Can artificial intelligences suffer from mental illness?

[Michael 345]

But Lemurs do. A Lemur was trained to select the fewest number of symbols in order to receive a reward.

That's interesting

Wonder if training Koko to pick the 3 to get the 5 would stick ie transfer to other
3 / 5 situations or remain just with bananas

But but but the test as I understand was to find out if Koko could work it out by herself like a human child

 

[Write4U]

Penny Patterson, who had custody of Koko and who had organized The Gorilla Foundation, wrote that Koko cared for the kitten as if it were a baby gorilla.

True. Hard to know if teaching occuring or anthropomorphism occuring

Might take a further observer (or several) who are some distance from the situation

I believe it was in Holland or Germany where they performed a test as to the ability for cooperation in a group of Bonobos against a group of common Chimpanzees. The group was given several tests that required the cooperation of several "helpers" to execute the tests in finding ways to solve a problem of obtaining rewards.

The Bonobos immediately relied on the dominant female to inspect the tests and in short time solved the problems cooperatively, while the Common Chimp males were still bickering as to who should lead the exploration.

Social Tolerance Allows Bonobos To Outperform Chimpanzees On A Cooperative Task
Date: March 9, 2007
Source: Cell Press
Summary:
In experiments designed to deepen our understanding of how cooperative behavior evolves, researchers have found that bonobos, a particularly sociable relative of the chimpanzee, are more successful than chimpanzees at cooperating to retrieve food, even though chimpanzees exhibit strong cooperative hunting behavior in the wild. The work suggests that some social tendencies or emotions that are adaptive under certain circumstances, such as aggression during competition for mates, can hinder the potential for problem solving under other circumstances, such as sharing of a food resource.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308121928.htm

This does not suggest that Common Chimps are not capable of cooperation, just that they are a patriarchy and there is constant testing for dominance, whereas the Bonobos are matriarchies and the males express much greater tolerance to social pressure. They don't need to lead or even dominate.
Maybe humans should try matriarchy, seems that may produce greater cooperation and create a more nurturing environment among humans.
Another remarkable quality in Bonobos is their willingness to share and even assist in making it possible for another Bonobo to reach the food. Note the body language of the stranger who cannot reach the food.

 

[Michael 345]

Maybe humans should try matriarchy,

You don't think we have that now? That's cute

What puzzles me are the people who say "We share 90%+ DNA with the gorillas, why don't we give them human status?"

Ladies, gentleman, others from Make Gorillas Great, welcome to ZOOM airlines. Your pilot today, G Riller, hopes you enjoy the flight

If you look out from the departure lounge to the plane parking area you will see your aircraft waiting for you to board

You can pick it out easily. It's the one resting on the ground. Yes in the spirit of allowing a 90% DNA gorilla to be equal to humans we have provided a 90% plane.

Yes. The easiest parts to remove were the wheels. Well the plane will board in 10 minutes

Hey where are you all going???

 

[billvon]

Fair enough, I'll have a stab at it.

I believe in a natural law that in the abstract, all things tend to move "in the direction of greatest satisfaction". (IMO, gravitational attraction is a proof of this law.)

From a similar abstract perspective, two positive or negative magnetic poles will repel each other . For each, their movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction is, "away from here". They are not "compatible".

OTOH, a positive and negative pole will attract each other and "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction is "stick to it". Magnets are literally physically attracted to each other .
That's weird .... for non-sentient objects.

As I understand it chemical chiralty acts very much like magnetic forces where left handed molecules attach easily to right handed surfaces (and vice versa) and form strong bonds.

Wow. You get today's award for making the best salad of unrelated concepts.

 

[Write4U]

Wow. You get today's award for making the best salad of unrelated concepts.

If you look close, you'll find common denominators. That's what I am after. It is the sole area of my investigations. IMO, common denominators and universal constants will eventually lead us to fundamental properties which are essential for existence. Why is it that not all organisms evolve at the same rate on earth?

I am just trying to describe forms of proto-sentience, natural physical attractive and repulsive forces, which eventually may have evolved into greater sophistication and complexity. IMO, greater knowledge of possible sensory adaptations may teach us how this process "unfolds" in its various forms.

