>
Creating a robot to unpredictable behavior (able to take a decision not stereotypical in any situation) is faced with a paradox.
To this should be possible (in theory) should be a robot (at least) to 100 billion has unpredictable behavior in a given situation. What is in contradiction with the principle of reproducibility inherent in any scientific experiment, and, a fortiori, any form of technology. Clearly, this means that non-scientific experiment reproducible at will no longer unscientific.
Similarly, a robot with unpredictable behavior would not be a "robot". It would be a human being (at least to make him do random actions, but that is not our concern).
However, designing such a machine (which is no longer one!) Would require an infinite time, since inception (mechanical) of an algorithm of unpredictability (not random) simulating human intelligence involves programming omniscient. And to build such a machine would require so much artificial neural circuits that the entire universe could not contain them!
A robot even hypercomplex, can function only on a finite set of instructions, making it nevertheless able to solve and reason in all aspects of binary thinking (computation, administration, puzzle games, strategy, comparison, net, optimization, formal musical composition, functional language ...), which is not bad.
other hand, there is the great law of thermodynamics, which means that a system can himself replenish your energy (for this reason that we age). Applied to the AI (artificial intelligence), this means that even hierarchical level two thinking beings (or just live) can not be created one another. To this fact is achievable, should be back the arrow of time!
The artificial creation of life will never lead to the creation of a being for thinking the only reason she is subject to the natural creation. Ontological nature of this dependence that leads to the mechanistic approach can not have a comprehensive understanding of natural creation, which implements the processes of synthesis and self-catering unimaginable power and complexity, without common with our measurement and analytical systems serialists is consistently more or less long term to a destructuring of the medium, if not a destruction pure and simple (the most effective medicine today does not that eradicate - tumors, viruses - or replace - transplant).
Even if science wins to copy nature in its most intimate details, it will never be a copy. The analytic process may lead to partial syntheses, but never a total synthesis, so to life. And if, by extraordinary, it did, it would be a different paradigm involving non-quantifiable factors such as intuition, vision, empathy, analogy (which are not reflected in the approach called "scientific"). Hence the paradox: if science begins to create, it must deny as science.
In Greek mythology, Pygmalion was created a sculpture strange and haunting (Galatea) , and he created man to his level.
Only the intervention of Aphrodite has transformed the sculpture of Pygmalion in living and thinking.
To this should be possible (in theory) should be a robot (at least) to 100 billion has unpredictable behavior in a given situation. What is in contradiction with the principle of reproducibility inherent in any scientific experiment, and, a fortiori, any form of technology. Clearly, this means that non-scientific experiment reproducible at will no longer unscientific.
Similarly, a robot with unpredictable behavior would not be a "robot". It would be a human being (at least to make him do random actions, but that is not our concern).
However, designing such a machine (which is no longer one!) Would require an infinite time, since inception (mechanical) of an algorithm of unpredictability (not random) simulating human intelligence involves programming omniscient. And to build such a machine would require so much artificial neural circuits that the entire universe could not contain them!
A robot even hypercomplex, can function only on a finite set of instructions, making it nevertheless able to solve and reason in all aspects of binary thinking (computation, administration, puzzle games, strategy, comparison, net, optimization, formal musical composition, functional language ...), which is not bad.
other hand, there is the great law of thermodynamics, which means that a system can himself replenish your energy (for this reason that we age). Applied to the AI (artificial intelligence), this means that even hierarchical level two thinking beings (or just live) can not be created one another. To this fact is achievable, should be back the arrow of time!
The artificial creation of life will never lead to the creation of a being for thinking the only reason she is subject to the natural creation. Ontological nature of this dependence that leads to the mechanistic approach can not have a comprehensive understanding of natural creation, which implements the processes of synthesis and self-catering unimaginable power and complexity, without common with our measurement and analytical systems serialists is consistently more or less long term to a destructuring of the medium, if not a destruction pure and simple (the most effective medicine today does not that eradicate - tumors, viruses - or replace - transplant).
Even if science wins to copy nature in its most intimate details, it will never be a copy. The analytic process may lead to partial syntheses, but never a total synthesis, so to life. And if, by extraordinary, it did, it would be a different paradigm involving non-quantifiable factors such as intuition, vision, empathy, analogy (which are not reflected in the approach called "scientific"). Hence the paradox: if science begins to create, it must deny as science.
In Greek mythology, Pygmalion was created a sculpture strange and haunting (Galatea) , and he created man to his level.
Only the intervention of Aphrodite has transformed the sculpture of Pygmalion in living and thinking.
0 comments:
Post a Comment