Artificial Intelligence

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SF will eventually become self aware and start to take over other sci forums

 

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.

 

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.

 

delete

 

It will take over itself ? lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.