The human brain contains about 10^11 neurons. Each neuron has about 5*10^3 synapses, and signals are transmitted along these synapses at an average frequency of about 10^2Hz. Each signal contains, say, 5 bits. This equals 10^17 ops.

Neurons = 100,000,000,000
Synapses per neuron = 5000
Signal transmission frequency = 100Hz
Signal size = 5 bits
Total analogous computer clock speed = 100,000,000 GHz

So we had 1GHz chips in 2000, we are up to around 1.7GHz in the first half of 2001, so we should reach 2GHz by end of 2001. This doubling effect known as Moore’s law has held up very well since the late 1940s. It shows that computer power doubles approximately every 18 months but recently has been increasing to every 12 months. If we assume this trend continues then the table below shows the number of years it will take before a computer has the same operational speed of the human brain.

Or to put it in a different perspective: If your current desktop PC or Laptop currently runs at 1GHz, then 100 million of those machines combined into one machine will be the equivalent power of a human brain. And we should achieve that by 2030.

Year, Clock Speed in GHz
2000 1
2001 2
2002 4
2003 8
2004 16
2005 32
2006 64
2007 128
2008 256
2009 512
2010 1024
2011 2048
2012 4096
2013 8192
2014 16384
2015 32768
2016 65536
2017 131072
2018 262144
2019 524288
2020 1048576
2021 2097152
2022 4194304
2023 8388608
2024 16777216
2025 33554432
2026 67108864
2027 134217728

Neat huh? Or is that simply mind-boggling?

Cris

oh yeah, it certainly is really neat...cool!

But I think the doubling effect will slow down, so it will take longer then you concluded.
But we never in know in our recent technology.

Kned,

I agree, in this case seeing is believing. But I don’t think the lack of power in an individual chip will change the end result – equivalent human power by 2030. The brain is essentially a massively parallel system. So even if we only achieve 1/100th of the ultimate chip power I stated then coordinating the results of 100 chips to form a brain should be quite achievable. Heck, my company has been building parallel systems with over 100 processors for the past 30 years, and we have systems in the field with over 1000 processors.

There are some technical barriers to continually increasing clock speed while making the chips smaller. Even Intel with their Itanium family has introduced significant parallelism and the clock speeds are not as high as the Pentium IV, but the effective processing power is much higher.

But consider what happens beyond 2030, assuming that we have achieved equivalent human brain power. Do we then say, “that’s it, we’ve done enough?” I don’t think so. The implication in my table is that the following year we would have double brain power, etc etc. And then we are simply in a realm that is unimaginable.

The future will certainly be very interesting.

Cris

When I was searching for something interesting in web about AI, I first found archives of this forum and viewed few topics “from the beginning”.
I think this one of them should be picked up.

First of all there is no 32GHz computers now... very pity. And there will be no 64Ghz in 2006.

But at the second - in my opinion – the math calculating up there is for the size of memory database of “brain” but not for processor speed, computer power etc.

When I was searching for something interesting in web about AI, I first found archives of this forum and viewed few topics “from the beginning”.
I think this one of them should be picked up.

First of all there is no 32GHz computers now... very pity. And there will be no 64Ghz in 2006.

But at the second - in my opinion – the math calculating up there is for the size of memory database of “brain” but not for processor speed, computer power etc.
Agreed. Since no one can even estimate what percentage of the brain is used exclusively for storage and how much is dedicated to processing (and there appears to be a major overlap between the two), the numbers presented here are rather meaningless.

Exponential expansion is a humbling thing.

You know our parents and technology? Think how much more in the dust even the tech-savvy of us are gonna be in fifty or sixty years.

But even if we make a computer which is strictly as powerful as the human brain, we haven't even begun to touch how to make a computer have a conscious experience. If our chips are fast enough, and processing in parallel, we've got the ingredients for an incredibly powerful imitation of a conscious human. Would that be the same as duplicating self-awareness? --or at that point, does the fact that the 'hardware' is different (brains and computers) matter any longer, since both are 'running' a mind?

Exponential expansion is a humbling thing.

