to A-Life which would self-evolve to behave intelligently?
the Intelligent Design thologists probably dont think life has had that kinda time, my belief is that, our body evolves every generation throwing out things it doesnt need and copying on the adaptation information of the current to the next generation so that the next generation can survive better. this would be the fastest way possible to get to what we are today.
for example, A guy brought here directly from the 17th century would suffocate to death from all the pollution. but his descendants wouldnt. though we are pulluting way faster than we are evolving to handle this :D
Give me your thoughts on evolving A-Life this way, how about an open source project which creates 2 entities a living entity and an environment entity
I think the 17th century guy would die from some common disease.
You might also wonder if we were capable of creating intelligence to the degree that it acted human, would it really be conscious, or just fooling us into thinking it was.
Are we capable of making conscious or is that only what god can do?
Maybe if scientist could understand how our brains worked, you could start it like a baby, after all babies learn to speak from just interaction.
You might also wonder if we were capable of creating intelligence to the degree that it acted human, would it really be conscious, or just fooling us into thinking it was.
Are we capable of making conscious or is that only what god can do?
Quote:
Give me your thoughts on evolving A-Life this way, how about an open source project which creates 2 entities a living entity and an environment entity
Maybe if scientist could understand how our brains worked, you could start it like a baby, after all babies learn to speak from just interaction.
Quote:Original post by johnnyBravo
I think the 17th century guy would die from some common disease.
You might also wonder if we were capable of creating intelligence to the degree that it acted human, would it really be conscious, or just fooling us into thinking it was.
Are we capable of making conscious or is that only what god can do?Quote:
Give me your thoughts on evolving A-Life this way, how about an open source project which creates 2 entities a living entity and an environment entity
Maybe if scientist could understand how our brains worked, you could start it like a baby, after all babies learn to speak from just interaction.
Currently we really do not understand consciousness. We have no sufficient technical defition and as such are unable to develop emperical tests whereby consciousness can be determined in a subject.
Look at this collection of 2498 papers on consciousness, notably this subset on AI. Some of the authors of those papers have interesting views.
I would try and sum up what is said in those papers, but honestly there's so much information I can't. There's a wide variety of views there, from the impossibility of consciousness in AI to the claim that machines are already more conscious than humans.
Quote:You might also wonder if we were capable of creating intelligence to the degree that it acted human, would it really be conscious, or just fooling us into thinking it was.You might also wonder if the people you interact with are really conscious, or just fooling you into thinking they are.
Quote:Original post by EddHead
....my belief is that, our body evolves every generation throwing out things it doesnt need and copying on the adaptation information of the current to the next generation so that the next generation can survive better. this would be the fastest way possible to get to what we are today.
for example, A guy brought here directly from the 17th century would suffocate to death from all the pollution. but his descendants wouldnt. though we are pulluting way faster than we are evolving to handle this :D
I know this is a bit off-topic, but I want to quickly note that biological evolution is not "survival of the fittest," but rather "reproduction of the fittest." I think it's pretty well accepted within the scientific community that the slight genetic coding that gets modified from one generation to the next are random ones and not the result of, say, our paws consciously deciding that they'd like to grow thumbs to help climb trees to make tools. These things are random.
And in humans, biological evolution is 100% dead. Nowadays, there is an INVERSE correlation between success in society and reproduction. (Note that the wealthiest nations: U.S.A., Canada, Australia, Japan, the Scandinavian nations) all have the lowest birth rates, below replacement-level reproduction for most of them, while the poorest countries continue to grow.
As a side note, I personally suspect that the answers to the really deep, deep nature of A.I. and consciousness will come from quantum physics. Because straight Newtonian logic simply cannot explain so many of the tendencies in life, particularly the tendency to cluster (as shown in the movie, "I, Robot.")
I'm not a programmer or a scientist, so take that into account.
P.S. Can somebody show me how to add hyperlink to text on this board? Thanks.
Quote:Original post by DBrennan3333
P.S. Can somebody show me how to add hyperlink to text on this board? Thanks.
Just use standard HTML. It should look like this (without the spaces of course):
< a href="website_address" >hyperlink_text< /a>
Quote:Original post by DBrennan3333
And in humans, biological evolution is 100% dead. Nowadays, there is an INVERSE correlation between success in society and reproduction. (Note that the wealthiest nations: U.S.A., Canada, Australia, Japan, the Scandinavian nations) all have the lowest birth rates, below replacement-level reproduction for most of them, while the poorest countries continue to grow.
Note that survivial rate is not the same as birth rate. And evolution in general cannot really be viewed as some sort of one-way improvement, or some sort of hill climbing search, because in reality there is no certain goal. There is no constant meaning of success.
Quote:Original post by DBrennan3333
As a side note, I personally suspect that the answers to the really deep, deep nature of A.I. and consciousness will come from quantum physics. Because straight Newtonian logic simply cannot explain so many of the tendencies in life, particularly the tendency to cluster (as shown in the movie, "I, Robot.")
The tendency to cluster? The force of gravity, even as explained by newtonian mechanics, is enough to hold together planets and solar systems and galaxies. If you mean clustering as some sort of social behavior, we can model and simulate such behavior without reference to quantum mechanics. As for logic, that is something that appears to exist independently of the realm of physics. Any belief that consciousness is related to quantum mechanics is currently just some sort of rationalized mysticism.
Quote:
Quote:You might also wonder if we were capable of creating intelligence to the degree that it acted human, would it really be conscious, or just fooling us into thinking it was.
You might also wonder if the people you interact with are really conscious, or just fooling you into thinking they are.
Haha yeah i've thought about that... getting very philosophical
Also say you had a robot that looked and acted like a human, then for some reason you tortured it, and it screamed in pain, would it really matter to torture it, even though it doesn't have a consicous?
Quote:Original post by DBrennan3333And in humans, biological evolution is 100% dead. Nowadays, there is an INVERSE correlation between success in society and reproduction. (Note that the wealthiest nations: U.S.A., Canada, Australia, Japan, the Scandinavian nations) all have the lowest birth rates, below replacement-level reproduction for most of them, while the poorest countries continue to grow.
People in poorer countries are going to be fitter than people in western countries as we face way less risks to our lives than poorer people do.
So smarter and heatlhier in poor countries would better survive, also just because wealthier nations are better off, it doesn't make us smarter, we just have more options.
If I lived in a very poor country, i'd probably be selling land mines.
..
I saw this thing on tv about a couple who didn't want to have children, and they both worked. Then there was another couple who had like 14 children and were living off welfare calling couples who were not having children selfish for doing so, even though everybody else is paying for them. Looks like our societies might just start filling up with lazy people :)..
I'd rather a much more mixed society than it is now, than just all white people, maybe partly because i'm mixed :)
Just food for thought. But the medical industry doesn't want you healthy. They just get rid of your symptoms, rarely cure the problem. If you're healthy they're not making money and their goal as a corporation (and by law) they have to make money. So, since cures for most cancers are out there already if you're willing to look (but cannot be patented so will never be in a drug store near you as they're natural, go figure) expect to be kept sickly. I've not got a flu shot in 12 years and I've not had the flu in 15. Common cold, one in the last 8 years. I eat food I grow and work out. Quit eatting shit from a can/bag. Whole foods babye.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement