Consciousness does not belong to the material world. You cannot apply your logic to it.
Topic: The propaganda of artificial intelligence - page 2. (Read 4156 times)
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain.
We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...
Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself. That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain.
We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...
Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself (you can generate the same music in many different ways). That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain.
We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain.
We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
Consciousness is not the physical brain.
We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...
And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments
And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
What you say doesn't follow from my point I expounded on in my previous posts. If you think otherwise, please explain what actually makes you think so...
Quote
Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?
This is one of the most impressive conversational robots I've ever seen:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY
Hanson Robotics seem to be leading the way in this area of technology.
Because you believe that 99 % people understand or implement new concepts. You are overestimating humans.
...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines. ...
This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...
We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...
And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments
So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.
...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines. ...
This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...
We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...
And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments
...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines. ...
This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...
Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...
Here's a (ridiculous) analogy. Because all conscious creatures have two legs and two arms, machines that we build that think must have two arms and legs. False, of course. And any functionality of a neuron can be simulated exactly in software.Here's a thought experiment. You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines. NO computer circuits. You have an unlimited supply of punched cards and machines, so you build the equivalent of a brain with them.
Can this group of punched cards 'think'?
This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...
Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...
It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).
I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...
It is an electro chemical mechanism. There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.
Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...
Here's a thought experiment. You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines. NO computer circuits. You have an unlimited supply of punched cards and machines, so you build the equivalent of a brain with them.
Can this group of punched cards 'think'?
My point was simply that the wrong starting point was to think neurons. This is irrefutable, because the starting point is to think about the utility - the actual jobs that machines have to do, some of which involve weak or strong AI. Then you build things to 'do those jobs.'
Hello, Skynet...
Actually i think some real progress has been made
https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html
these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.
https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html
these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.
Sadly, this seems only like a modest improvement on the same machine learning problem at best, though I can't say I'm an expert in the field...
EDIT:
I just saw the video...
Anyway, it's an interesting idea, but I know of no evidence that event points in that direction.
It might be easier to wrap one's mind around AI, when looked from the perspective of primacy of consciousness.
In this model nothing can create consciousness, but consciousness can create anything, including different kinds of masks, through which it can express itself.
If human brain (one kind of mask) is a receiver of consciousness, so can be a technological device (another kind of mask), built specifically to be sensitive enough for already existing consciousness to tap into.
Here is some more insight on the topic:
"AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s
In this model nothing can create consciousness, but consciousness can create anything, including different kinds of masks, through which it can express itself.
If human brain (one kind of mask) is a receiver of consciousness, so can be a technological device (another kind of mask), built specifically to be sensitive enough for already existing consciousness to tap into.
Here is some more insight on the topic:
"AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s
I think the premise is wrong
Folks are doing amazing work in AI. I wouldn't bet against CS.
Folks are doing amazing work in AI. I wouldn't bet against CS.
Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...
It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).
I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...
It is an electro chemical mechanism. There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.
Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...
Actually i think some real progress has been made
https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html
these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.
https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html
these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.
Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...
It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).
I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...
It is an electro chemical mechanism. There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.
Or that it is the preferred path, given that we start with silicon.
It is unlikely that any AI we create from silicon would have much interest in us, because of it's rapid growth in intelligence and knowledge. Maybe for a few milliseconds, or evan a few seconds.
On the contrary, electro chemical mechanism such as neuron would limit intelligence and prevent it's exponential expansion. Thus, it might converse with us.
Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...
It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).
I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...
If you would be using neurons identical to our own then you wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be leaving most of the work to nature and creating human beings rather than robots (or biological robots at the very least)
It is not given. We don't know what is consciousness, we don't know if artificial neurons that we would consider identical in functionality to natural would support it. If they would, then we could just take them alone and create a self-aware robot that you asked about in your opening post. This is an empirical way of dealing with such problems...
I thought it was pretty obvious
Jump to: