Is Kaku correct?

[Polymath257]

Behaviorism notwithstanding, rewards and pleasure have a combination set that doesn't include all rewards and pleasures. A robot isn't introspective or instictual so abstract/intuitive concepts will only mean something to us, not to the robot "watching the sunset"

Yes, that was the behavioristic argument. It fits some observations, but lacks in others.

I differ substantially from behaviorists in that I do think there are such things as states of mind. I just find them to be the same as brain states.

We are instinctual and abstract because of the way our brains work. Intuition is one of the ways our brains process information. Rewards and pleasures are also, fundamentally, brain states.

Yes an observer might think it's a reward. I can make a loop that stores happiness as an object and have various values stored in it that drop by time and increase by events. That doesn't make the program feel any reward though. Our object is imaginary. The real execution inside the CPU doesn't "feel" anything. Sure we can increase voltage or amperage but the chip running it won't work like a brain. It all depends on us creating abstract concepts and nodding to ourselves about it. Once the robot develops instincts or introspective capabilities we'll notice anything worth considering "reward" for it.

I strongly disagree here. We *feel* because of how our brains process information. No neuron actually 'feels' in this sense. But the neural circuitry does. I see no reason why a robot of sufficient sophistication cannot have essentially the same processing as our brains do and thereby feel, intuit, and have a perspective.

I think one of the issues is determining what it is that 'feels' and what it actually means to 'feel'. Like I said, no individual nerve feels. The 'feeling' is a product of many neurons interacting in quite complicated ways. But it is ultimately a physical process and that process can be mimicked by a robot sufficiently well constructed.

Let me put it this way: what do you see the brain doing that is substantially different than what can be programmed? At the molecular level, I see nothing. But that means that the higher levels can all be done, at least in theory (actual construction would be very delicate, I agree).

 

[ecco]

I don't know why it would be bragging as Civ is much easier than chess. There are people who do win consistently on the highest difficulty level.

The basic strategy to win most of the time is easier to memorize than common chess openings.

Search google for a site called civ fanatics if you're skeptical.

As you suggested, I went to the civfanatics.com website (I've been there before). I found nothing that was an overall game winning strategy like you are implying. I did not find a "basic strategy to win most of the time". Maybe you would be good enough to provide a link to it. Or, alternatively, just tell me what it is from your own usage and recollection since it is "easier to memorize than common chess openings".

 

[Jumi]

As you suggested, I went to the civfanatics.com website (I've been there before). I found nothing that was an overall game winning strategy like you are implying. I did not find a "basic strategy to win most of the time". Maybe you would be good enough to provide a link to it. Or, alternatively, just tell me what it is from your own usage and recollection since it is "easier to memorize than common chess openings".

Several techsnologies you ignore completely, and rush to wheel for chariots. Build cities right in adjacent tiles. That's the opening moves, later in the series they made an effort to curtail those kinds of efforts because it's what we could call broken. The regular way to play is to maximize the potential of cities and see what kind of things they can get. You'll be building just settlers on most of the cities and you don't have to protect all of them. Then you send a lot of chariots... I don't remember further, but if you do the math you can see how expansion becomes more tilted towards exponential than a regular play.

I believe the fanatics had a strategy section, the site seems a bit different than when I visited it. You might ask around the forum there. It's entirely possible that I remember a different site.
It helped me to win more consistently on Sid-difficulty when I was playing Civilization 3 and due to them also had my first speedrun after that with Aztecs winning a game on a small map in a couple of hours. It had similar winning strategies. Most of my memory of that series is from the third installment which I played rather religiously for some time, so if I remember something wrong about Civilization 1, my apologies. It's been close to 10 years since I've played either of them.

Do you happen to know where the article about the AI winning against the computer players on emperor can be read, it would also interest me.

 

[Jumi]

I differ substantially from behaviorists in that I do think there are such things as states of mind. I just find them to be the same as brain states.

We are instinctual and abstract because of the way our brains work. Intuition is one of the ways our brains process information. Rewards and pleasures are also, fundamentally, brain states.

There are many levels of rewards for a person. One is Pavlov, the carrot and stick that politicians tend to love. Another requires the ability to abstract thinking. Why do you think people go against the "programming" avoiding pleasures to achieve other rewards which might be intangible.

I strongly disagree here. We *feel* because of how our brains process information. No neuron actually 'feels' in this sense. But the neural circuitry does. I see no reason why a robot of sufficient sophistication cannot have essentially the same processing as our brains do and thereby feel, intuit, and have a perspective.

When a sufficiently advanced "copy" of the CNS and brain is produced we will see if they really go 1 for 1. Until then I remain skeptical.

I think one of the issues is determining what it is that 'feels' and what it actually means to 'feel'. Like I said, no individual nerve feels. The 'feeling' is a product of many neurons interacting in quite complicated ways. But it is ultimately a physical process and that process can be mimicked by a robot sufficiently well constructed.

It is indeed mimicking if we make it behave as if a human. Will it think like a human, what kind of errors do we need to introduce for it to be like a human? Remember that we have lots of faults. My chronic pain for instance you couldn't pinpoint the source of yet it was there. Will a robot be able to pass out from torture? Will it find love? Will it have strange desires like wanting to scale mountains? Will it be able to meditate? Will it be building pathways or just simulate something of the kind?

Let me put it this way: what do you see the brain doing that is substantially different than what can be programmed? At the molecular level, I see nothing. But that means that the higher levels can all be done, at least in theory (actual construction would be very delicate, I agree).

