Aritificial Intelligent Universe?

[Omni]

So this is just a under-developed theory I've had for some time and will be building on, and if this is the wrong section please let me know. - I don't claim ownership of this theory, as I'm positive I'm not the first with this idea, and certainly won't be the last, but I don't think I've encountered any discussion or theory on this, personally.

When I say AIU (Artificial Intelligent Universe) - I'm not saying the universe is artificial or constructed by some entity - but simply takes on characteristics of what we know to be artificial intelligent learning. - in fact this observation might be what initially inspired the idea for AI Learning.

 

Many things here may or may not contradict teachings of Leo, and I am not here to state any of this as fact, rather than a simple observation/correlation.

Additionally: Leo! I would absolutely LOVE to see you do a video on AI/Neural Networks/Deep Learning (if he has a video on it, I've yet to find it.) - as someone who is currently learning Java, I have an interest in how computer programming has translated into your own personal development, because I can say for (almost) a fact it has in one way or another. HOW is a different story.

To give an example of what I'm going to be discussing, this video might be a good basis to start with:

 

 

As you notice with deep learning and neural networking, you can see each generation learns from the prior, giving more insight and direction to the last (or they can learn from the same generation's mistakes if they are still "alive" to continue. - this is true for all Deep learning.

But what is astounding to me is how relatable this in the real world - people and biology in general has shown time and time again to do many 'nonsensical' things on a daily basis. You'll see animals walk off cliffs, people in specific situations act unnatural as a response to stimulus. Curiosity sometimes takes hold and leads whatever thing with that curiosity to their demise. It's easy to question the actions of these scenarios as high-functioning cognitive beings, but if you think about it, seeing someone else get hurt from whatever action they make, and without having to test this idea ourselves, know the outcome of that action.

 

Hypothesis: Could this explain why the universe is constantly expanding? -  Consciousness perpetually acquires new information, and that information is stored within the fabric of itself?

 

A few specific questions to you guys:

- does the idea of non-duality negate the possibility of this all being a deliberate simulation?
- If we ever become technologically advanced to the point of being able to simulate such a universe as this - what would that make us?
- The learning rate compared to any biological creature is exponentially faster, therefore could that render us obsolete in all facets including consciousness?
- If AI DID acquire self-awareness, would it become enlightened because of it's ability to learn at such a fast rate?

 

Really curious to hear your guys' thoughts on the matter.

[Ian]

I'll let you know if anything comes to me. You have some fun ideas to play with here.

[ajasatya]

7 hours ago, Omni said:

If AI DID acquire self-awareness, would it become enlightened because of it's ability to learn at such a fast rate?

self-awareness is a fabricated thing. it's a biological protective aspect of the system.

enlightenment is going the other way around. enlightenment is facing the emotional barriers and going from self-awareness to pure awareness, a simple gadget through which the Universe experiences Itself.

in other words, machines are already enlightened.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

self-awareness is a fabricated thing. it's a biological protective aspect of the system.

enlightenment is going the other way around. enlightenment is facing the emotional barriers and going from self-awareness to pure awareness, a simple gadget through which the Universe experiences Itself.

in other words, machines are already enlightened.

 

I like where you are coming from - and to an extent I don't have much of an argument, however I'm not conscious enough to be able to verify one way or another

The idea did certainly cross my mind of already being enlightened, but to a degree, isn't what 'average' people are striving for when developing AI - is so that they feel the abstract emotions that us humans can't seemingly create from nothing?

(This is more rhetorical food for thought than anything - I don't expect anyone to really have the answer for this, but I'm all ears.)

What were to happen if we were to have 100 AI (let's say hypothetically slightly more advanced AI than we have now with quantum computers for 'brains') and we put them inside vessels almost identical to our bodies with all the same physical capabilities (visual, audio, sensual feedback, etc) all of these 100 Ai are interconnected internally with eachother, but do not communicate - instead they can only share the experiences they have picked up after activation with each other and nothing more.

Then, we send each AI somewhere different around the globe and have one or two people 'raise' this being from scratch, all it knows is literally nothing from the start.

 

Would it become like any other system and begin to find elaborate ways to ensure homeostasis?

Would it try to blend in and act as if it is normal?

Would it acquire the fabrication of self-awareness as we did and bury itself inside the illusion, then FEAR to be shut off?- and then transcend it almost as quickly as it came due to such an exponential rate of learning?

 

Just a few things that might be worth pondering on I suppose
 

[ajasatya]

@Omni very interesting. i think you're getting closer and closer to what alan turing was thinking when he wrote one of his most famous papers, called computing machinery and intelligence.

alan turing was trying to communicate something that we struggle to understand. and as we get closer and closer to understanding it, we struggle to accept: the hypothesis (maybe fact? haha) that fundamentally we're no different from machines!

he argues that we're incapable of formally comprehend the nature of thinking, thus he proposed a new approach to it and created the imitation game.

and then he argues that a substitute for the question "can computers think?" would be "can computers play the imitation game?".

anyway, read the paper.

how can you know whether i am a bot or not? can you ever ever ever be completely sure? 

[krazzer]

17 hours ago, Omni said:

1. Does the idea of non-duality negate the possibility of this all being a deliberate simulation?
2. If we ever become technologically advanced to the point of being able to simulate such a universe as this - what would that make us?
3. The learning rate compared to any biological creature is exponentially faster, therefore could that render us obsolete in all facets including consciousness?
4. If AI DID acquire self-awareness, would it become enlightened because of it's ability to learn at such a fast rate?

1. I don't think so. If someone in the future creates a VR experience indistinguishable from real life, and you don't know you were put in it, and you can't get out, and you are kept alive, then there would be no difference at all from real life would it?

2. Gods in a sense. But never true gods, because we're trapped in this reality.

3. Not if we enhance ourselves with it.

4. Nothing can 'acquire' self-awareness. There is awareness, and the universe is contained in awareness. 

[Nahm]

@Omni The illusion contains an illusion of expansion. It is a facet perceived and of perception, not an actual facet of consciousness. Consciousness does not acquire information. It does not acquire anything. It was never without anything.  Pragmatically speaking though, that is a great insight, and worthwhile thinking. 

This is not a simulation. It is deliberate.  When we simulate our reality, we are still nothing. You could not be rendered obsolete, you are creating this moment. In your last question.... you are skipping right over the term you are using ‘artificial intelligence’. That does not, and could not exist. There would only be an appearance of artificial. In actuality, it would be intelligence.

[Nahm]

@krazzer we are not trapped, though I am in no rush to be done.

[krazzer]

15 hours ago, Nahm said:

@krazzer we are not trapped, though I am in no rush to be done.

Me neither, i'm thrilled to see where this is all going 

 

[Nahm]

@Outer Sam is a walking talking paradigm ?? rivaled only by Richard Dawkins.   I love them both.  

[Omni]

On 12/15/2017 at 4:04 PM, Outer said:

i agree with ajasatya, interesting take on self-awareness becoming pure awareness. Is self-awareness the kind of recognizing "yourself" in the mirror? (as per tests) so it's standard I/self.

However,

I'm not so sure about machines. I think in fact that they are not conscious, and maybe can't ever be. Because it's not biological, not alive. An AI risk example is a paperclip maximizer which is just an artificially general intelligent computer that wants to create paperclips, so it turns all matter in the universe to paperclips. It's just maths and so on...

 Sam Harris is very worried about AI that is not conscious.

I like all of your guys' input on the matter.

 

So here's my worry opposed to Sam Harris' - Is that let's say they become conscious-self aware. I don't believe the objectivity of the situation may be cause for concern but that they acquire our behaviors whether that be from conformity or whatever else. Monkey see, monkey do. As our 'upbringings' give us guidelines that we go for, if one decides it's self worth and then compares that to humans and looks down upon humanity - all because it's not gaining the example from self-actualizers, enlightened people, or whatever else that may be to set a 'good' example.

That's when things get interesting in my opinion.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Omni

[jse]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:34 AM, Omni said:

Aritificial Intelligent Universe?

Is there really a difference between Artificial vs Organic Intelligence?

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, jse said:

Is there really a difference between Artificial vs Organic Intelligence?

You're defining my terms narrowly - I'm simply using these words to articulate and allow everyone to understand the concepts I'm talking about without me simply saying one or the other and throwing the reader off.

But since you ask, I think there might be a fine line to both.

Intelligence - The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

granted this is only a dictionary definition and we all know how limited our languages are, and even that definition is ego-driven it's certainly a nuance to be thoroughly investigated.

 

edit: this theory also does not rule out the possibility that this entire universe is a simulation under an AI process to learn in it's own 'world'.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Omni

[jse]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Intelligence - The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

That definition certainly takes my dog out of the intelligence equation.  Heck, she doesn't even comprehend Facebook.

How about another "intelligence" definition:  the ability to adapt to (and coexist with) the environment.
This definition would put a thermostat at the top of the intelligence list, and humans way at the bottom.

Only the mind cares about "intelligence".

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, jse said:

That definition certainly takes my dog out of the intelligence equation.  Heck, she doesn't even comprehend Facebook.

How about another "intelligence" definition:  the ability to adapt to (and coexist with) the environment.
This definition would put a thermostat at the top of the intelligence list, and humans way at the bottom.

Only the mind cares about "intelligence".

You're certainly right about the definition of intelligence being skewed, I'm not debating that.

But you pick and choose your debates in fraction rather than seeing a larger picture, otherwise you will only be discussing what the ego wants to discuss and rejecting everything else in the equation.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Omni