You know our parents and technology? Think how much more in the dust even the tech-savvy of us are gonna be in fifty or sixty years.

But even if we make a computer which is strictly as powerful as the human brain, we haven't even begun to touch how to make a computer have a conscious experience. If our chips are fast enough, and processing in parallel, we've got the ingredients for an incredibly powerful imitation of a conscious human. Would that be the same as duplicating self-awareness? --or at that point, does the fact that the 'hardware' is different (brains and computers) matter any longer, since both are 'running' a mind?

It will still be vastly different. Two things a conputer cannot have are original thoughts and emotions. It is primarily emotions that makes us human.

What is the fastest computer processor created to date? Say one of the government super-computers. Not the ones we have access to in retail.

Also, in 25 years, who knows what else we will have come up with. Maybe we will be able to invent a new type of consciousness. One can only hope and then, perhaps, fear.

It will still be vastly different. Two things a conputer cannot have are original thoughts and emotions. It is primarily emotions that makes us human.
Thats a pretty broad and assertive comment to make without any sort of backup? What makes humans so special that we couldn't duplicate the processes of the brain on a different type of hardware?

-AntonK

Thats a pretty broad and assertive comment to make without any sort of backup? What makes humans so special that we couldn't duplicate the processes of the brain on a different type of hardware?

-AntonK

No backup needed. Humans are special compared to a machine for the two exact reasons I stated. How about you telling us exactly how you would go about programming true emotions into a computer? And how would you program it to give it the ability to have original thought? It's simply a machine and always will be - it can only know facts you have already told it and that it's allowed to search and find. You cannot teach it to connect unrelated facts as a human does when one of us has a moment of inspiration. If you think so, please tell me and all the AI scientists how you would go about it.

Thats really not a great argument. I have no idea how-to build a computer to mimic emotions. My best guess is that emotions are the filtering of primitive instincts (lower brain) through the consciousness, logic and understanding of our higher brain. I see no reason why this can't be the same for a machine.

The reason I say your argument isn't great is because just because I can't design a computer in no way says it can't be done. What I can show you is that what the human brain is made out of (the hardware) is simply neurons. We can analyze neurons and see exactly what they do. Its not really complicated. They're basically ion transfer cells. We can model what individual neurons do with some clever math. Just take a look at the field of neural networks. Now how does the a collection of these simple machines (neurons) turn into the intelligence that is the human brain? Its all in the massive complexity and in the specific configuration. There are animals with brain sizes comparable to ours yet they do not show the type of intelligence we do. Therefore the answer is obviously in the configuration of these neurons. We can build silicon circuits which can mimic the actions of neurons and implement functions actually more complex. There is no reason then to believe that a certain configuration and complexity of these silicon circuits would not result in intelligence just like humans.

Image for a moment that we took a single cell from your brain and analyzed it, we completely understood its function precisely. We then built a circuit which could exactly mimic that single neuron. So far its really not that far fetched an idea. Then imagine we were able to insert that circuit back where your neuron was. Your brain would function EXACTLY the same. Now why couldn't we simply do this for 2 neurons? 4 neurons? 100 neurons? A million neurons? a billion neurons? The fact is there is nothing magical about our brains. Its vastly complex and very special in that no other species or thing that we know of has the complexity and configuration of ours. But in the end, its just hardware.

-AntonK

No backup needed. Humans are special compared to a machine for the two exact reasons I stated.

What makes you think that those two things are

1) real, and
2) impossible to duplicate on a machine?

What makes you think you're not a machine yourself? I've yet to hear of a single bodily function that must be forever inexplicable by mechanical reasons. Quite the contrary, in fact - the more layers we peel away, the more it seems that we're simply machines ourselves. Complex and extraordinary, but not magical, as you seem to imply.

It's simply a machine and always will be - it can only know facts you have already told it and that it's allowed to search and find. You cannot teach it to connect unrelated facts as a human does when one of us has a moment of inspiration.

You need to qualify this. Merely stating it is not an argument.