If you reduce it to signal and not-signal then I understand why you believe the way you do. It works nice for hearing and we'll probably be seeing things like sight soon. The hypothesis is interesting that inputs whether analog or digital make the system function on it's own though.

 

[Jumi]

I found a video that is not completely similar strategy, but close to the one I used. This is actually more like the Civilization 3 opening strategy for the highest difficulty than the one I used for the first.

He's probably a better than I was, but you see how easily he defeats the computer even with all the advantages it's given?

 

[ecco]

Build cities right in adjacent tiles. ... but if you do the math you can see how expansion becomes more tilted towards exponential than a regular play.

Uh huh.

I believe the fanatics had a strategy section, the site seems a bit different than when I visited it.

So, your previous comments do not apply currently.

It helped me to win more consistently on Sid-difficulty when I was playing Civilization 3 Most of my memory of that series is from the third installment which I played rather religiously for some time, so if I remember something wrong about Civilization 1,

Civ I? You do know it's been Civ VI for a couple of years now, don't you?

Do you happen to know where the article about the AI winning against the computer players on emperor can be read, it would also interest me.

I have no idea what article you are referring to.

 

[Jumi]

Uh huh.

Concentrate.

So, your previous comments do not apply currently.

? What do you mean they don't apply currently? You know you quote an article from 2011, when Civ V had just come out.

Civ I? You do know it's been Civ VI for a couple of years now, don't you?

Uh... you posted this:

In 1991 Sid Meier came out with a game called Civilization. At its most basic, the human plays against a number of AI "leaders". The leaders all have different personalities, some being more aggressive, some more deceitful, some more adventurous, etc. These AI leaders react to circumstances. I'm not saying they experience pleasure and pain in the same way that humans do. But if you walk across the territory of an aggressive leader you will probably start a war. As wars go on, leaders feel the weight of their losses, evaluate them against gains and may sue for peace.

Why would I be talking about Civ VI when we're talking about Civ AI?

I have no idea what article you are referring to.

The one we were talking about... because you mentioned it. The AI that you say can beat Civ on the highest difficulty level.

You posted about this:

Computer learns to play Civilization by reading the instruction manual

Matthew Rogers on July 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm
MIT researchers just got a computer to accomplish yet another task that most humans are incapable of doing: It learned how to play a game by reading the instruction manual.

The MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence lab has a computer that now plays Civilization all by itself — and it wins nearly 80% of the time. Those are better stats than most of us could brag about, but the real win here is the fact that instruction manuals don’t explain how to win a game, just how to play it.

The results may be game-oriented, but the real purpose for the experiment was to get a computer to do more than process words as data — and to actually process them as language. In this case, the computer read instructions on how to play a rather complex game, then proceeded to not only play that game, but to play it very well.

 

[ecco]

Concentrate.

You wrote...(my emphasis)

Several techsnologies you ignore completely, and rush to wheel for chariots. Build cities right in adjacent tiles. That's the opening moves, later in the series they made an effort to curtail those kinds of efforts because it's what we could call broken.

Either you miswrote or you aren't talking about any version of Civ. You cannot build cities right in adjacent tiles. Also, building a city cannot be considered an "opening move" since it cannot be done for at least 14 moves or as long as it takes to build a Settler. Also, if you're building Settlers, how can you be building chariots?

So, your previous comments do not apply currently.

? What do you mean they don't apply currently? You know you quote an article from 2011, when Civ V had just come out.

Preiously you wrote...

I believe the fanatics had a strategy section, the site seems a bit different than when I visited it. You might ask around the forum there. It's entirely possible that I remember a different site.

You said...

There is an easy winning strategy on the Civ Fanatics site.​

Then you said...

The site seems different.
I should ask around.
Maybe it's a different site.​

Maybe, before you make an assertion that something exists, you should make sure that it is true.

You posted about this: The one we were talking about... because you mentioned it. The AI that you say can beat Civ on the highest difficulty level.

I didn't say that. The article did not say that. Please read carefully...

It learned how to play a game by reading the instruction manual.

The MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence lab has a computer that now plays Civilization all by itself — and it wins nearly 80% of the time.

Nothing was said about "highest difficulty level" You really need to ask yourself why you tend to exaggerate and misquote.

The article is here...
Computer learns to play Civilization by reading the instruction manual - ExtremeTech

Why would I be talking about Civ VI when we're talking about Civ AI?

That comment makes no sense at all.

 

[Jumi]

It seems neither of us are understanding each other and that is fine. If the article didn't talk about Civ I then we weren't talking about the same thing either way and miscommunication is expected. In 2011 they could have been doing Civ IV.

Either you miswrote or you aren't talking about any version of Civ. You cannot build cities right in adjacent tiles.

You can them in adjacent tiles in Civ I. The limitation is only added in later versions of the game, because it's an almost sure win move. In Civ III that strategy doesn't change much you only skip one space and build the next. In Civ IV they made it more difficult to do that and "city spam" stops working.

Also, building a city cannot be considered an "opening move" since it cannot be done for at least 14 moves or as long as it takes to build a Settler.

It's an opening move, because you start building settlers right away. Once you have more cities you switch some of them to militia.

Also, if you're building Settlers, how can you be building chariots?

Obviously you have multiple cities and diversify between them. You may need to build triremes in a coastal city as well.