Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Future of Artificial Intelligence: Can machines become sentient (self-aware)
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 11 of 51 (555766)
04-15-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
04-15-2010 9:24 AM


The human brain is not a calculator. The human brain is a master of association, of matching patterns to patterns, voices to voices, etc. The human brain is relatively poor at doing calculations, but it can do pattern recognition better and faster than any computer
Those things are calculations; we just don't access them at that level. By analogy, try calculating logarithms by playing Quake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 04-15-2010 9:24 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 25 of 51 (555824)
04-15-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taq
04-15-2010 12:15 PM


One interesting system is the field-programmable gate array. This processor allows the programmer to change the actual wiring in the chip. You can actually evolve functional arrays through randomly changing the connections and selecting for functions.
You realise that this, like neural nets, can achieve exactly nothing that conventional hardware can't, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taq, posted 04-15-2010 12:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 04-15-2010 3:08 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 36 of 51 (555899)
04-16-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taq
04-15-2010 3:08 PM


The part that interests me is the ability to rewire the processor on the go. This is something the brain does as well. As far as I know the CPU in your standard home PC does not do this.
No, it doesn't but that doesn't let you achieve a single thing that not doing it doesn't. Programming is very powerful. If nothing else you can exactly simulate your rewiring of the processor on a normal chip.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 04-15-2010 3:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 04-16-2010 9:24 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 41 of 51 (555933)
04-16-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taq
04-16-2010 9:24 AM


You can't let your quad-core AMD Athlon CPU evolve function like you can with a gated processor.
The CPU itself can't evolve, but you can write software on it that will achieve everything that evolving the CPU can. Everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 04-16-2010 9:24 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 42 of 51 (555936)
04-16-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by CosmicChimp
04-15-2010 5:10 PM


With highly resolved I mean that the system has to be based upon a multitude of simple building blocks. The simpler the better. They have to model faithfully their role in nature. The question is I think still unanswered as to how far down the scale of size it is necessary to model. I believe sentience is an emergent behavior, and therefore exact modeling on the smallest scales will bring forth the higher levels of complexity. Maybe you have to show the individual atoms; neurons and their connections certainly.
This strikes me as little more than mysticism. Why should we believe that the particular structures of the brain are required for sentience? It seems to me the only reason for believing so is the idea that some "special woo" happens in the brain that magics up sentience - and that goes against everything we know about the brain.
Neurons and connections, btw, are definetely not required because we know, for a fact, that neural networks can achieve exactly nothing that conventional hardware can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by CosmicChimp, posted 04-15-2010 5:10 PM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by CosmicChimp, posted 04-16-2010 3:51 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 50 of 51 (555990)
04-16-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by CosmicChimp
04-16-2010 3:51 PM


I think you might be reading more into my post than is there. I said 'emergent behavior' or 'emergent properties' or just 'emergence' is what is creating 'mind'. It's not woo or mysticism. Because it is not yet known exactly what causes sentience research efforts, for instance IBM, are modeling brains.
Whole brain modelling may be required to unpick sentience while we study it, but I see little reason to believe there's anything going on that is more than it appears. Emergence from the simple components is probably the answer; the requirement for particular wetware with particular molecules and structures of the brain is a claim without evidence. Once you get as far as Penrose's silly insistence that "quantum tubules" are the seat of consciousness you're just rebranding mysticism in a pretty scientific dress.
"... and that goes against everything we know about the brain." Surely you jest. Model neurons will probably not be required after we find out what they are doing. Some peeps think it is necessary to investigate what it is that they do. It may not be all that necessary but unfortunately I don't know either.
As far as we understand the behaviour of neurons they do not a single thing that cannot be done with a normal computer (as can be proved mathematically). Further, everything we know how works in the brain operates by the complex interactions of high level components not the low level vageries of how it is constructed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by CosmicChimp, posted 04-16-2010 3:51 PM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by CosmicChimp, posted 04-16-2010 4:42 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024