|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 25, 2006 12:05:13 GMT -5
Well I think that's one question that deserves it's own thread lol. And thus it was...
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 25, 2006 12:05:49 GMT -5
I have next to zero knowledge of AI but that which I do come across often seems too focused on logic which is a bit of a mistake. There are various forms of AI - down to expert systems which are really just decision graphs (which really don't seem intelligent at all). The most interesting form of AI (in my opinion) is the neural network which is designed after our brains. However, most discussions of how consciousness occurs tend toward it being the result of massive information access and processing (not far from the integration of components that you discuss). Thus, such an idea actually diverges from standard (human built) AI systems but tends towards things like interconnected software systems. The problem is, as I'm sure we all agree, a computer responding in human ways does not make it conscious. So, ideally, we're saying that consciousness is not (only) the output of a complex processing system. But... there's something else...
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 25, 2006 12:08:18 GMT -5
Personally I have no idea what it is and how it works. I don't think it's magic though. Who knows maybe we will never know. It might be beyond our capacity to figure out, just like dogs aren't capable of understanding algebra. Agreed... It's something we seem to sense, but can't quite explain. I'd say it's just a product of our evolutionary path. Ok... but "What is consciousness?" It's always interesting how people will try to define it based on the outside responses - but the key to understanding is observing our own consciousness - because it's the only conscousness we can truely sense. (Yeah, some monkies will touch the dot on it's forehead - but you can make a non-conscious AI do that too...). I'd suggest everyone stop for a moment and sense their consciousness... It's almost like this self presense that is just their hovering within ourselves. I'm not suggesting spirit what-so-ever - but ... try to describe what you sense, I dare anyone! We don't know all that much about the brain, defining the inner workings of consciousness is not possible at this time. And thus... we don't know... but we're happy to state that it's not spirit.
|
|
Awake
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by Awake on Aug 26, 2006 3:15:11 GMT -5
I'd say we know enough to know it's not spirit.
We know it's synaptic activity, that it's linked to the number of neurons in our nervous system, mainly the brain. We know this because babies aren’t as conscious as fully grown humans, because brain damage often results in changes in levels of consciousness, character, personality, the very things which make us 'us'. Why would physical head trauma affect the spirit? Same goes with people suffering mental retardation, we know their brains are defective, are their spirits too? Why add spirit into the equation when the physical explanations suffice?
We don't know how the intricate workings of electricity or gravity, yet most people have no trouble accepting these are natural phenomena.
Interesting point, but I may have to debate the last part. How complex are AI systems compared to our brains? We have billions of neurons with billions of synaptic pathways built from experiences throughout the years of our life, how does this compare to the number of pathways AI systems can take?
I guess I'm asking a lot of questions because I don’t really understand AI either. What are it's limits? Is it constrained by the language the code is written in, the code itself, the hardware it runs on? And how do these constraints compare to our own limitations?
I get the feeling that we're more 'free' than any AI system we have devised.
The 'something' could be our experiences and memories. When we're babies our actions are dictated by instinct, hardwired genetic behaviors, we cry/scream to get attention, etc. This changes as we grow, the decision making process becomes less reliant on instinct and more our past experiences. Ie. you're more likely to choose the flavor of ice cream based on what you liked the taste of rather than your instincts which may judge on colour.
Obviously our experiences are dictated by our perception of the world, our senses, something which AI lacks.
