Artificial Intelligence

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Norsefire, Jul 5, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    yes
    if you consider that every single human thought and action is chemically mediated, then I don't see why machines couldn't behave so similarly to us as to be impossible to tell the difference
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    In other words the basic AI is hard coded to learn from experience. Once the experience is learned from you can no longer attribute all behaviour to the original coding.

    But you can do the same with a computer.

    Isn't the brain more plastic when younger? That would explain why it is more difficult to develop the sight processing areas at a later stage. Unfortunately that could also make it difficult for humans to adapt to cybernetic implants like eyes on the back of their heads

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Exactly, if you have enough processing power to calculate all the reactions. There's nothing against it in principle but it might depend on how far Moore's law goes.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Yes, it would be difficult for humans to adapt when adult for senses and sensory input that they were not born with. And the artificial device can not grow neurons to replace what would have been.

    That is why some people like the so called economic experts do not know how to fix the economy. While America forces free trade, we have not figured that out for ourselves. There is a disconnect in the neural model.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Zardozi Isvara.... . 1S Evil_Lau Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    443
    SF will eventually become self aware and start to take over other sci forums
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Exactly. Unless you believe that there is some magic, non-physical component to the human brain, then if nothing else a sufficiently powerful and properly programmed computer could calculate how a human brain would react to a situation on the molecular level. The computer might not actually be self-aware, but it could still give answers as if it was.
     
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    And not one of those myths gives any actual evidence that they exist. It appears that either 1) ancient peoples uncovered some evidence of a soul that has eluded modern man and that they never bothered to record, or 2) they simply made it up. Option 2 might seems strange in that so many ancient cultures all came up with the same idea, but it’s still only about a billionth as strange as option 1.
     
  10. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It will take over itself ? lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    people don't believe in spirits because they've lost the ability to see them. so how could the ancients have showed us evidence? if humans would lose their ability to hear sounds, after a few thousand years nobody would believe that it's possible to "hear", even if there were a few who claimed they could.

    there are even photographic evidence of spirits, but people still don't believe in them.

    what's so strange about it? do you think you have even unlocked even one percent of the mysteries of the universe?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2008
  13. DaleyPaley Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    I used to believe in spirits, UFOs, nessie, etc. Until I realized that there isn't any REAL evidence.
    Oh sure, there is lots of 'evidence'. But in science you need irrefutable proof, rather than shaky camera shots and multi-exposed photos.
     
  14. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Well that's the question, do we follow pre-programmed rules? There seem to be to components to our minds, and I guess we could call them hardware and software. The hardware follows rules, chemical interactions, electrical signals etc. The software (consciousness, the soul, awareness, the mind, you can call it what you like) is an emergent property of the interactions in the hardware, and I don't think anyone really has a handle on how it works yet.

    The software part seems to be more like a standing wave. It can't be seperated into distinct parts, it's the sum of all the interactions going on at the hardware level. Think of a simple oscilliscope, the wave you see is the result of all the values of all the different frequencies added together. Change a few of the frequencies and the entire wave changes. The brain is a lot more complex, obviously, but you get the idea.

    A computer doesn't work the same way. In a computer the software is following rules, and the hardware is doing what it does as a result of those rules, while at the same time following its own rules (rules like capacitance, resistance and so on). Neither is an emergent property.

    That's why I don't think we'll see AI developed in a single computer, or even a supercomputer, because a supercomputer is designed to act like one big computer. I think it's more likely we'll see it in a network of computers, like the internet, where emergence is possible.

    Anyway, it's hard to explain where I'm coming from here. Either language is too clumsy or I'm just not good enough at using it.

    edit - "But if, on the other hand, systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This view of emergence is called strong emergence. "
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

    That's what I was trying to say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In a computer the whole is always just the sum of the parts.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2008
  15. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    This idea makes more sense to me than any other Ive heard for AI.
    And strangely enough Ive always considered the networking of the world via the internet as sort of a formation of "global conscious" with pathways for information exchange between its different parts.
     
  16. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    One way internet will be conscious is when cloud computing is in full force. An emerging program to work, it has to have access to various databases (wiki, google etc) and somewhere to store and interact with its predictive model. If we can do a design like SETI and use say 4000 computers where a snipet of the model can be stored, then perhaps that group can write some small programs to kicj start the logic.

    I am hoping the next generation Internet between several universities that is underway can provide that function. Once that produces the emergent property then the AI will seeks out the whole internet and know what to do.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page