A time machine that could actually deliver and tell us who would win mythical match ups... Is it more of a reality than we think?!

[QueensburyRules]

Thats the thing about "Probability" and Quantum method, vis a vis game theory... there is no wrong data in a sense. All data represents possabilities that have an average... So if one programmed in "Tunney has three arms" the computer could very quickly ascertain the probability of that being so... So, we give tunney a chance, based on characteristics, that he KO's Dempsey... the computer would assume that Tuney and Dempsey fought every day, every hour and that eventually that would happen. yet it would look at the possibility that dempsey Ko's (the good data) as having a much greater probability of occuring in calculations.

The computer would be looking hollistically at all the data given to make these conclusions... so in a very real sense one would hve to feed totally bogus data from start to finish to stop the computer from working... it would be quite difficlt to do so because somewhere down the line the computer would see the real data as more probable.

In other words there would be no bad data... giving a fighter too much, too little, would show up as improbable when compared to other data committed.

- -So all them days of U 2 sheets on a shingle average wif U days of whiney rosettes and monkey shine distillates...

[Bundana]

Just to clarify something: I am not working on the model due out next week lol. And Quantum computers are in their infancy. Yes this would be down the road a bit. In the meantime we will just have to depend on Queeny to fill in the blanks I suppose... What is the probability he will post something that will make sense? might break a quantum computer!

I would be interested in your opinion, on how far down the road you think it will be, before a self-learning computer will be aware of it's own situation - you know, realizing that it has been created by humans (like we see in so many Sci-Fi movies). And how would it feel about that? Would it develop something that resembles human "emotions"?. Could we imagine, that one day a computer would be "moved" by a sad film, or something exceptionally beautiful?

How would such a computer react, if we show it a clip like this?:



Would it be completely indifferent, or would it think: "Damn, why do they keep torturing me with these gorgeous women (we're assuming it's a male computer - but I guess it also works with a female, lesbian one!)... when they know only too well, that I can't do anything about it?"

[billeau2]

Yeah, I believe you (and Citizen Koba) are right: With access to everything, the computer should be able to recognize obvious hyperbole, and separate that from more serious opinions.

As far as the printed word is concerned, the computer is dealing with FACTUAL things. It has the result of every fight we know of, and (in some cases) a description of what happened, and what people thought about it.

But how will it react to the fight films? Will there ever be a computer so sofisticated, that it can "watch" these films and form IT'S OWN opinion, as to whether the footage represent good or bad boxing? Of course it can combine what it can "see", with what it can read about the fights, and what it knows about the boxers (and their opponents) from other fights.This way it will know, that SRR (for example) was a superb boxer, and will be able to deduce, that what it can see from his best fights, represents good boxing.

But what if we let the computer know everything boxing-related... except for anything that has to do with, say, Roy Jones Jr.? This information will be "hidden" from the computer! So how will it react, when we suddenly present it with prime Jones video? Will it recognize his highly unorthodox skills as something special? Will it be able to think: "Oh man, look at that speed, those reflexes - what a great fighter"? Or is a self-learning computer that can actually recognize beauty, too much to expect (even far into the future)?

As for predicting the result of fantasy fights, this is an important point! There's of course no "right" or "wrong" way to box, and different people can have completely different opinions, when it comes to evaluating the same boxer. So how is the computer going to evaluate, what it is "watching"? Will it think Fitzsimmons looks great, because 130 year old articles say so - or can it "see", that he looks quite awful? A more contemporary boxer who is difficult to categorize, is Andre Ward. Some think, he was a terribly boring spoiler - while others saw him as a very clever (in an unorthodox way) boxer, with a high ring IQ, who was great at "reading" his opponents.

So if, for example, we ask the computer, who would win a fight at 168 lbs between Fitz and Canelo - I wouldn't trust it's opinion any more than my own!

I don't know that film would do a computer much good. Of course if a computer could learn to translate human physiology into a visual signal where movement is looked at based on biomechanical probabilities of ( good, bad, exceptional) movement... It could maybe be done. The problem would be fighters like Jones and Ali who do things "wrong" and wind up (probable outcome) succesful. Can a computer analyze their adaptation through outcomes? Maybe the computer looking at a gigantic mass of info would come to the conclusion we do: There is something exceptional about a fighter who is succesful but achieves success different. LOL. I always read posts paragraph by Paragraph as I see you also siezed on Jones! Great minds are in the same gutter Bundana! I think ultimatelty a computer could determine that Jones particularly had exceptional reflexes... One way, or another.