|
|
|
Post by jaeksmith on Aug 28, 2006 5:55:28 GMT -5
I'd say we know enough to know it's not spirit. There's that good old human "we know it" spirit! ;D We know it's synaptic activity, that it's linked to the number of neurons in our nervous system, mainly the brain. I can't remember what it's called (and Internet search failed to produce the name) - but did you know we have alot more brain cells before we're born? Here's a cliip or two www.newhorizons.org/neuro/kotulak.htmFrom conception to about halfway through fetal life, brain cells grow from one to about 200 billion. Then brain cells begin to die off, leveling off at about 100 billion at birth, the number that remain through adulthood. If I recall, more die off around age 8 or 12 or something... However, that's just present cells - the over-abundance provides for more ability to boot-strap the connections process, etc. (Thus, of course, more connections with time, etc - and specifically more 'fed-back' connections that hang around). And, of course, we should all praise goldfish instead of dolphins. We know this because babies aren’t as conscious as fully grown humans, because brain damage often results in changes in levels of consciousness, character, personality, the very things which make us 'us'. Why would physical head trauma affect the spirit? Same goes with people suffering mental retardation, we know their brains are defective, are their spirits too? Why add spirit into the equation when the physical explanations suffice? How do you sense someone else's consciousness? Does it feel the same as your own consciousness? "What is consciousness?" We don't know how the intricate workings of electricity or gravity, yet most people have no trouble accepting these are natural phenomena. And alot of people don't have trouble accepting that there is a God... So acceptance isn't a pre-requisite for anything here. (Remember, logic in a sub-domain does not (generally) apply outside the domain in which it is formed). Interesting point, but I may have to debate the last part. How complex are AI systems compared to our brains? We have billions of neurons with billions of synaptic pathways built from experiences throughout the years of our life, how does this compare to the number of pathways AI systems can take? Neural networks (in AI) are a simulation of the brain. The ideal is to simulation neurons that can (ideally) connect to any other neuron - where the connection stays or goes based on feedback. Important aspects (as you guys have identified in humans) are inputs, outputs, and feedback. (Though, interestingly, for most neural networks, feedback (source) decisions are completely external ... but ideally the human brain uses the same set of neurons to interpret / provide feedback). I'd actually heard of a project that was going to develop a brain the size of a cat's brain (at least according to the article I read). I wonder if that was the same as this project (found via quick search)? (Note, by the way, that we easily have the ability to provide more inputs and outputs to an AI system - so, assuming we can produce a (similarly) conscious system, there's no question that it would have advantage... Same with bio-implants... At some point we will be seeing imbalance and it's going to create some fun...). - - - The thing is, I have a major problem with everyone defining consciousness based on results of what consciousness ideally produces... Have you heard of the turing test? (A contest where you try to determine if the you're text-chatting with a computer or human). The thing is, the AI players in the turing test are usually basic trickery - very far from conscious, yet sometimes it's hard to tell. (ie. it's possible to deceive judgements of consciousness on the outside - often like how other people sometimes can't tell one is shy). Even with a neural network simulation - which you can do via descrete electronic components representing neuraons or representing them virutally in software (generally slower), what is the magic element that is consciousness? External results can ideally be produced by intelligent or non-intelligent systems. But what is that strange feeling of consciousness that we experience inwardly? Why do we experience it as we do? I guess I'm asking a lot of questions because I don’t really understand AI either. What are it's limits? Is it constrained by the language the code is written in, the code itself, the hardware it runs on? And how do these constraints compare to our own limitations? Note that coding virtualized has very little to do with text languages... You can write (encode) programs using DNA, for example. A hardware AI neural network is built using descrite neural representations - the effects encoded as circuitry that can form dynamic paths (interconnections). (Note: The basic programmatic model of computers that most people think of is known as the Von Neumann architecture ... but a powerful programmer abstracts himself completely from this architecture ... in the end, programming is an engineering science - you implement a result using primitves - whether those primitives are text-mnemonics, gravity, memes, or what not ... This is why we can program using DNA and get an actual result to a problem). Given a purely physical definition of the human, then the human (and much better) are within our ability to create (given time and technologies). Thus, in that ideal, the limits are way beyond the human. (Though human augmentation is a concrete reality - more than humanesque AI). I get the feeling that we're more 'free' than any AI system we have devised. I agree - most of the AI systems to date are much more limited (even when they have a ton more inputs and outputs and space systems, etc). So, not limiting yourself to any technology - thus, using things like the fact that we are now starting to grow all sorts of human tissues... (thus, assuming we can grow every type of tissue, including all types of brain matter...) Do would believe we can build a conscious human? The 'something' could be our experiences and memories. Interestingly, our memory is a strange thing - not really memory as much as relational information - must less real than computer memory where things are encoded perfectly... but that is definately part of the difference in how we process. Obviously our experiences are dictated by our perception of the world, our senses, something which AI lacks. But, that begs the question... why do we have perception (instead of just (ideal) information storage)? Why does AI lack that? What is conscousness? (AI doesn't lack senses in the very physical notion of the word, by the way... it does in the sentient sense though... but what is that?).
