Artificial brain 'ten years away'

@odenskrigare,

When I see ignorant comments, I feel compelled to say something

@odenskrigare,

Changing the subject slightly, why does my dog refuse to look at the stars,why wont his brain let him?

@odenskrigare,

Back to the topic of artificial intelligence, is not the entire phenomenon of consciousness opaque from a mathematical perspective? It certainly seems possible to mathematically define the physical state (including brain functions) which attains when I burn my finger, but is the final product, the predictive mathematical construct, at all relevant to the conscious experience, itself?

In order for sensations to be modelled mathematically, they must be reducible - there must be a common denominator somewhere. But are they? We are reminded of Thomas Nagel's famous question, "What is it like to be a bat?" The bat's sensory process is surely reducible to mathematical formulae, but what would a final predictive model actually tell us about the conscious experience of seeing in sonar?

Of course, this doesn't mean that artificial intelligence, or even consciousness, is difficult (nevermind impossible) to create. Consciousness is surely an emergent property of matter and if we can create consciousness with our penises, surely we can do it with our science, as well, right? But then the question becomes, even if we created a conscious machine - one with a "point of view" and experiences qualitatively like our own - how would we know that we had done so? How would we distinguish the "conscious" machine from the calculator on my desk?

The biggest obstacle to creating artificial intelligence is almost certainly not the "artificial" part of the term.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;80143 wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, why does my dog refuse to look at the stars,why wont his brain let him?

Smaller, less developed neocortex

And just look: many, perhaps most humans are pretty much at the same s**t-eater / s**t-flinger level as the dogs and apes of the world

Thales

[indent]Plato has Socrates relate the story of how Thales was once walking and at the same time studying the stars when he fell into a well. A Thracian slave girl mocked him for being so concerned with what was in the sky that he did not see what was at his feet (Theaetetus 174a). In order to make the point that philosophy is not only impractical, but even dangerous to one's well-being, Thales is made to appear ridiculous in this apophthegma.[/indent]

What a ****

---------- Post added 07-29-2009 at 05:04 AM ----------

Grimlock;80144 wrote:

Of course, this doesn't mean that artificial intelligence, or even consciousness, is difficult (nevermind impossible) to create. Consciousness is surely an emergent property of matter and if we can create consciousness with our penises, surely we can do it with our science, as well, right? But then the question becomes, even if we created a conscious machine - one with a "point of view" and experiences qualitatively like our own - how would we know that we had done so? How would we distinguish the "conscious" machine from the calculator on my desk?

In the same way as other persons are determined to be conscious: analogy between our brain structures and theirs, and behavioral tests.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

Who is the fool here? Thales for falling into the well, or Plato, via Socrates, for deriding him for it?

---------- Post added 07-29-2009 at 11:16 AM ----------

odenskrigare;80145 wrote:

In the same way as other persons are determined to be conscious: analogy between our brain structures and theirs, and behavioral tests.

Would you call analogy a scientific method (nevermind the fact that humans determined one another to be conscious long before we had any idea what the brain was)?

Next question: how would you determine consciousness by behavioral tests? I can program a calculator for you that will beg you not to shut it off. It will even call you Dave, if you like.

Both of your proposed methods for determining what is and is not conscious seem almost absurdly superficial.

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock;80147 wrote:

Next question: how would you determine consciousness by behavioral tests? I can program a calculator for you that will beg you not to shut it off. It will even call you Dave, if you like.

And if this calculator can jump through enough behaviorist hoops and has a neural architecture at least somewhat like mine, I think it could be conscious

Me, I can't wait for new US soldiers that can only speak in mallrat slang and gratuitous Spanish with thick Austrian accents

Grimlock;80147 wrote:

Both of your proposed methods for determining what is and is not conscious seem almost absurdly superficial.

Unfortunately they're all we have. (These are also the only methods that apply to other humans, btw.)

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80149 wrote:

And if this calculator can jump through enough behaviorist hoops and has a neural architecture at least somewhat like mine, I think it could be conscious.