Beauty, on the other hand is improbable. Only the perception of Beauty can possibly be attained. A computer would look at an factor that can be analyzed through probable outcome. Idon't think it would ever recognize traits... only that Fitzimons has a certain possibility of winning a fight, against Opponent X. Then all probable outcomes for each fighter could be analyzed. I would hold back any opinion by a computer until it was back tested to be 100% accurate. If the computer can do that? I will listen.

[them_apples]

Quantum computers will revolutionize artificial intelligence. It will do so by maxing out howmuch data we can crunch, making present computers glorified calculators. We often speak of matching fighters to see who would have won, we lament that we cannot do so... BUT we may have an option to do this after all!

because of the sheer number of data we will be able to crunch we can literally create the fighters and use predictive programming/probability to have them make decisions that they would make if they were still fighting... with quantum computers we can have a volume of data including everything from what age they were toilet trained, to when they would feint an opponent. And we have the means of proving this is so, easily... before ever putting on a mythical match up...

Its simple: create the program, and back test it using its predictive powers on fights we know the result of. When the program is right everytime, there is no reason to assume it would not be right on a hypothetical fight! So we use the program to predict every fight Floyd has had so far... we do this with 20 other fighters... and when it bats 100... Then we can ask things like "pep against mayweather" etc.

Thoughts?

Massive computational power will be required to weigh the psychological impact of fights and the surrounding atmosphere leading up to the match, where it takes place, the state of mind the fighter is in on the given night, and conditioning and of course the overall skills and style, physical advantages. It's possible but we will need some insane powerful AI learning to collect enough data on that.

The frustrating thing is, a mediocre model will eventually come out and they will use it to market newest fighters. Kind of like compufraud. Very inaccurate. Sort of like how they sold the K bros and Wilders punching power based on stoppages, but don't tell anyone how 90 percent were unranked bouncers, or half the fights were ref stoppages from a few jabs.

[them_apples]

I don't know that film would do a computer much good. Of course if a computer could learn to translate human physiology into a visual signal where movement is looked at based on biomechanical probabilities of ( good, bad, exceptional) movement... It could maybe be done. The problem would be fighters like Jones and Ali who do things "wrong" and wind up (probable outcome) succesful. Can a computer analyze their adaptation through outcomes? Maybe the computer looking at a gigantic mass of info would come to the conclusion we do: There is something exceptional about a fighter who is succesful but achieves success different. LOL. I always read posts paragraph by Paragraph as I see you also siezed on Jones! Great minds are in the same gutter Bundana! I think ultimatelty a computer could determine that Jones particularly had exceptional reflexes... One way, or another.

Beauty, on the other hand is improbable. Only the perception of Beauty can possibly be attained. A computer would look at an factor that can be analyzed through probable outcome. Idon't think it would ever recognize traits... only that Fitzimons has a certain possibility of winning a fight, against Opponent X. Then all probable outcomes for each fighter could be analyzed. I would hold back any opinion by a computer until it was back tested to be 100% accurate. If the computer can do that? I will listen.

That's the thing, quantum com*****g should surpass the human brain in terms of data collection. In this sense humanity is over. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk is already aware of this, which is why he's always trolling everyone and currencies.

[billeau2]

I would be interested in your opinion, on how far down the road you think it will be, before a self-learning computer will be aware of it's own situation - you know, realizing that it has been created by humans (like we see in so many Sci-Fi movies). And how would it feel about that? Would it develop something that resembles human "emotions"?. Could we imagine, that one day a computer would be "moved" by a sad film, or something exceptionally beautiful?

How would such a computer react, if we show it a clip like this?:



Would it be completely indifferent, or would it think: "Damn, why do they keep torturing me with these gorgeous women (we're assuming it's a male computer - but I guess it also works with a female, lesbian one!)... when they know only too well, that I can't do anything about it?"

Sorry did not see this. heres the thing: Before we even consider emotions, we have to consider learning itself. Quantum computers are being built. We have them. They are much much faster and again, instead of binery they are based on the movement and position that an electron could occupy at any given time. To me there is a potential that Artificial intelligence is complex/or is not. The way that is answered might have a lot to do with how we learn, it might not.

We don't know how the brian works in any meaningful way regarding how we organize our experiences... sensory data is subject to drift... so that when you look at the brain, a scent that we learned to associate lights up one area in the brian, a week later, another, in a different area. And brian chemistry? ha! Many of the type of drugs Queenie needs to not smear feces on the wall, like Prosiac? We have no idea how they work on brian chemisty, only their affect on mood. So when we look at association, neuro electric/chemical process, it is a mystery.

However what we do know is that a lot of how we know things is based on experience (empiriscism). As David Hume said: We know because it has happened so many times in the past, not because of any scientific understanding. So really this can be narrowed down to probability. The probability of an event is what we anticipate when we are conditioned to engage in a behavior of any sort. If it is that simple then quantum computers are artificially intelligent in a way that is scary close to how we are intelligent.

However, as Chomsky pointed out when he beat the beaks off Skinner. Some things cannot be learned operantly (through the environment). Like language for example. In the past we have said "well the human ability to learn language internally is so fast it is well beyond what computers can do.' That has been true, but will it remain true? To me that is a big question here: can Quantum computers learn through probability as fast as a human infant can learn to form a correct sentence without having to operantly learn all the rules of grammer, punctuation, etc?

I really don't know a time line because I have yet to decide if google is artificial intelligence, or even what my mind really is! I mean think about it Bundana... Rule of physical reality is; something cannot come from nothing, yet how does a thought become an action? Somehow an idea like "I want to type a sentence", becomes an action.... where does that thought come from, and how does it cause a neuro/chemical reaction to move the muscles to act? its a tough question for me to answer.

Emotions are such a complex outgrowth of this process sentient existence. I mean before we consider computers having affectations, we should certainly understand why we humans are geared so strongly for empathy. isn't that what emotions are about? Computers may wellnever evolve this capacity because it does not serve their purpose.

[billeau2]

That's the thing, quantum com*****g should surpass the human brain in terms of data collection. In this sense humanity is over. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk is already aware of this, which is why he's always trolling everyone and currencies.

It depends whether learning is associative or propabalistic. Associative means that at some point a relationship among events is integral to understanding the essential event. This type learning would take infinite data... you "Them Apples" see a boxing ring, a glove, and a water bottle what does it mean" Do you form that answer based on all the associations in your brain involving sparring, your experiences in the ring, etc? Or can it be determined some way through the probability of such items then connected to the probability that you will want to use those items towards boxing?

we probably use both, but the first mode of learning is virtually impossible (literally cannot be done virtually) while the second can easily be done better by some mechanism that can hold more data and process it faster.

[Bundana]

Sorry did not see this. heres the thing: Before we even consider emotions, we have to consider learning itself. Quantum computers are being built. We have them. They are much much faster and again, instead of binery they are based on the movement and position that an electron could occupy at any given time. To me there is a potential that Artificial intelligence is complex/or is not. The way that is answered might have a lot to do with how we learn, it might not.

We don't know how the brian works in any meaningful way regarding how we organize our experiences... sensory data is subject to drift... so that when you look at the brain, a scent that we learned to associate lights up one area in the brian, a week later, another, in a different area. And brian chemistry? ha! Many of the type of drugs Queenie needs to not smear feces on the wall, like Prosiac? We have no idea how they work on brian chemisty, only their affect on mood. So when we look at association, neuro electric/chemical process, it is a mystery.

However what we do know is that a lot of how we know things is based on experience (empiriscism). As David Hume said: We know because it has happened so many times in the past, not because of any scientific understanding. So really this can be narrowed down to probability. The probability of an event is what we anticipate when we are conditioned to engage in a behavior of any sort. If it is that simple then quantum computers are artificially intelligent in a way that is scary close to how we are intelligent.

However, as Chomsky pointed out when he beat the beaks off Skinner. Some things cannot be learned operantly (through the environment). Like language for example. In the past we have said "well the human ability to learn language internally is so fast it is well beyond what computers can do.' That has been true, but will it remain true? To me that is a big question here: can Quantum computers learn through probability as fast as a human infant can learn to form a correct sentence without having to operantly learn all the rules of grammer, punctuation, etc?

I really don't know a time line because I have yet to decide if google is artificial intelligence, or even what my mind really is! I mean think about it Bundana... Rule of physical reality is; something cannot come from nothing, yet how does a thought become an action? Somehow an idea like "I want to type a sentence", becomes an action.... where does that thought come from, and how does it cause a neuro/chemical reaction to move the muscles to act? its a tough question for me to answer.

Emotions are such a complex outgrowth of this process sentient existence. I mean before we consider computers having affectations, we should certainly understand why we humans are geared so strongly for empathy. isn't that what emotions are about? Computers may wellnever evolve this capacity because it does not serve their purpose.

Yes, the human brain is amazing! A quantum computer may be able to make billions of calculations in a split-second, but expressing "emotion" is not something we're ever likely to see. So what I said about showing a clip of a pretty girl to the computer, was of course a joke!

But on a more serious note: Do you think such a computer will ever be self-aware... in the sense that it will know and understand, that it has been created by a completely different entity?

But then again, is "understand" even a term that can be used in relation to a computer? It either knows or doesn't know something - with no "understanding" involved! After all, it's just a machine with the ability to make extremely fast calculations - which it does without any "feelings" or "emotions". And if that's the case, how can it have any idea of it's own situation? It probably can't... or am I totally wrong?

