Machines

[sinner/SAVED]

As to the original post, I say probably not. This would require a trait that is much greater than intelligence: imagination. I don't believe we can program in imagination. I work on machines every day. Very sophisticated machines using very high tech controls. Even the most sophisticated machines are still just plastic, glass, and metal engineered by someone with great logic and intelligence, but also with imagination and vision. Traits that can not be programmed in. These are traits that I believe can not even be taught. They can be nurtured, but only if present naturally. Not possible with machines.

 

[kedaman]

On what grounds do you say that? I am a young earth creationist, so I possibly don't disagree with your fundamental position.

A complex system can arise when one thing depends on another; it can be the case (obviously) that something can begin as opportunist, and end as dependence. I talk to my friends because I like them; yet I can come to depend on them, and they on me. If I do, and we together come to depend on something else, and so on, you get a complex system. That isn't design, it is emergence. It is a standard natural process visible in everything from evolution to the stock exchange.
Magi

On my understanding of complex and control systems, should I mention Wiener, and Kant also in particular of the definition I gave above.

Take the example with the genetic algorithm. The algorithm doesn't mutate, but pseudo codes alternate. The whole system is a control system, and the fitness criteria defines telos. Nevertheless the algorithm produces an illusion of evolution. In the same way is it with the illusion of natural evolution, is there an algorithmic basis for our understanding on where telos is already given.

Why can a complex system not arise from nothing?
The architecture of a complex system is understood a priori and cannot be derived from sense alone, but are derived from reason. If such systems exists independent of our minds, then they derive their integrity in a similar manner from a governing authority, if you know what i mean

 

[kedaman]

Which, I suppose is the point. I have been trying (failing?) to say that evolution is only evolution when there is input, that algorithims become more than algorithms when they have somehting added. There is an algorithm which deals with the addition of input - that is what I was talking of.

Magi

Yes, that is about correct.

 

[HouseApe]

As to the original post, I say probably not. This would require a trait that is much greater than intelligence: imagination. I don't believe we can program in imagination. I work on machines every day. Very sophisticated machines using very high tech controls. Even the most sophisticated machines are still just plastic, glass, and metal engineered by someone with great logic and intelligence, but also with imagination and vision. Traits that can not be programmed in. These are traits that I believe can not even be taught. They can be nurtured, but only if present naturally. Not possible with machines.

I disagree. What is imagination? It is the ability to recognize and/or apply patterns to complex situations. AI systems do this with voice/image recognition and other systems. Now consider a machine designed to maintain every known pattern and attempt to apply them efficiently to every situation it encounters. I think the machine could in many ways be dramatically more intelligent than humans. The only limitation may be in its ability to describe new patterns, especially ones that would not be easily recognizable by its programmers.

 

[HouseApe]

Yes, but evolution works through natural selection. Things can physically alter without evolving - if I glue a mechanical arm to my back that is a physical change but it is not evolution.


Further, how would the computer be able to predict what would work better? In other words, how would it know what would help the machines survive better?

Yup. The machine should not build the robots, but have each robot have a mechanism for making copies of itself. The machines role is to introduce "mutations" by occasionally creating what it considers a better component (or maybe an equally good one). The machine could then give each robot opportunities to replicate itself based upon its overall productivity.

Again, I think it would be crucial for the machine to maintain some degree of diversity in order to compensate for the unknowable disasters.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

I disagree. What is imagination? It is the ability to recognize and/or apply patterns to complex situations. AI systems do this with voice/image recognition and other systems. Now consider a machine designed to maintain every known pattern and attempt to apply them efficiently to every situation it encounters. I think the machine could in many ways be dramatically more intelligent than humans. The only limitation may be in its ability to describe new patterns, especially ones that would not be easily recognizable by its programmers.

The limitation is that the machine can not "imagine" any new patterns or any patterns that are not inherent to it's programming. The machine you describe has ultimate intelligence but zero imagination. It only has knowledge of patterns that existed prior to it's programming. It cannot progress to new patterns. It will begin to become obsolete the moment a new pattern is "imagined" by a creature with the ability to imagine. What you have defined is logic, not imagination. The two are totally different. Here is a definition of imagination:

the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and is not present to the senses.

The logical machine is limited by its programming. It cannot form a mental image of something it does not percieve as real and which is not present to it's senses (programming).

 

[TheMagi]

Why can a complex system not arise from nothing?
The architecture of a complex system is understood a priori and cannot be derived from sense alone, but are derived from reason. If such systems exists independent of our minds, then they derive their integrity in a similar manner from a governing authority, if you know what i mean

which I would definitely understand as a complex system, along with an ecology, a system of plate tectonics, etc. etc.

 

[HouseApe]

The limitation is that the machine can not "imagine" any new patterns or any patterns that are not inherent to it's programming. The machine you describe has ultimate intelligence but zero imagination. It only has knowledge of patterns that existed prior to it's programming. It cannot progress to new patterns. It will begin to become obsolete the moment a new pattern is "imagined" by a creature with the ability to imagine. What you have defined is logic, not imagination. The two are totally different. Here is a definition of imagination:



The logical machine is limited by its programming. It cannot form a mental image of something it does not percieve as real and which is not present to it's senses (programming).

Yes, and that is what I said. However, you have to question whether or not humans are capable of recognizing new patterns. I think that ability, even by humans, is extremely rare. However, we are good at applying patterns that we are aware of to situations where they are not readily apparent. So while I agree, and did say in my prior post, that a human created machine is likely bound by the fact that it cannot recognize new patterns on its own, it should be able to apply patterns that it is aware of much more efficiently than humans can. Which I do believe fits into the definition of imagination given above.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

If we were to take an island and put on it a totally self sustaining factory that could produce machines, do you think the machines would eventually, given enough time, the machines would grow or evolve?

The factory would be able to mine raw ore, process it into machine parts, and construct new machines with no human intervention or mantinence. The machines would be programmed for self presevation. The factory would make robots for mantinence, mining, assembly work etc etc.

Now the question is, would a robot..."colony" like that, ever evolve or grow? Would the machine realize it could make better versions of the robots it already made to increase the chances of survival of itself?

I think somoene has watched too much I, Robot and Animatrix.

 

[Blackmarch]

If we were to take an island and put on it a totally self sustaining factory that could produce machines, do you think the machines would eventually, given enough time, the machines would grow or evolve?

The factory would be able to mine raw ore, process it into machine parts, and construct new machines with no human intervention or mantinence. The machines would be programmed for self presevation. The factory would make robots for mantinence, mining, assembly work etc etc.

Now the question is, would a robot..."colony" like that, ever evolve or grow? Would the machine realize it could make better versions of the robots it already made to increase the chances of survival of itself?

Not without either getting beneficial glitches (mutations) or having some way to adapt.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

I think somoene has watched too much I, Robot and Animatrix.

Not every idea in the world comes from a damn TV show or movie

Not without either getting beneficial glitches (mutations) or having some way to adapt.

The machine would make those changes in order to increase its own chances of survival. Think of it as "Hands on" evolution. The machine would decide what would work best in a given scenario and keep improving on the models it has out

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Not every idea in the world comes from a damn TV show or movie[/size][/font]

Tis true... but this idea has been taken by entertainment already....

nevertheless, it is an interesting topic.

 

[Blackmarch]

Not without either getting beneficial glitches (mutations) or having some way to adapt.

The idea has been around for a long time.

 

[Ledifni]

If we were to take an island and put on it a totally self sustaining factory that could produce machines, do you think the machines would eventually, given enough time, the machines would grow or evolve?

The factory would be able to mine raw ore, process it into machine parts, and construct new machines with no human intervention or mantinence. The machines would be programmed for self presevation. The factory would make robots for mantinence, mining, assembly work etc etc.

Now the question is, would a robot..."colony" like that, ever evolve or grow? Would the machine realize it could make better versions of the robots it already made to increase the chances of survival of itself?

In order for evolution as we know it to happen, each of the machines should be able to make a machine almost exactly like itself, but with a few errors in copying the schematics. Given that situation, evolution is not only possible, it is inevitable.

 

[TheMagi]

In order for evolution as we know it to happen, each of the machines should be able to make a machine almost exactly like itself, but with a few errors in copying the schematics. Given that situation, evolution is not only possible, it is inevitable.

Only if
1) the starting point is viable
2) change causes sufficient benefit to ensure greater rates of survival

Obviously, 2) can only occur when survival is hard - possibly very hard. It is a very fine balance. T
In the fossil record, evolution isn't a constant process - it runs in fits and starts. It is very slow/nonexistent before major extinctions, and very fast after them.
In othwer words, there are a lot of conditions necessary for evolution, and one of them is the possiblity of creatures filling niches that are currently unfilled by other species. In a robot-building plant on a desert island this wouldn't happen, because all the niches are filled (otherwise the robots wouldn't be made) well enough to ensure a decent survival rate. Of course, if the robot plant was grotesquely inefficient and contained many multipurpose robots, it might be different. But the chances are such a plant wouldn't work at all.

Magi

 

[Ledifni]

Only if
1) the starting point is viable

Not true. If the starting point is less than perfectly viable then evolution may not progress fast enough to prevent total extinction, but it will happen in the situation I described until and unless the robots are all broken.

2) change causes sufficient benefit to ensure greater rates of survival

What are you talking about? If a change makes an organism (robot, in this case) work better, then it gives a survival advantage. Are you saying that it would have to make the robot work better? If so, then I have to point out that your statement would only make sense if we were talking about one single specific change. We're not. We're talking about a mechanism by which random changes can arise, some of them good and some of them bad.

In othwer words, there are a lot of conditions necessary for evolution, and one of them is the possiblity of creatures filling niches that are currently unfilled by other species.

Again, not true at all. A creature that fills a new ecological niche is only one of many potential results of evolution.

In a robot-building plant on a desert island this wouldn't happen, because all the niches are filled (otherwise the robots wouldn't be made) well enough to ensure a decent survival rate. Of course, if the robot plant was grotesquely inefficient and contained many multipurpose robots, it might be different. But the chances are such a plant wouldn't work at all.

Magi

A decent survival rate isn't the same as a perfect survival rate -- which is what you need to make evolution stop happening. You seem to think that evolution comes to a dead stop as soon as creatures aren't dying out in droves. The fact is, if any members of the population ever lose the ability to make more of themselves, you have the pressure needed to drive evolution. And you're not going to convince me that you can make an island full of robots that never break down.

 

[Blackmarch]

Not every idea in the world comes from a damn TV show or movie[/size][/font]

The machine would make those changes in order to increase its own chances of survival. Think of it as "Hands on" evolution. The machine would decide what would work best in a given scenario and keep improving on the models it has out[/size][/font]

However in the scenario given they were not made with that ability, so it would have to come about either by some error in their programming or construction/repair of their logic/computing circuits, or the scenario changed as to have them be programmed/constructed with that variable.

 

[Ledifni]

Yes, and that is what I said. However, you have to question whether or not humans are capable of recognizing new patterns. I think that ability, even by humans, is extremely rare. However, we are good at applying patterns that we are aware of to situations where they are not readily apparent. So while I agree, and did say in my prior post, that a human created machine is likely bound by the fact that it cannot recognize new patterns on its own, it should be able to apply patterns that it is aware of much more efficiently than humans can. Which I do believe fits into the definition of imagination given above.

Why should it be unable to recognize new patterns?

What is a pattern? It's a model -- some set of data that is wholly or partially comparable to sets of data that appear in other places. This prototype data set gives us information about similar data sets, and so we can use it to come up with novel ways to deal with data sets that are comparable but different. That's how we apply patterns.

For a machine to recognize patterns, all it needs to do is regularly sample data and compare it to all the data it has sampled in the past. It seems to me that this is exactly how we humans learn new patterns.