Extreme Artificial Intelligence
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
The brain is known to make us self aware so i was thinking that if a program processes sensory inputs as the brain does will that program somehow be aware of it's existence?
Again you are combining 2 different functionalities. Your brain can function and work yet you have no sensory inputs. Look into coma studies. There are specific cases where they show plenty of brain activity, yet it is not in responce to external sensory (i.e. someone speaking does not change the activity, someone touching them does not change the activity etc etc.) Yes the brain compiles sensory input. Yes the brain is what lets us be self aware. However removing one does not necessarily remove the other, and i.e. granting the abilities of one to another 'being' or system does not grant both. Meaning a system with full sesnory input and processing similar to the human brain has nothing to do with being self aware. Nor does being self aware have anyting to do with processing what we humans deem as inputs. It is possible for a lifeform to be self aware that processes different sensories than we do.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
I get your point but what then makes us self aware? is it not neural computations which can be replicated in a machine? just neurons firing action potentials makes us who we are, what we feel, so
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nor does being self aware have anyting to do with processing what we humans deem as inputs.
but can you be aware of something without neurons processing the inputs from your sensory organs. I find it hard to believe that statement, because we are completely oblivious to things not exciting our sensory organs.
-
I get your point but what then makes us self aware? is it not neural computations which can be replicated in a machine? just neurons firing action potentials makes us who we are, what we feel, so
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nor does being self aware have anyting to do with processing what we humans deem as inputs.
but can you be aware of something without neurons processing the inputs from your sensory organs. I find it hard to believe that statement, because we are completely oblivious to things not exciting our sensory organs.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I get your point but what then makes us self aware?
Maybe we will never know. Maybe it will be the greatest scientific advancement. No idea.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
but can you be aware of something without neurons processing the inputs from your sensory organs.
Being aware of 'something' is different that being self-aware. I think therefore I am. It is the only true truth we all have. Everything else is just interpretted signals that can be manipulated. So correct I can not be aware of other existances with out some inputs. But those inputs are not required for my self-awareness.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I get your point but what then makes us self aware?
Maybe we will never know. Maybe it will be the greatest scientific advancement. No idea.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
but can you be aware of something without neurons processing the inputs from your sensory organs.
Being aware of 'something' is different that being self-aware. I think therefore I am. It is the only true truth we all have. Everything else is just interpretted signals that can be manipulated. So correct I can not be aware of other existances with out some inputs. But those inputs are not required for my self-awareness.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I think therefore I am.
There you are, you just used induction to reach that conclusion, so somewhere in your mind neurons were firing action potentials to process that induction process.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Maybe we will never know.
So what makes you think computations are not responsible for our ability to be self aware? because you are objecting to the idea that self awareness is caused by mere computations, you cannot just drop this without disproving it first with facts on the table, neither can i disprove your view.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I think therefore I am.
There you are, you just used induction to reach that conclusion, so somewhere in your mind neurons were firing action potentials to process that induction process.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Maybe we will never know.
So what makes you think computations are not responsible for our ability to be self aware? because you are objecting to the idea that self awareness is caused by mere computations, you cannot just drop this without disproving it first with facts on the table, neither can i disprove your view.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
because you are objecting to the idea that self awareness is caused by mere computations, you cannot just drop this without disproving it first with facts on the table, neither can i disprove your view.
I am not objecting to it. I am stating it is not a 1:1 relationship. Just because a system can compute things that a self aware system can does not mean it itself is self aware. Nor does a system that is self aware have the ability to compute things that another self aware system does. You asked a simpled question about being able to mimic the human processing and if that meant it was self aware. I have been trying to point out it is not a 1:1 mapping. I am not saying they are not at all related. I am saying you can not conclude A because of B nor can you conclude B because of A.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Hey guys & ladies (to be gender insensitive), a theoretical thought, if a computer program simulates the human brain very accurately, does that make the program self - aware?
No, unless the software is attached to a full censorial hardware pack that simulates the human body. And I don't think software will ever simulate the brain. Maybe hardware can simulate it, but first, we'd need to fully understand how the brain works (we are still far from that) so we can replicate it in a machine.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
if a computer program simulates the human brain very accurately
If ...
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly ... no way, that can be only silly!
-
yes they are. :)
I agree about a dog, a cat or a rat, even a mouse or a canary, but I don't know if an ant is self-aware. It may be just queen-aware. OTOH, an ant's neural system is small enough that we can simulate it, I think. I don't know of anybody doing this, though.
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
because you are objecting to the idea that self awareness is caused by mere computations, you cannot just drop this without disproving it first with facts on the table, neither can i disprove your view.
I am not objecting to it. I am stating it is not a 1:1 relationship. Just because a system can compute things that a self aware system can does not mean it itself is self aware. Nor does a system that is self aware have the ability to compute things that another self aware system does. You asked a simpled question about being able to mimic the human processing and if that meant it was self aware. I have been trying to point out it is not a 1:1 mapping. I am not saying they are not at all related. I am saying you can not conclude A because of B nor can you conclude B because of A.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Yeah you have a point, it is not a 1 to 1 issue, but who knows anyways, it might just be, maybe in the future when such experiments are possible and if these comments will be present, our future generations will laugh at our lack of knowledge on the subject matter of self awareness :laugh: But i still think a program can be self aware without even needing to be as complex as the human brain.