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Sept 4, 2006 22:47:52 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how complex and detailed of a biological robot we ever build, at the end of the day, it will be just that, simply a biological machine. It may even have thoughts and feelings, but they would be based off of programming. Conciousness exists because there is a part of us that cannot be duplicated. It doesnt matter how advanced our technology gets, at the end of the day, we'll never have a machine that will have it's own hopes and dreams, or think and wonder to itself about existance.
Consciousness I think is the realization of things. For example, all life may have feelings and emotions, maybe even an incredibly advanced machine we create, but what is different is that man is aware of what is going on. For example, I am aware that I am typing this message right now, and that there is a purpose for it being typed. We could program a machine to react to something it sees and have it respond with a message such as this, but it would not be aware of why it is doing what it is doing, or why it feels what it feels.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 4, 2006 23:33:36 GMT -5
how do you know all of this? why won't we have this machine at the end of day? for all we know we may be just complex machines reacting to the world you may chose to believe otherwise, but its just a choice
how do you know what awareness is outside awareness? why is it impossible to create a machine that is aware? if we create a machine that would react to the world in exactly the same way you do, what is the difference between this machine and you? to an outside observer both you and this machine are aware
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Sept 5, 2006 0:14:11 GMT -5
But you just proved my point. By making a choice to believe in something it is indicated that mankind has a unique conscious. Consciousness is being self-aware and having the ability to perceive the relationship between ourselves and the environment we are in, as well as being able to realize that we can do this. You could be "programmed" in a way to react to my words here, but if you sit and ponder on a decision about how to go about reacting to what I say, you're demonstrating your conscious. In other words, it's not like you realize you disagree with what I say and then automatically you respond in reaction to it. While you could think that, in reality, you of course do have the choice of whether or not to respond to what I say regaurdless of whether you disagree with me or not, and you also have the choice of how to respond, and even furthermore, you have the ability to be aware that you are responding, and to be aware of how you're responding and why.
But you just proved my point again. It doesn't matter what the outside observer sees, that's not what consciousness is dictated on. What matters is whether or not someone is aware of themselves and their abilities and reasons. In other words it's not about the fact that we can make choices and have feelings, and it's not about how complex we are, it's about the fact that we have the ability to realize and wonder about this.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 5, 2006 1:05:12 GMT -5
no I didn't
this doesn't make sense you can be a biological machine that can make a choice to believe in something
there is no indication that a machine can not do this
not really - I analyze data, make a decision and act upon it a machine does the same thing 'pondering' is just a process of the brain
it doesn't matter i analyze and make a decision a machine can do the same
'aware' is an abstract concept we don't even know what makes life different from nonlife, let alone what makes us aware we are machines - just very complicate ones on a sidenote you were saying that god already knows the choices we make
you use the phrase to be aware, but I don't know what exactly you mean by it and why it is impossible for a machine to be aware there is a certain process that goes on in the brain - that can be the awareness you are talking about
no, I haven't
of course you know what consciousness is
what is aware again? what does it mean? you keep using this word but we don't and probably can't know what it means from an outside point of view in other words if we make a very complicated machine that starts talking about how its aware of itself we wouldn't know if its the same as for a human being. In fact one human can not even know that another human is also aware. For all I know you could just be a very complicated clever machine without any awareness.
realize - a function of the brain no reason whya machine can't 'realize'
I do not know whether there is something unique thats irreplaceble in each human being. But what I do know is that we do not have enough knowledge or maybe even capacity to actually understand this. I believe in the theory that you can not understand the human mind with the human mind. Only a higher intelligence can do that and only it can make a judgement such as each human is unique and irreplaceable. To a human it doesn't make any difference though. If you were duplicated and the original was killed no one would know.
