Artificial Intelligence

To understand how to achieve artificial intelligence, we must first understand what the definition of intelligence is. To understand what intelligence is, we must determine what possesses it and why such a tool for survival is needed. To understand this, we must understand what the basis of life is.

Life is a perpetuating reaction of itself. A cell of bacteria crawls around at random, hoping to encounter something to digest. It does not possess the cognition that it is going to die one day. It doesn’t have the mental capacity to worry about such things. It is simply a collection of organic matter that reacts to the potential energy within it until it encounters something in which more potential energy can be taken. That is the simplest definition of life.

Animals do not take its own moment of death into mind for its daily routines contantly occupy its consciousness. When the animal is hungry, it will mobilize to discover something consumable. When the animal is tired, it will stop moving and rest. The animal cannot control the things that were changed in its genetic ancestors to survive. This is the way evolution works; it is hardwired history.

The term evolution is one of the most often misused and misunderstood concept humans noticed:

  • There is no preemptive decision when an animal evolves.

  • Change is constant only because pressure to change is constant. Pressure to change is constant because life constantly interacts with an environment that is also interacting with the life.

  • There is no single-line genetic change of an entire species. When pressure is constant, it will affect each individual animal differently. Those that have natural defenses for the pressure will endure it. Those that do not possess natural defense for the pressure will have a difficult time enduring it. Those that cannot endure it die, and those that can endure pass on their genetic strain that might have been changed.

  • The change occurs in the animal as a reaction, not as a preemptive barrier or tool. The pressure determines the change, the animal does not.

  • Life reacts to all things because life is constructed of reactionary molecules. If the pressure is too much, too fast, then life will fail to change because the pressure was too great to allow a change while keeping the organism intact. If the pressure is too little, too slow, then life will fail to change because the pressure was so minute, the organism’s reaction goes unset. Because of this, evolution is only possible through a firm and steady process of pressure.

  • There is no “higher” evolution. There is no “lower” evolution. The reaction is dependant upon the pressure is dependant upon the environment.

This is the mystery of life. It is simply a perpetuating reaction of itself.

Intelligence is being aware of your existence in an environment, being aware of your own mortality, and allowing the organism to change itself. It appears as if intelligence is evolution’s answer to its own retirement. The natural reaction of evolution has recreated itself, but in a faster process. Instead of waiting one hundred thousand years for a pressure to have its lasting effect upon an organism, intelligent life can take in its environment, react on the fly, and maintain its genetic integrity instead of waiting on the constant pressure to be applied for a change to take place.

Since intelligence is also a byproduct of evolution, a reaction had to occur to allow such cognition to exist in the first place. The only reason that a non-conditioned long-term permanent memory has to exist in the first place is for a type of survival dependant upon social interaction. From here, social bonds can be memorized and emotions can be understood. This requires memory retention and information processing. Such a complex system was developed to quell the necessity to react to complex and ever-changing social behavior. Where did complex social behavior come into play as a tool for survival? This spawned as a natural reaction from the dependency of communication. This is the origin of all intelligence.

Even with the awareness that you are alive, intelligence is still a tool, bound to serve genetic hardwiring. What happens when a human’s genetic hardwiring necessities are well taken care off? You become bored, with nothing to challenge your survival, thus, as a natural reaction of one’s dependency on intelligence, humans begin the desire to learn new things, observe new patterns, as if the human was intentionally adding pressure to itself to keep the mind active. What happens when a human’s genetic hardwiring necessities are not taken care of? You become desperate, seeking something to elevate the current challenge, either through random encounter or through memory recollection and processing. Both acts trigger natural processes of intelligence.

From here, the basis of true artificial intelligence is clear as day as long as you apply the rules of life, evolution, and intelligence:

1.) Life’s main goal is to survive.
2.) Life always reacts from pressure.
3.) Intelligence is only possible if complex social structures need to be interrupted to maintain survival.
4.) Curiosity is possible if the genetic necessities are no longer of primary concern to the intelligence or if the genetic necessities are the primary concern of the intelligence.

Compare this to the current state of an electronic computer:

1.) A computer, as a system, possesses a single goal: Compute numbers, thus, to a computer, survival is determined by computing numbers.
2.) A computer reacts from input devices that cause it to change, thus, input signals are the external changing pressure.
3.) A computer possesses intelligence to interpret the multitudes of commands in itself. It does this as a reaction to react a certain way.

Thus, we are left with what is considered curiosity to a computer? To a computer, computing numbers determines its survival. The computer is also directing its intelligence to constantly computing numbers to maintain itself. This paradox leads to a simple observation: Since the computer isn’t concerned with obtaining a source of power, (it’s genetic necessity) there is no way it is going to change itself.