We know about mutation and natural selection, but we don't know the actual physical mechanisms which drive the evolutionary stages of the brain or any other "method of processing external information".

Take the Paramecium, it's a brainless organism.

Ciliates are an important group of protists, common almost anywhere there is water — in lakes, ponds, oceans, rivers, and soils. About 3,500 species have been described, and the potential number of extant species is estimated at 30,000.[2] Included in this number are many ectosymbiotic and endosymbiotic species, as well as some obligate and opportunistic parasites. Ciliate species range in size from as little as 10 µm to as much as 4 mm in length, and include some of the most morphologically complex protozoans

In some ciliates, like Stylonychia and Paramecium, only UGA is decoded as a stop codon, while UAG and UAA are reassigned as sense codons, coding for the amino acid, Glutamic acid.

The Paramecium spirals through the water as it progresses. When it happens to encounter an obstacle, the "effective stroke" of its cilia is reversed and the organism swims backward for a brief time, before resuming its forward progress. This is called the avoidance reaction. If it runs into the solid object again, it repeats this process, until it can get past the object.

Proto-sentience?

I see no fundamental conflict using unrelated examples which demonstrate common denominators and similarities in the evolution of their physical sensory assets and functions in all areas of "perception".

The idea is to explore the possibility of evolving sentience (and ultimately consciousness) along with greater complexity and sophistication of sensory abilities in very simple organisms.

A photo sensitive patch on a very simple organism might well be a proto-eye which evolves into a true eye.[/quote]Many researchers have found the evolution of the eye attractive to study, because the eye distinctively exemplifies an analogous organ found in many animal forms. Simple light detection is found in bacteria, single-celled organisms, plants and animals. Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently several times![/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
==============================================

Lemurs for example fall below this line which means that for a primate of equivalent size, we would expect a larger brain size. Humans lie well above the line indicating that humans are more encephalized than lemurs. In fact, humans are more encephalized than all other primates.

Yet Lemurs can "count" (distinguish quantities) as well as humans.

Perception (from the Latin perceptio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment.

All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which in turn result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system.[3] For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye, smell is mediated by odor molecules, and hearing involves pressure waves.

Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

 

[Write4U]

You don't think we have that now? That's cute

Well yes, but human males don't know this, that the problem. Not enough physical discipline.

The Bonobo males are well trained by the females enforcing the rules en masse. A male gets out of hand and all the other females will come to the aid of the victimized female. A little bit of what we have now, except the human males still get away scot-free to brag about it...

 

[billvon]

I am just trying to describe forms of proto-sentience, natural physical attractive and repulsive forces, which eventually may have evolved into greater sophistication and complexity. IMO, greater knowledge of possible sensory adaptations may teach us how this process "unfolds" in its various forms.

We know about mutation and natural selection, but we don't know the actual physical mechanisms which drive the evolutionary stages of the brain or any other "method of processing external information".

Again, you are mixing up a whole lot of things here.

Imagine someone who says "I just want to understand why I can't change my flat tire and how that relates to evolution. I mean, the wrench doesn't even fit in the door. Maybe evolutionarily, the molecules that aren't suited for survival don't fit in the organism's sockets? That's it! I've figured it out! It's such a simple analogy."

I see no fundamental conflict using unrelated examples which demonstrate common denominators and similarities in the evolution of their physical sensory assets and functions in all areas of "perception".

Nor, in many cases, any fundamental value. Not everything is similar to everything else.

Yet Lemurs can "count" (distinguish quantities) as well as humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

And an octopus can use tools. Again, doesn't mean much in terms of chirality of molecules.

 

[Write4U]

If you look out from the departure lounge to the plane parking area you will see your aircraft waiting for you to board

That is after the pre-boarding process ???????............

 

[Write4U]

Again, you are mixing up a whole lot of things here.

Can you find any common denominators?

Imagine someone who says "I just want to understand why I can't change my flat tire and how that relates to evolution. I mean, the wrench doesn't even fit in the door. Maybe evolutionarily, the molecules that aren't suited for survival don't fit in the organism's sockets? That's it! I've figured it out! It's such a simple analogy."