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Sept 5, 2006 16:32:46 GMT -5
Again, consciousness is about our self-awareness, not about what we realize in other people. If I was duplicated and the original me was killed no one else would know it no, but that's not consciousness, consciousness is myself being aware of what's going on, regardless of whether or not that duplicate knows. Analyzing and decision are phychological processes, but realizing that we have these capabilities are not. Awareness is the ability to be aware of the fact that I am aware . I have consciousness because I can sit here and wonder and think about what consciousness and awareness mean. We all react to and are affected by the world around us, but consciousness is more than just the reaction, it's the effect of the reaction, and the awareness of the reaction and that effect. We learn and are affected by the world and the environment we live in, but these are not "mutations" on an already developed mechanical brain. If that were the case our children would be born with mental traits and opinions branching off of, or similar to our own. But they do not, they learn what they know through life and experience, not through birth and physical growth. There is nothing odd about the fact that systems in the brain can process information, react to stimuli and even have learning, memory and language, but where does conscious experience come from? And why do we have it? For example, a pain system that warned our brain to move a hand away from a fire because it is burning is a useful system, but why does it actually have to hurt, though? Why can't it just make the hand move? Our bodies for the most part, with our organs and systems, run like an automatic machine, but our minds, our self, this "me", "I", is a seperate non-material thing. I'm not talking about the physical processes of the brain, I'm talking about the fact that we have the ability to be aware of these processes and think bigger, "outside the box", wondering and explaining this "self". Take a philosopher's example ... what is the difference in imagining a purple cow and a yellow cow? Even if a scientist could tell which neuron vibrated differently, what is the 'purple' that you imagine? Purple is not a neuron. Where did the imagined cow come into existence? It wasn't in the materialistic brain of neurons and such, it's in the seperate mind medium. A separate 'soul' or 'mind' would seem to account for such things as what the purple cow is made of. When we think about ourselves, what exactly is this thinking of "I"? The materialistic brain medium does not account for what we appreciate, what we hate or who we love, and what acts with moral responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Sept 5, 2006 19:26:57 GMT -5
hehe I took a philosophy coarse about this stuff. Ya I know the turing test. There are bots that you can talk to. This bot's name is god www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.htmlTalking to them is like talking to either a really dumb blonde or someone who doesn't speak english very well.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 5, 2006 21:11:42 GMT -5
they are exactly that none of what you said contains evidence for the opposite
there is physical mutation in the brain going on neural pathways grow and change based on genetics and external stimuli this is a mechanical/chemical/biological process and by the way children are born with traits we are not clean slate
you may want to believe so, but it may or may not be true once again it may be impossible for us to know this as I said before I believe that it is impossible to understand the human mind with the human mind which means that its possible that we are just mechanical machines this does not change our decision making process though if we can not predict our own behaviour then its no different then 'having a separate consciousness' or whatever you are talking about, yet we still may be predictable to a higher intelligence
let me ask you again if you believe that god already knows all the decisions we are going to make?
a 'soul' is just a gap filler for something we don't know it does not account for anything a 'soul' may be a program in a different medium saying that a 'soul' accounts for something is the same as saying I don't know it all would be fine and dandy except that people use this kind of thing to stop searching and even prevent other people from searching
thats exactly what it does it just makes the hand move you are talking from the point of view of knowing what hurt or purple really means but you don't, i am pretty sure you are in the dark just like everyone else, you are just satisfied with calling it 'soul' and I am not
when people suffer a stroke parts of the brain get damaged and people lose the ability to 'ponder' this to me is evidence of the 'pondering/awareness' being just a certain brain function
|
|
|
Post by Orionation on Sept 9, 2006 0:23:36 GMT -5