-
No, unless the software is attached to a full censorial hardware pack that simulates the human body. And I don't think software will ever simulate the brain. Maybe hardware can simulate it, but first, we'd need to fully understand how the brain works (we are still far from that) so we can replicate it in a machine.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
what if it were hardware accelerated like computer graphics are. see http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-18/tech/ibm.brain.chip_1_experimental-chip-new-ibm-computers?_s=PM:TECH[^]
-
I agree about a dog, a cat or a rat, even a mouse or a canary, but I don't know if an ant is self-aware. It may be just queen-aware. OTOH, an ant's neural system is small enough that we can simulate it, I think. I don't know of anybody doing this, though.
Yes even insects might be self aware, the problem here is that one cannot disprove or prove that they are also self aware. ;)
-
Hey guys & ladies (to be gender insensitive), a theoretical thought, if a computer program simulates the human brain very accurately, does that make the program self - aware?
In a manner of speaking, there is already a program that is self-aware. The genetic code sequencing in a DNA molocule programs living things to act and react the way that they do. So we have "hardware" (the brain) and "software" (DNA) that allows biological systems to be self-aware. IBM is working on the hardware to mimic the brain and has already made some progress. So all we need now is software to mimic genetic code sequencing and that will allow a computer system to be self-aware. It's just a matter of time... Enjoy!
-
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly ... no way, that can be only silly!
Just trying to see what that has to do with thinking outside the box.
-
Yeah you have a point, it is not a 1 to 1 issue, but who knows anyways, it might just be, maybe in the future when such experiments are possible and if these comments will be present, our future generations will laugh at our lack of knowledge on the subject matter of self awareness :laugh: But i still think a program can be self aware without even needing to be as complex as the human brain.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
But i still think a program can be self aware without even needing to be as complex as the human brain.
Certainly could be. We have no idea what is the requirement for self awareness. It could be have a central processor in charge of a symbiotic system (our bodies are quite symbiodic) or maybe its as simple as have a "free running" process that can recompile with out shutting down. Lots of possibilities. I agree it is very plausible that we create it. Hopefully it is under the right circumstances and then maintained correctly. We don't need a system like "Skynet" to be the first self-aware program...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
In a manner of speaking, there is already a program that is self-aware. The genetic code sequencing in a DNA molocule programs living things to act and react the way that they do. So we have "hardware" (the brain) and "software" (DNA) that allows biological systems to be self-aware. IBM is working on the hardware to mimic the brain and has already made some progress. So all we need now is software to mimic genetic code sequencing and that will allow a computer system to be self-aware. It's just a matter of time... Enjoy!
Yes, even us humans, are programmed :laugh: genetically speaking, some people are finding it hard to assimilate the fact that there is a possibility that programs can be made aware of their existence or they are already.
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
But i still think a program can be self aware without even needing to be as complex as the human brain.
Certainly could be. We have no idea what is the requirement for self awareness. It could be have a central processor in charge of a symbiotic system (our bodies are quite symbiodic) or maybe its as simple as have a "free running" process that can recompile with out shutting down. Lots of possibilities. I agree it is very plausible that we create it. Hopefully it is under the right circumstances and then maintained correctly. We don't need a system like "Skynet" to be the first self-aware program...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
The only problem might be to test if the program is self aware or not, if we use the Turing test for self awareness i think then we already have self aware programs now.
-
The only problem might be to test if the program is self aware or not, if we use the Turing test for self awareness i think then we already have self aware programs now.
Yes that is a problem for us realizing if it is self aware or not. IMO the Turing test does not prove it. Don't have an answer to how you prove it. Maybe having that answer in itself is what will trigger us to create it.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
what if it were hardware accelerated like computer graphics are. see http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-18/tech/ibm.brain.chip_1_experimental-chip-new-ibm-computers?_s=PM:TECH[^]
I still think software can't do that. Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate. Like in quantum mechanics, uncertainty reaches the physical level, unlikely to be accurately mimicked by software, for the simple fact that software is bound to rules much simpler than the physical world.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
Yes that is a problem for us realizing if it is self aware or not. IMO the Turing test does not prove it. Don't have an answer to how you prove it. Maybe having that answer in itself is what will trigger us to create it.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
One cannot even prove that a person is self aware!
-
I still think software can't do that. Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate. Like in quantum mechanics, uncertainty reaches the physical level, unlikely to be accurately mimicked by software, for the simple fact that software is bound to rules much simpler than the physical world.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Fabio Franco wrote:
Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
I don't think uncertainties have anything good to offer apart from just inducing errors in the system, maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties. I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
I don't think uncertainties have anything good to offer apart from just inducing errors in the system, maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties. I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution? Uncertainty allows randomnes and randomnes made it possible for us to be what we are. Without, we'd just be some lame program. Edit:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties.
You're not thinking out of the box. If you are talking about raw speed, this makes sense, for exact calculations. Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain? Our brain power is so much higher than our current technology that I cannot even start listing how our brain is superior to machines in so many aspects.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia