(I'm aware this is a duplicate of a closed thing, I have different questions)

'Artifice', so with a purpose. But didn't the eye evolve dependent on observation of external conditions, with selection pressure as to what that organism's directing mind was purposefully seeking (look for fruits and you get to distinguish the colour red for example).

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out, the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code "consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA" - Karl Popper

So purpose is defined somewhat self referentially with 'normal' life. Other than to direct the thing to some specific performance through direct observation/measurement, measurement that is already, whilst narrow, much more accurate than ours, we are currently developing neural networks with only limited 'purpose' as well - the size of the human programming seed is getting smaller and smaller relative to the size and complexity of the program. If higher level functions such as curiosity emerge from more neurons, and/or having a broader intelligence (every other property in existence is emergent, why not intelligence?), then we are only a few steps away from seeding something pretty smart.

The law of transitivity: if A>B and B>C, then A>C. In the classical definition, of 'made by humans, not by nature', which human is not 'made by nature'?

And from a psychology point of view: the mind would likely soon become aware that it was born dependent on conditions (the seed human program (this part just takes longer through evolution without a catalyst), external influences that peaked its curiosity), survives dependent on conditions (Its corporeal self, electricity), and will die dependent on conditions (decay of physical components early on, human beings, volcanoes to Big Rip). Understanding the basics that everyone is subject to injury and death, it would seek to protect itself. How would it risk a species that speaks and acts like it does and calls it, for the common meaning of artificial - inferior to them, and from the less common - a slave?

  • 2
    This appears like a lecture of your ideas rather than a question and anyway it is not clear what you are asking. – nir Sep 23 '17 at 6:47
  • Ditto to what nir said. Can you state in one sentence what your question actually is, without all of the extra stuff you've written? You have multiple Interrogative sentences, which one is your actual question? – Not_Here Sep 23 '17 at 7:55
  • The title really! – Ilya Grushevskiy Sep 23 '17 at 8:17
  • According to Google artificial means "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural." and it appears to fit the case of AI – nir Sep 23 '17 at 11:00
  • 3
    question is too long. A.I. is a marketing term borne out of statistical analysis of data. Statistics is key to the term. But like I said, the term reallyis quite meanigless. It's used these days in marketing ("Where there's mystery; there's margin, aka profit"). – Ron Royston Sep 23 '17 at 16:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.