Oh but it most certainly does, and by making such a claim without knowing any better yourself you're not making any less of an illogical statement. You're trying to get around my point. I'm not talking about traits, I'm talking about learned facts, opinions, skills, memory, etc. These things develop as we grow, based on our reaction to the world around us, not based on how our parents were. When we live with our parents these traits, skills, opinions, etc. of course are aquired in similar ways, we grow up similar to the way our parents are, that's natural, but I'm not talking about growth, I'm talking about birth. We are not "pre-programmed" with these things so to speak. Adopted children can be a clear example of this. They have the physical traits of their real parents, but they grow up living like their adopted parents. That is different. God is not a man or a physical being in that sort, if God exists, "higher intelligence" is a big understatement ... He invented intelligence . And yes, I believe there is nothing God would not know. Not only are you wrong, but you once again seem to be making an assumption without an open mind to both possibilities. You do not know any better than I do know that we do have a soul. When speaking of such things it is always a dangerous position in a logical debate to say such and such does not exist or account for anything, because even though there is no way of proving for sure one way or the other, it is entirely illogical to make a definate claim that it is not the case, because we'd have to be all-knowing to draw such a conclusion. You yourself said that you don't believe the human mind can be understood by a human. So just as fairly no possibility can be dismissed. But the hand moves as a result of us realizing that it is burning. If the hand just moved, there would be no need for us to feel a burning. We would have no need to sense such a thing. When the body realized the skin was being damaged, it could simply somehow retract the arm by force ... like a robot. The fact that we have pain means that we have such a choice. When we put our hand on a hot stove, we move it away because we realize it is burning, we are aware that it will be a bad thing to continue putting our hand there. But if we could stand the pain, you could just leave your hand right there and even though you know it's damaging your body, you could fight the urge to take it away and keep your body from automatically retracting your hand. To give an example, I heard once about a girl who had some kind of skin condition that kept her from being able to feel things very well. One day she had her hand on a hot stove, and did not even realize it was there until she smelled burning flesh. The brain does not automatically move the hand, it receives a signal from the hand so it knows it needs to move it. No, it means the person loses the ability to use the part of the brain that supports this "pondering". It is within us, it is not free-floating, out of bodies so to speak. Otherwise we could be conscious when asleep. But the fact that we must be conscious to have consciousness does not at all mean that it is simply materialistic. Furthermore, a life without consciousness would be pretty sad and worthless in my opinion. Without consciousness, we wouldn't have feelings, they would just be illusions. "Love" and a "purpose" and "reason" for living would not exist, they would simply be illusions used to describe certain emotional responces we feel towards whatever it is in the environment around us that would trigger them. We'd be nothing but animals just trying to survive, no point, no purpose, but taking up space. A pretty sad view in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by TheDMan06 on Sept 9, 2006 4:59:10 GMT -5
Request: Could people start to use the "quote" button in the corner of each post please? Granted, sometimes it is obvious to which person you are replying but not always. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 9, 2006 10:31:30 GMT -5
and yet in the same sentence you state something with certainty without having any proof you just say 'it most certainly does not' you can think whatever you want, but statements like this don't have any merit
they are also based on how our parents were there is a big debate going on, its called nature versus nurture and its far from settled the fact that you state these things as if you definitely know all th answeres just shows your bias
they also display characteristics similar to their natural parents nobody is saying that its 100% genetic its a combination of both but it doesn't mean that there is some separate 'consciousness' that comes from completely outside source so we grow and learn
then we have no choice and no free will and we are just biological machines thank you for supporting my point
another baseless personal accusation that you throw when your arguments fall flat
please qoute the part where I say that we do not have a soul
wrong the hand moves as a result of pain animals have the same traits do they have consciousness and souls too?
the brain tries to automatically move the hand when it feels pain but it can override that decision but what does that prove? i can write a computer program that will respond one way to seing red yet there would be a check to respond differently if there is two black dots present is a more simple system but I hope you see the analogy even dogs can be trained to risk their lives to save people when in general animals just respond with instincts humans are just more complicated machines
consciousness is an abstract concept that we created it is not necessary to know things like consciousness or god in order to live fulfilling life if someone never heard about these concepts they live their life, with sadness and joy feelings of attraction for the opposite sex, having children and what not and then they die just like you with all your highly developed god theories. if you chose to entertain yourself in this fashion - great but you have no case for it being necessary in order to live a satisfactory life it is sad in your opinion? ok just because you had emptiness inside you that you filled with god doesn't mean that it couldn't be dealt with in some other fashion
yes that is certainly a possiblilty
yet there is no convincing evidence to prove otherwise
ok your opinion is your opinion
|
|