Just because we don't see a computer which is incontrovertibly conscious, and just because we can't yet conceive of the proper series of program instructions which could instantiate a consciousness on a computer, *doesn't* by any means demonstrate that such a condition (a computer having thoughts, experience, concsciousness, etc.) is impossible.

"What I can show you is that what the human brain is made out of (the hardware) is simply neurons."
We had also better be careful of equating bits and neurons too hastily. We're dealing with entirely different substrates here. In particular, it's not really clear how consciousness emerges as a property of certain kinds of matter. This is a philosophical problem of interaction. For a mind has to have certain properties to qualify as a mind (and not just a brain or a computer, for instance):

1) Non-localized. That is, even though we can say my thoughts are *in* my brain in some sense, it remains impossible to point at the part of the brain that creates a conscious experience. The 'mind' doesn't occupy any actual space like the brain does.

2) Non-deterministic. Here's the big problem for AI, since computers are completely deterministic and minds are not. Your thoughts are free from causual interaction in a way that a computers operations can never be; while it's already a stretch to say computers 'think,' 'know' or 'remember,' it is even more difficult to think of a computer having a 'choice'.

Thats really not a great argument. I have no idea how-to build a computer to mimic emotions. My best guess is that emotions are the filtering of primitive instincts (lower brain) through the consciousness, logic and understanding of our higher brain. I see no reason why this can't be the same for a machine.

The reason I say your argument isn't great is because just because I can't design a computer in no way says it can't be done. What I can show you is that what the human brain is made out of (the hardware) is simply neurons. We can analyze neurons and see exactly what they do. Its not really complicated. They're basically ion transfer cells. We can model what individual neurons do with some clever math. Just take a look at the field of neural networks. Now how does the a collection of these simple machines (neurons) turn into the intelligence that is the human brain? Its all in the massive complexity and in the specific configuration. There are animals with brain sizes comparable to ours yet they do not show the type of intelligence we do. Therefore the answer is obviously in the configuration of these neurons. We can build silicon circuits which can mimic the actions of neurons and implement functions actually more complex. There is no reason then to believe that a certain configuration and complexity of these silicon circuits would not result in intelligence just like humans.

Image for a moment that we took a single cell from your brain and analyzed it, we completely understood its function precisely. We then built a circuit which could exactly mimic that single neuron. So far its really not that far fetched an idea. Then imagine we were able to insert that circuit back where your neuron was. Your brain would function EXACTLY the same. Now why couldn't we simply do this for 2 neurons? 4 neurons? 100 neurons? A million neurons? a billion neurons? The fact is there is nothing magical about our brains. Its vastly complex and very special in that no other species or thing that we know of has the complexity and configuration of ours. But in the end, its just hardware.

-AntonK

Just hardware, eh? Wow! That's got to go down in the books as the understatement of the century!

Keep in mind that even though I am a scientist by profession (biology, psychology) I still have to say that your expectations for science and technology are unreasonable.

And while you expect great complexity, you still tend toward over-simplifying the problem. While it may someday be possible to precisely mimic the operation of a single neuron and then replicate it as many times as we choose, that still cannot function as a human brain. To use your phrase - THAT would still be just hardware.

It might be well for you yo remember the old maxim "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" and that applies perfectly when speaking of the brain.

A computer is a computer and is just a computer. Regardless of it's size, computing power and how much data it can store, it will still be just a computer - a number-cruncher and data analyzer. You cannot program it to develop a consciousness, to feel true emotions and many other human attributes. The brain and it's mind are much more complex than any inorganic mechanism. The whole really IS greater than the sum of all it's parts.

The beginning of the forum is very interesting.
But after it going every day discussions “possible or not” like yours. Stupid or not.

2 Light
Of course without psychology and biology it just a computer and a hardware. And i.m.h.o. when it will be created a half of scientific work on it will be psychology work.


ps: sorry for my eng

pps: someone here already have a parry possible or not ? ;)

The beginning of the forum is very interesting.
But after it going every day discussions “possible or not” like yours. Stupid or not.

2 Light
Of course without psychology and biology it just a computer and a hardware. And i.m.h.o. when it will be created a half of scientific work on it will be psychology work.