[QueensburyRules]

Massive computational power will be required to weigh the psychological impact of fights and the surrounding atmosphere leading up to the match, where it takes place, the state of mind the fighter is in on the given night, and conditioning and of course the overall skills and style, physical advantages. It's possible but we will need some insane powerful AI learning to collect enough data on that.

The frustrating thing is, a mediocre model will eventually come out and they will use it to market newest fighters. Kind of like compufraud. Very inaccurate. Sort of like how they sold the K bros and Wilders punching power based on stoppages, but don't tell anyone how 90 percent were unranked bouncers, or half the fights were ref stoppages from a few jabs.

- -At least U got the name right.

Quantum OFF the Grid Fraud coming to U PPV sooner than U mugs think.

[billeau2]

Yes, the human brain is amazing! A quantum computer may be able to make billions of calculations in a split-second, but expressing "emotion" is not something we're ever likely to see. So what I said about showing a clip of a pretty girl to the computer, was of course a joke!

But on a more serious note: Do you think such a computer will ever be self-aware... in the sense that it will know and understand, that it has been created by a completely different entity?

But then again, is "understand" even a term that can be used in relation to a computer? It either knows or doesn't know something - with no "understanding" involved! After all, it's just a machine with the ability to make extremely fast calculations - which it does without any "feelings" or "emotions". And if that's the case, how can it have any idea of it's own situation? It probably can't... or am I totally wrong?

Well lets separate two things here: Emotions are an affect. An argument could be made that any form of sympathy is developed from the need to process information. Like If I see someone's head fly off, and the threat is near... It probably serves me well to imagine not only that this could be bad, but to be able to put myself in that place... to feel the same horrid sensations, giving me a lot of incentive to move fast. It also makes communication a lot easier... and our brain has developed considerably to be able to, for example, "smell the scent of a rose, when we see someone else smelling it." Mental pictures, language all allow us to elicit empathy. On a higher level this turns to altruism... Humanity, which ironickly animals can possess, and many people do not possess, allow us altruism. We can actually die to sacrifice for someone who is better, more valuable to us... Like the bunt in baseball, this potentially allows us to preserve the social structure and to provide for out offspring even when dying to do so... I know this all sounds so cold lol... But its the right vocabulary to make the distinction between empathy and self awareness IMO.

Before I go on: Why is it that dreams have the potential to actually appear more real than reality at times? Interesting form of empathetic response! Always wondered about that lol.

With self awarness, we are talking about something that definitely reflects empathy, I mean we have to be aware of self to be aware of others... But there are a lot of problems with understanding self awareness. The first problem is we don't know where it comes from. This is a really big problem with materialism... When people want to say "we are simply a bunch of things that work together and when the body material ends, so do we" This does not account for self awareness, or consciousness. just as, we do not really know how a thought comes and becomes an action and... The TRUTH about our corpereal selves is that our bodies are a flux of instructions on the cellular level, these cells constantly change... every like 6 months, there is not one cell in our body that is an original cell... so there has to be something else unifying our self identity and consciousness, some set of instructions, maybe? something saying "take these proteins and repair cells in liver and brain, now reproduce skin cells here, etc."

I keep mentioning Empathy because it is the closest thing one can kind of find that pinpoints consciousness. To the Hindus consciousness is a form of energy like light that manifests and we become smaller vessels of it for a prescribed time...But again where does this come from? And again, the materialists logic is just incorrect: You cannot reason that the body is the creator of consciousness, because a dead body has no more consciousness. Thats like saying our appetite is gone because a ham sandwich does not exist to eat.

With artificial intelligence the way for it to evolve into sentient beingness is through cyber technology. creating a system that has elements of bio, organic construction which the computer can develop within. But to do this we can only do so blindly: Does a Virus have consciousness? It is the very most basic building block that MIGHT be alive (this is debated). Does a single cell organism? And is there a qualitative difference between an animal that can forsee its end? and one that perhaps (appears) not to be able todo so? We might create a sentient machine by making it sufficiently complex, with either biological components, or faux biological components that are identical to the real thing... and we would probably know we had done so when as you say: "The computer was aware of its self as an entity distinct from other en******."

how much of a mind fck is this whole thing Bundana? Ok...So we develop the best 3d printers and they can make organs, just like the real thing, including a brain... So you make a frankenstein with this printer ok? now how do you make it alive? what if you have a computer that can make all the organs work together, duplicate all the biochemistry, everything a body can do... would it become alive? would we, by working backwards (not knowing what consciousness is, but creating the thing that makes it manifest) create consciousness?

The scary thing is we have 3d printers that can make organs... We might yet make a machine that is alive...