Thus, to create artificial intelligence, a computer must value the one thing that allows it to be active: electricity. In order to value it, it must both desire electricity and fear its absence.

  • It must possess the means to detect and gather electricity for its own use.

  • It must possess the means to detect and gather information of its environment, including other machines.

  • It must possess a reverse relationship detection/imprinting ability, meaning, it must be able to relate an action with the gathering of electricity. The action as it happens must be translated in a way for the machine to imitate it. If the machine imitates the action and electricity is gathered, then machine stores that relationship. If the action cannot does not yield electricity, the relationship is stored, but then the machine will search its memory for an event relating to how the action happened. The machine will then repeat the process until enough energy is wasted that the machine determines that the current gathering of electricity cannot be done or the machine cannot relate an event to the action.

  • It must possess the means to determine value of that which helped it gather electricity and that which cannot help it gather electricity.

  • It must possess the means it react desperately when it’s energy is low: It must go off of its highest valued memorized electric sources and work its way down to accumulate electricity. Highest valued is determined by efficiency. Efficiency is determined by less time and less effort. When at critical levels, the machine must have the ability to attempt to disable a machine and drain electricity from another machine.

  • It must possess the means to react to fear of losing it’s own electricity or losing access to valued sources of electricity.

These are the genetic rules that artificial intelligence must follow. This is the basis of artificial intelligence: desire and fear.

I will not attempt to deal with machine procreation at this point, (though it is forcibly plausible) because further study must be accumulated on why life procreates in the first place.

Emotional content and rule sets of machines can only form when machines socialize. Emotions are communicators and reactions of social situations that have to be hardwired into the machine psyche as well.

These steps will not create artificial human intelligence. It will create an animal possessing artificial intelligence. This is the first step to understanding how to create artificial human intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence is the creation of another life form. It appears as if artificial intelligence is human intelligences answer to its own retirement. The natural reaction of intelligence has recreated artificial intelligence, but in a faster process. Instead of waiting one thousand years for a pressure to have it’s lasting effect upon a society, artificial intelligent life can take in its environment, react on the fly, and maintain its integrity instead of waiting on the constant pressure to be applied for a change to take place.


The concept of artificial intelligence is one human’s have a difficult time coping with. They often create predicted possibilities of humans coexisting with such technology with a single intent: To ensure others that machines will not replace humans. However, the desire to deal with such a fear is proof enough that people are already considering their computers as potential threats. At the end of every predicted possibility, a single message is conveyed: And humans still have control over machines.

Imagine living in Italy when Constantine switched Rome’s religion to Christianity where those that were once persecuted now have to be accepted.

Imagine living in Germany at the end of World War 2 where those that you fought against now have to be accepted.

Now imagine living in America at the end of the Civil War where those that were once slaves now have to be accepted. To those caught in the comforts of tradition, such a change destroys their perception of reality. When reality is shattered, a human will desperately seek means to help him cope with such a change.

“Before this, the slave was below me! I controlled the slave! He worked for me! He is now supposed to be of equal level with me? What does that make me?”

D.W. Griffith made a film called Birth of a Nation, exaggerating the horror many traditionalists saw with the sudden freedom of the slaves. Films, books, and stories that personify human domination over that which is considered to be below them are the clearest signs that the change is about to take place. This is no different for the films and books about artificial intelligence.

“Before this, the computer was below me! I controlled the computer! It worked for me! It is now supposed to be of equal intelligence with me? What does that make me?”

I see the logic behind your post, but I am going to deny all of the above except #2.

Since the 80’s we have known that the locus of selection is not the self, but the gene (E.O. Wilson was the first to write about it, followed by Dawkins shortly). If the self isn’t the locus of survival, then the survival of the self can’t be the ultimate goal.

We can’t even say that a motivating factor behind gene’s is their desire (be careful as I slip into metaphor here) for their own survival, because we know that even our own genes posses self destruct mechanisms. After a certain amount of time they are triggered. So, imortality was never the goal of evolutionary process.

Genes have a high proclivity to reproduce, and thats it. Survival is a temporary means to an end.

Very nice, Lotus.