Interesting, but it immediately raises the question: how do you do "psychology work" on a computer? Easy enough to say... but how do you actually do that?

Interesting, but it immediately raises the question: how do you do "psychology work" on a computer? Easy enough to say... but how do you actually do that?

Maybe someday we'll have to figure that out. MRI, CPU-Scan?

I ? I just interesting in Psychology, etology, programming, and data sequence. And now searching for latest news about MI creating.

If some one know how to do this, he would be a little richer than Bill-gey tssss... :)

Keep in mind that even though I am a scientist by profession (biology, psychology) I still have to say that your expectations for science and technology are unreasonable.

Why?

And while you expect great complexity, you still tend toward over-simplifying the problem. While it may someday be possible to precisely mimic the operation of a single neuron and then replicate it as many times as we choose, that still cannot function as a human brain.

Why not?

A computer is a computer and is just a computer. [...] You cannot program it to develop a consciousness, to feel true emotions and many other human attributes.

Why not?

The brain and it's mind are much more complex than any inorganic mechanism.

True, but it doesn't mean that it transcends mechanics.

The whole really IS greater than the sum of all it's parts.
You don't know that. You assume it. I don't find it to be a reasonable assumption, without an argument.

So, Light, do you suppose that there is something other than 'just neurons'? Anything supernatural? If we assume there is no supernatural element then there is no reason to assume that logical construction of the brain cannot be duplicated by another medium.

For example, it does not matter to you that the atoms which make up your brain change (in part) from day to day. Why should it matter that nerve impulses are controlled by voltage gated ion channels and not MOSFET switches?

It's not the material that counts, it's the what the system does - and you cannot possibly state that 'emotions' and 'feelings' are anything more than that if you disregard the supernatural.

Current AI is a (as you would probably agree) blind, mechanical 'dumb' computer trick that looks as if it's clever. However, that is the so-called top down approach. to build AI from artifical neurons (...bottom up) would create something that works in the same way as a brain.

Why?

Why not?

Why not?

True, but it doesn't mean that it transcends mechanics.

You don't know that. You assume it. I don't find it to be a reasonable assumption, without an argument.

Funkstar, I thought that you were serious after the first one or two "why's" but by the time I got to the last one I realized you cannot be.

To not understand how the 'whole is greater than the sum of it's parts', someone would have to be either very young, very foolish, or simply wanting to argue for the fun of it.

So, Light, do you suppose that there is something other than 'just neurons'? Anything supernatural? If we assume there is no supernatural element then there is no reason to assume that logical construction of the brain cannot be duplicated by another medium.

For example, it does not matter to you that the atoms which make up your brain change (in part) from day to day. Why should it matter that nerve impulses are controlled by voltage gated ion channels and not MOSFET switches?

It's not the material that counts, it's the what the system does - and you cannot possibly state that 'emotions' and 'feelings' are anything more than that if you disregard the supernatural.

Current AI is a (as you would probably agree) blind, mechanical 'dumb' computer trick that looks as if it's clever. However, that is the so-called top down approach. to build AI from artifical neurons (...bottom up) would create something that works in the same way as a brain.

Sorry, but you are taking a much too narrow view. I wouldn't classify love and hate as supernational - but do you deny that they exist? I would hardly think so.

Funkstar, I thought that you were serious after the first one or two "why's" but by the time I got to the last one I realized you cannot be.

No, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning, if you have any.

To not understand how the 'whole is greater than the sum of it's parts', someone would have to be either very young, very foolish, or simply wanting to argue for the fun of it.
Yours was a vague statement and I gave a vague reply, so I'll let your rude reply pass. But to clarify: I think you hold an irrational belief that our brains are somehow special and essentially supernatural, and that you use this belief as an argument. The "parts" I allude to, are the material neurons and their interaction. Macroscale emergent phenomena does not mean that the simpler microscale understanding is insufficient to replicate it. You claim that even with a perfect simulation of neuron interactions in vast numbers, we cannot get the same functionality of a human brain. Back that up.