Then we agree. That doesn't mean that it necessarily is conscious, though.

Quote:

Unfortunately they're all we have. (These are also the only methods that apply to other humans, btw.)

Again, we agree, and we shouldn't feel bad about this last part because the problem may simply be intractable - entirely outside the bounds of mathematical systems. These are hardly acceptable methods for determining the existence of something so seemingly important as consciousness. But who knows? If consciousness is an emergent property of matter, as it appears to be, perhaps it is not the all-or-nothing variable that most take it to be? Perhaps my calculator already has some incredibly limited modicum of consciousness - akin to that of a bacteria or a Britney Spears fan? Perhaps my calculator is to a fully finctioning AI what the lowest form of "natural" life is to me?

But how do we test that hypothesis?

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock;80150 wrote:

But how do we test that hypothesis?

Well, the animal kingdom suggests a "sliding scale" of consciousness

You've got bugs and worms and whatnot at the low end then eventually you work your way up to dogs and dolphins and chimps and even some hairless apes

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80151 wrote:

Well, the animal kingdom suggests a "sliding scale" of consciousness.

Again, though, the analogy is unscientific. We cannot even prove that animals possess consciousness, nor fetuses, for that matter. This is quickly exploding into quite a sticky moral problem which will only get worse as information technology improves and the line between man and machine blurs further.

Is the analogous "sliding scale" comparison of a calculator to a worm and a dildo to a ferret not a bit embarrassing to the whole concept of artificial intelligence (nevermind the myriad embarrassing examples of "natural" intelligence)?

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock;80152 wrote:

Again, though, the analogy is unscientific. We cannot even prove that animals possess consciousness, nor fetuses

Behaviorist measures are necessary since they can't self-report

e.g.

Mirror test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, wouldn't a dil be dumber than a calculator? Unless it were very advanced...

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80153 wrote:

Behaviorist measures are necessary since they can't self-report.

Even if they could somehow say "I am conscious" through a series of squeaks and clicks, what scientific reason would we have to believe them? How would we test to see if the dolphin (or the calculator) was lying about it's consciousness (ignoring for the moment that the english verb "lie" implies consciousness)? What good is self-reporting?

Karl Popper sees you touching yourself under the blanket.

edit: good point about the relative intelligence of the machines in question, but you're showing your Americanness here. You'd be surprised at the advances Europeans have made in auroerotic technology.

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock;80154 wrote:

Even if they could somehow say "I am conscious" through a series of squeaks and clicks, what scientific reason would we have to believe them? How would we test to see if the dolphin (or the calculator) was lying about it's consciousness (ignoring for the moment that the english verb "lie" implies consciousness)? What good is self-reporting?

Well that's what things like the mirror test are for

Turing test is another one, for other aspects of consciousness; it's kind of weak in itself though. It could be supplemented with others like it.

Grimlock;80154 wrote:

Karl Popper sees you touching yourself under the blanket.

I like your style

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

So will this machine look at the stars?will it fall down a hole wondering at the majesty of it?Will it be a ....?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;80157 wrote:

So will this machine look at the stars?will it fall down a hole wondering at the majesty of it?Will it be a ....?

These are all distinct possibilities

I would hope that artificial persons would choose to lead meaningful lives though

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80158 wrote:

These are all distinct possibilities

I would hope that artificial persons would choose to lead meaningful lives though

The point is, those variations that make us human would, could they ever be imagined.My conscious dog will never imagine reaching for the stars ,he might not fall down a hole looking but he has no idea about the cosmos.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Your dog has a pretty tiny brain

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80161 wrote:

Your dog has a pretty tiny brain

Tell that to his face if you dare grrrrrr

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Well he won't understand

See, he has a tiny brain

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80228 wrote:

Well he won't understand

See, he has a tiny brain

But his teeth are sharp and he dont fall down holes.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

we will never know if it has emotions or if sees us like it sees us because science can never validate out senses
i.e. conciseness can never be testable
we may deduce it but it will never be testable or philisophicaly sound

0 Replies

Artificial brain 'ten years away'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know