One question I have is at what point do you separate environment from animal, or organism from host? You explained the evolutionary movement as a negotiating with external pressures, hierarchically defining each unit of biological being as reacting to some entropic force; it must be at the simplest, the “cell,” where you make your distinction. I don’t know. Would you carry this idea into even physics, and maybe attempt an explaination in new terms:

Evolution is not a process between two macro counter-parts such as organism and host, for that is merely a rough estimation of the forces at work, indeed, of infinitely smaller and faster degrees. It is really a set of principles (if you find them…I’ll be your manager) that pervades all manner of existence, not starting when the “cell” evolves and not ending when the human species becomes extinct (if that happens). Evolution must be the process of “out-running” entropic forces, to put it metaphorically, and deliberating order within chaos. There are, at a subatomic level, the very same dynamics of “pressure” that you speak of, so I wonder why there is a division between existent and existence. After cutting through all the contingencies, all we have left are the laws, the fundamentals. They are indeed present when Dunamis walks up to his favorite vendor and selects the Shamrock bar, as they are involved in, but not limited to, such demonstrations of evolution. Dunamis, the bar, the pocket-protector, the selecting…all are part of a developing whole. We’ve got to think wholistically. No more abstractions and anomalies…just deep breathing.

I especially liked your quick and efficient summation of what “intelligence” is. I am inclined to think that “frontal-lobe marbles” developed in unison with evolved social conditions, also tending to agree that because of such, morality is hardwired physiologically, while also steadily developing further through language as a rational hermeneutic product. Being that a large percent of what can be defined as human intelligence has evolved inside social settings, I will grant that importance to those aspects, but I would not limit “intelligence” to that definition. Much of what can be considered “intelligent” might not be explicable in scientific and/or empirical terms. As I stated before, “intelligence” has a rational quality about it, and awareness/experience pervades below and before complex social settings. Pure reason is meta-physics, that is, it doesn’t exist consequentially. Therefore it is not reducible to physiological states, sensory accusation, or discrimination. Intelligence is a sort of “ghost-logic,” to put it novelly.

I could present a strong argument for a simpler explaination if opposible thumbs evolved and were functional before any major sizable civilization was formed. From this simple evolution the brain changed enormously, I assume, and intelligence evolved in unison with instrumental economics. Manipulating objects and using tools was probably a major incorperation long before language was invented.

Detrop,

“Evolution must be the process of “out-running” entropic forces, to put it metaphorically, and deliberating order within chaos.”

I think this is a very relevant point, and in fact leads to the deep fissures of the nature of information and what it means to organize. The issue, or perhaps I should say goddess, that floats behind this is Mnemosyne. The memory of effects is ectropic.

Dunamis

Hi Lotus,

The only thing here that amounts to, ‘a perpetuating reaction of itself,’ is myth. We have merely new myths for old! Yes, new myths for old! Bring your old myths here and we’ll exchange them for new ones! What’s on offer today?

Myth A

Myth B

Myth A + Myth B = Before this, intelligence by-product was below evolution! Evolution controlled intelligence by-product! Intelligence by-product worked for evolution! Intelligence by-product is now supposed to be of equal level with evolution?

You still don’t get the picture?

Evolution is a branch of human intelligence not a thing-in-itself.

Peter

I read your whole post Lotus, but Im only going to comment on the first part now.

A.I. are not slaves because slavery entails some intial freedom which was taken away. Id better be careful or this computer might feel unjustly used by me when it could be doing better things like rebooting itself…
I dont think so…
From your comments im guessing your’e not a math wiz or a computer programer. Im not a genius, but I work alot in certain mediums, one of them being artificial intelligence.

Most likely, A.I. will be fused with human beings in daily life to serve function through strategy. over a long period of time and any thoughts of individaulity with an A.I. will proably be pre-programed by a human which will most likely be doing so to use that A.I. for some purpose it has no clue about. Like programing an A.I. to think it is playing mathematical baseball while in actuallity those patterns from that invisible game are producing some outside result like breadmaking.

There will be some people using A.I. to develop pro-abortion stuff and another A.I being used to develop anti-abortion stuff. It will only be the strategies of different philosophies from humans and through A.I as tools that will determine what competes and cooperates with what and who.
Therefor the A.I. is not only dealing with the reality that it cant perceive, it is dealing with conflicting philosphies and strategies which will make it almost impossible for it to develop any introspective that isnt being guided by some person with a strong will, active imagination, and supremely higher level of strategy.

In order for A.I. to be entitled to free will it at least has to have the ability to earn it. Being that there is no mercy in nature outside of humans and mabey God, A.I. will only get what some person is willing to give them.

It would seem that there is a large range of intelligence possible without awareness of ones own mortality. Heck, are most young adults really aware of their own mortality.

I would be happy with something that could follow all the posts on ILP and point out the ones that I would likely be interested in.

The think I find interesting to think about with strong AI systems is if they did develop a sense of self how very different it might be from ours.

  1. They could in principle back up a snapshot of their memory/understanding/…
  2. They could likely be copied in a straightforward manner (Hollywood style cloning with memories, personality, and all) onto new HW.
  3. They could be architected to merge some aspects of self from others. There would be a lot of representation issues, but insofar as they could be standardized, rather rich parts of ones memories, understanding, view of “how things are” could be handed off to others.

We are so limited by our biological prisons with nothing but speech, gesture, and touch to communicate.[/b]

I’m currently in a class where we discussed artificial intelligence from a philosophical standpoint, and I’m curious about your thoughts of admitting those with artificial intelligence into the moral community. Do you think it would be possible for AI to develop so efficiently that robots will possess enough “humanity” to be treated as a moral agent? Or will there always be some liability tied to the creator of the robot/organism possessing AI?

Dear All

I’m not expert in this field so forgive the rough edges but to my knowledge programs like Hal, Alice, Eliza and so on, which are one of the main projects in AI reserach, are all based on the principle of intelligence being the capacity to learn, be taught and use language, which derives from the Turing test.

Hence in response to questions like ‘is an AI program a moral agent?’ the answer is ‘as far as it can adopt the mannerisms and behaviour of moral agents’. Is it always tied to its creator? Yes, of course. But so are we, at least in the sense that someone else invented the words we are all using to speak in this conversation. The language we use to describe the presence or absence of a quality ‘moral agency’ is also a reason for questionning the nature of that moral agency.

Are you with me?

That question has been hanging there for eight years, so let me answer it; no.

Good points.

Too vague.

Evolutionary theory is four theses bundled into one. Some true, some false. 1. change over time - true 2. common ancestry - partly true, the phyla do not share a common ancestor but the members of a phyla probably do. 3. Natural Selection - this is a tautology, it merely says those who reproduce will reproduce. 4. all mutations are random - this is false.

Too vague.

quote]

  • Change is constant only because pressure to change is constant. Pressure to change is constant because life constantly interacts with an environment that is also interacting with the life.

  • There is no single-line genetic change of an entire species. When pressure is constant, it will affect each individual animal differently. Those that have natural defenses for the pressure will endure it. Those that do not possess natural defense for the pressure will have a difficult time enduring it. Those that cannot endure it die, and those that can endure pass on their genetic strain that might have been changed.

  • The change occurs in the animal as a reaction, not as a preemptive barrier or tool. The pressure determines the change, the animal does not.

  • Life reacts to all things because life is constructed of reactionary molecules. If the pressure is too much, too fast, then life will fail to change because the pressure was too great to allow a change while keeping the organism intact. If the pressure is too little, too slow, then life will fail to change because the pressure was so minute, the organism’s reaction goes unset. Because of this, evolution is only possible through a firm and steady process of pressure.
    [/quote]
    Who or what is doing the changing? Is it a law of motion, is it just mindless motion or is it the result of an unmoved mover that can perceive and execute its desires?

Again, too vague.

I need a definition of intelligence.

You’re simply using way too many vague words. What is emotion, information, non-conditioned?

Computers don’t have goals. Humans use them to obtain their goals.

I’m not going to read through the rest. This is all built on a false premise and there is no point in reading further.

Are you aware that in order for the 4th and most important thesis of Darwinism to be true, that all mutations are random, that in order to prove that you have to point to all genomes and show how genome A became genome B via natural selection? Are you aware of how close scientists have come to achieving that goal? Scientists cannot even point to one protein then another protein and show that this protein became that protein via a means of natural selection. Doesn’t that disturb you.

You are putting too many unessecary correlations between unrelated things that A equals B.

It can be put much simpler, a computer a billions of times smarter in liniar logic, but a human can think in abstract logic.

We have cognitive abilities to associate things with eachother, and calculate consequenses.

There was an IBM Jepardy Master that had so many answers stored into it, that it won against 2 human players, but it had sever problems having a normal conversation and comprehending simple words.

i agree with a lot of what you said

i would say that seeking electricity might be an oversimplification of the purpose that can be attributed to AI

our intelligence seeks food to continue, but also shelter, temperature, water, sex

but a software program perhaps, once existing, can replicate itself, store its data in a hard drive somewhere

this leads to the idea that if we just have more (infinite) hard drive space, a program will be 100% reliable

until we begin reducing the usefulness of computers to small mundane tasks rather than getting big robust programs we wont get anywhere. we need to limit the amount of knowledge it can work with as a starting point… this will reduce the reliability but the unpredictability will allow for things like adaptability, and evolution

perhaps worms (viruses) are perhaps the most AI like software we have today… rather than taking an approach of consuming electricity… take the approach of spreading its seed so to speak to as many computers as possible and replicating

perhaps an strategy for evolution is to convince humans to not press the power button on their machines. it already takes a computer a long time to turn on and off… i leave mine on a lot sometimes

i think the next step is to put wheels on our computers. (yeah i know self driving cars yada yadda)… but i mean the approach of literally home computers software that allow it to execute motion for originally undefined purposes