Here's my unrequested opinion on the matter:

I'm totally with Funkstar on this.
Light, do you think that there's a qualitative difference between organic and inorganic media? I tend to think that a computation is equally valid whether it's performed on an abacus, a computer or a brain.

Also, the phrase "the whole really IS greater than the sum of all it's parts" has always sounded rather mystical to me. The whole, by definition, is exactly the sum of its parts. If you find that they don't quite add up, it just means that all of the interactions have not yet been considered.

Also, the phrase "the whole really IS greater than the sum of all it's parts" has always sounded rather mystical to me.
I'd always interpreted it from a values standpoint, ie the value of the whole is greater than the sum of the values of the parts.

Interactions could be the key, as you suggested. If interactions are considered parts (they are usually not), then I suppose the whole would be exactly the sum of the parts. But then it wouldn't even make sense to talk about the sum of the parts, would it?

Anyway.

It's pretty clear that a brain is more than a bunch of neurons.
But an AI would just as clearly be more than a bunch of simulated neurons.

If you allow that a suitably connected set of neurons becomes something more (a sentient being), then it seem logical to also allow that a suitably connected set of simulated neurons should also become something more (a sentient being).

In both cases, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Here's my unrequested opinion on the matter:

I'm totally with Funkstar on this.
Light, do you think that there's a qualitative difference between organic and inorganic media? I tend to think that a computation is equally valid whether it's performed on an abacus, a computer or a brain.

Also, the phrase "the whole really IS greater than the sum of all it's parts" has always sounded rather mystical to me. The whole, by definition, is exactly the sum of its parts. If you find that they don't quite add up, it just means that all of the interactions have not yet been considered.

Laika, Funkstar, and any others that don't understand the 'sum of the parts' thing. We are NOT talking about simple mathematical addition. Evidentially, you've got some way to go before you can understand the principle involved. There's nothing at all mystical or supernatural about it.

And as I've said earlier, there's also nothing mystical or supernatural about all the human emotions like love, hate, fear, ambition, etc. But do you deny that any of them exist?

If you had the time and resources you could build a neuro-net computer the size of the planet Earth. But someone please tell me how you could ever endow it with genuine human emotions? And how could you teach it to have real original thoughts? A simple example would be inventing the wheel with no prior knowledge of it. It takes a human to "connect the dots", if you will, of totally unrelated bits of information. Yes, it would make mathematical computations in the order of tera-tera-teraflops. But that just numerical calculations and data-sorting which is nowhere near original thought nor mimicking human emotions.

Light,

You're just repeating your position. You haven't given an argument!

Pete,

It's pretty clear that a brain is more than a bunch of neurons.
I disagree. I don't think it's at all clear that a brain is more than a bunch of neurons, although a suitably connected set of them certainly does constitute a sentient being.

In my opinion,

A bunch of suitably connected neurons = A sentient being.

a suitably connected set of neurons becomes something more (a sentient being)
This seems like word play.


Light,

You say...There's nothing at all mystical or supernatural about it. there's also nothing mystical or supernatural about all the human emotions like love, hate, fear, ambition, etc
...and I agree entirely. It is you who seeks to make a qualitative distinction between such emotions running on biological and artificial hardware, invoking a seemingly mystical separation between the two.

Light,

If you had the time and resources you could build a neuro-net computer the size of the planet Earth. But someone please tell me how you could ever endow it with genuine human emotions? Presumably the same way the brain does it now. Why isn’t this just a matter of reverse engineering? There are only neurons, synapses and hormones. Why do you think we cannot replicate the effects they generate?

And how could you teach it to have real original thoughts?Again, the same way the brain does it now. A new born baby has little ability at anything since it has very few synaptic connections. As it flails around, sucks, feels, it generates stimuli to the brain that force massive numbers of synaptic connections. An artificial brain could possibly take the same path once we understand more of the fundamentals of how the brain operates. I don’t see any show stopping issues here other than a tremendous amount of fundamental research and experimentation. First we need some computing power at appropriate levels to help us experiment.

A simple example would be inventing the wheel with no prior knowledge of it. It takes a human to "connect the dots", if you will, of totally unrelated bits of information. Yes, it would make mathematical computations in the order of tera-tera-teraflops. But that just numerical calculations and data-sorting which is nowhere near original thought nor mimicking human emotions.Then clearly we would need to generate different algorithms rather than just use sheer power. The human brain isn’t a fast computer. It comprises some 200 billion small and relatively slow microprocessors we call neurons. It is the vast constantly changing patterns of networks that form its operational mechanism that we have yet to fully comprehend. But that seems to be nothing more than an issue of reverse engineering.

How long would it take just to build 200 billion small microprocessors?

AB,

First of all there is no 32GHz computers now... very pity. And there will be no 64Ghz in 2006.Not true. While individual microprocessors are not at that speed there are chips at that speed or very close. What Intel has done is place several microprocessors (cores) on the same chip. We now have 4 way core chips and 8 way cores are imminent. The effects is to have chips operating at close to Moores law as predicted. But for human brain emulation this is the right direction. The brain doesn't consist of fast microprocessors but a very large number of small ones that we know as neurons.

We are still on track to have human brain level compute power in a few years.

tab,

How long would it take just to build 200 billion small microprocessors? I'd still expect we would have fewer but a lot faster. We have a 128p itanium processor in our lab now and we are starting to build a 256p system now. That's about 2 billion neurons. I'll need to build a hundred of them.

We don't have any budget for that. But the main problem won't be the compute power but the interconnectivity matrix needed. Constructing a mechanism to dynamically change a highly complex topology rapidly and maintain high bandwidth when needed is going to be a real challenge.

Current SAN technology needs to also go up a notch to help here. That should come as processor speeds also increase.

So to answer your question of how long - well right now if someone would put up the money. And it isn't that much - about $1B at current prices, using current off the shelf Intel Itanium processors. Bringing up the 128p took about a week so 100 systems in parrallel wouldn't take much longer. But the SAN would be the biggest bottleneck.

Isn't Bill Gates interested in financing this sort of technology?

He will when he sees an opportunity for profit. For the moment we are using such systems in the BI space (Business Intelligence) where there is the opportunity for profit. And we are kinda competing with MS anyway.

How long would it take just to build 200 billion small microprocessors?
Well, it takes a human body nine months or so; one day it should be possible to equal or better this rate.

Recreating a human mind in AI form will be only one among many things that will almost certainly be possible. Simulating emotions and creative thinking are certainly going to be a challenge, but once it can be done, an almost infinite realm of new endeavour should open up. Imagine designing new emotions for an artificial mind; new types of experience we can only dream of.
The joy a computer might learn to feel could be like nothing humans are familiar with; the joy of correlation between facts and self knowledge to a depth we could never be capable of.
Here is a piece of speculation about the sorts of mental landscapes which might emerge after hundreds, or thousands of years of AI autoevolution...
certainly it is science fiction, but it expresses the thought that developing human level AI is just the start, not the end, of this process.
http://www.orionsarm.com/sophontology/Toposophic_Mental_Abilities.html

Just hardware, eh? Wow! That's got to go down in the books as the understatement of the century!

Keep in mind that even though I am a scientist by profession (biology, psychology) I still have to say that your expectations for science and technology are unreasonable.

And while you expect great complexity, you still tend toward over-simplifying the problem. While it may someday be possible to precisely mimic the operation of a single neuron and then replicate it as many times as we choose, that still cannot function as a human brain. To use your phrase - THAT would still be just hardware.

It might be well for you yo remember the old maxim "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" and that applies perfectly when speaking of the brain.

A computer is a computer and is just a computer. Regardless of it's size, computing power and how much data it can store, it will still be just a computer - a number-cruncher and data analyzer. You cannot program it to develop a consciousness, to feel true emotions and many other human attributes. The brain and it's mind are much more complex than any inorganic mechanism. The whole really IS greater than the sum of all it's parts.


i would have to agree with lights take to this argument,


a computer is a computer, i do not believe humans are just mere machines, there is alot more than computing that goes on within us all,

a computer in my opinion will never be able to become aware and concious or itself,

do yout hink a robot will ever question why it has been created?





you can put asmuch software and hardware and memory into a robot as you want, but that will not result in awareness, memory doubling will not create a fully functional free thinking unit,

you might think im a spiritual non scientific nut, but i believe we cannot create an equal to a human with tech,
peace,

You question how a robot can ever question why it was created...

How is it that we question this? One thing I believe we should get out of the way. EmptyForceOfChi, do you agree that there is nothing supernatural, and nothing mystical about the brain? That it is indeed just a collection of hardware (albeit incredibly complex organic neuron based hardware)? I think the answer to these questions is very important first off.

-AntonK

You question how a robot can ever question why it was created...

How is it that we question this? One thing I believe we should get out of the way. EmptyForceOfChi, do you agree that there is nothing supernatural, and nothing mystical about the brain? That it is indeed just a collection of hardware (albeit incredibly complex organic neuron based hardware)? I think the answer to these questions is very important first off.

-AntonK


i believ we are as much spiritual as we are physical, i believe we all emit energy, and are energy.


i am very spiritual, but not religious atall, if i were to class myself as anything atall, i would have to say, im daoist (taoist) but im not even fully that either, i am a "possabilityist" i believe i know nothign and anything is possible.


peace,

It is interesting that you state that you know nothing and anything is possible, but you debate a point based upon belief in a unobserved spirituality. Is anything possible or are you just regurgitating sapien-centric doctrine?

- Kit

Okay. Now this isn't my call, since of course I am no moderator, but I think this discussion should probably stick to non-spiritual, non-supernatural, and non-mystical ideas and facts. You're free to discuss other ideas (such that human intelligence is the result of something supernatural), but I will just have to bow out of the conversation. Thanks.

-AntonK

It is interesting that you state that you know nothing and anything is possible, but you debate a point based upon belief in a unobserved spirituality. Is anything possible or are you just regurgitating sapien-centric doctrine?

- Kit


there are things that i believe in more than others, but i will never completely dismiss a theory or philosophy, because i believe humans dont know know as much as we think we do,

think of me more as an observer to existance itself, i take everybodies side, because i know what i personally believe in ist true 100%, its just concept, and i just am,

EmptyForce,

Unless you can proove otherwise we must proceed with the assumption that everything is physical since we have never observed or detected anything else and have no good reason to suspect there is anything else. In which case understanding the human brain is a matter of research and producing an artifical version is a matter of reverse engineering.

Once in manmade form I would expect we can make significant improvements to its ability and speed. As for self-awareness: we see mild forms of this in some of the mroe advanced animals, dogs, some primates, dolphins, etc. In lower forms it does not appear to be present. Even a human child of a few months is not self-aware. Self awarness appears to be an emergent property that results when brain complexity reaches and exceeds a threshold level. In simpler animals their brains simply cannot reach the requisite number of neural nets.

This doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption.

Empty,

i believ we are as much spiritual as we are physical, i believe we all emit energy, and are energy.

i am very spiritual, but not religious atall, if i were to class myself as anything atall, i would have to say, im daoist (taoist) but im not even fully that either, i am a "possabilityist" i believe i know nothign and anything is possible.Probably best discussed in the religion forum.

EmptyForce,

a computer is a computer, i do not believe humans are just mere machines, there is alot more than computing that goes on within us all,But it's difficult to compare with the current state of computing. Our brain is some 20,000 times more powerful than the best computer yet developed. When computers come up to speed and go beyond what makes you think they will not be able to outthink us? What is it you think we have they can't have?

a computer in my opinion will never be able to become aware and concious or itself, Why not, what's your rationale?

do yout hink a robot will ever question why it has been created?If it has appropriate AI skills then why not?

you can put asmuch software and hardware and memory into a robot as you want, but that will not result in awareness, memory doubling will not create a fully functional free thinking unit,Again why not?

you might think im a spiritual non scientific nut, but i believe we cannot create an equal to a human with tech,Again, why not? What is the rational basis of your statements?