Yes that would be weird, but that's not what I am positing, by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor, in many cases, any fundamental value. Not everything is similar to everything else.

Exactly, but everything does have some things in common with all other things. That's what I am after.

And an octopus can use tools. Again, doesn't mean much in terms of chirality of molecules.

It doesn't ? A slug which has learned to shapeshift, use tools, and solve very intricate problems ? The octopus is one of the most evolved organisms on earth, but it has very little in common with humans. Even their blood isn't red but blue, because the oxygen carrier is not iron but copper.

Society elites aren't the only blue bloods. Several species of octopus have blue, rather than red, fluid running through their veins.

The blue comes from a copper-rich protein called hemocyanin, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the bloodstream and then to the cells of the octopus's body. Hemoglobin, an iron-containing protein found in the blood of other animals—including humans—serves the same oxygen-transporting function but turns blood red.

Both hemoglobin and hemocyanin release their bound oxygen when they reach tissues that need it.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150312-blood-antarctica-octopus-animals-science-colors/

I submit that during the Earth's lifetime, there may have been several separate points of origin, by different chemical processes.
As Hazen says, "Origins and evolution may have been possible by a variety of chiral functions". He actually identified three seperate possibilities for affording chemical evolutionary processes. He estimates that the Earth has witnessed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions during its life.

About Dr. Hazen,
Robert Hazen is a scientist based at the Carnegie Institution’s Geophysical Laboratory and George Mason University. His recent research focuses on the roles of minerals in life’s origins, including mineral-catalyzed organic synthesis and interactions between biomolecules and mineral surfaces, as well as “mineral evolution” and “mineral ecology”—new approaches that exploit large and growing mineral data resources to explore the co-evolution of the geo- and biospheres. A prolific writer, Hazen has authored more than 400 articles and 25 books on topics ranging from astrobiology to scientific literacy.

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/

This is an excellent lecture by Dr Robert Hazen at the Carnegie Institute for science. (start clip at 25:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction.)

 

[billvon]

Yes that would be weird, but that's not what I am positing, by any stretch of the imagination.

That was an example, not a restating of your position.

It doesn't ? A slug which has learned to shapeshift, use tools, and solve very intricate problems ?

Correct. One is animal behavior, the other is chemistry.

 

[Write4U]

That was an example, not a restating of your position.

Then why are you not using one of my actual posits stating my position?

Correct. One is animal behavior, the other is chemistry.

Chemistry is all there is.
Chemical elements have specific non-animal behaviors, but IMO, all animal behavior and physical functions are driven by energy and resulting chemical actions in response to energy.

And chemical processes are a form of "consistent" pseudo-intelligent (mathematical) interactions. Chirality distinguishes left-handedness from right-handedness, i.e. a physically cognitive function (proto-sentience?).

Complexity
What factors promote the emergence of complex evolving systems, such as life? What is “complexity” and how can it be quantified? We have approached these questions by looking for general properties of all emergent systems and by conducting computational experiments on the artificial life platform Avida (with Patrick Griffin). Our work amplifies the original studies of Szostak and coworkers, who proposed that “functional information” provides a measure of complexity in genetic polymers. The core idea is that “complexity” only has meaning in the context of “function."

These ideas are summarized in the abstract of Hazen et al. (2007): “Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions.

Accordingly, we define “functional information,”I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP) and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy):

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/research/complexity

 

[billvon]

Then why are you not using one of my actual posits stating my position?

Do you understand what an analogy is?

Chemistry is all there is.

I know some physicists who would strongly disagree.

And Chemical processes are a form of "consistent" pseudo-intelligent (mathematical) interactions.

Chemical processes are not intelligent, pseudo or otherwise. Get enough of them together that they can form cells, then neural networks, then brains, then those brains can exhibit intelligence. But that is an emergent property of the behavior of networks of specific cells (neurons) - not anything inherent to chemistry. If you made a NPU with the same connectivity as the neurons in question they would show similar intelligence.

Chirality distinguishes left-handedness from right-handedness, i.e. a physically cognitive function (proto-sentience?).

Nope. Any more than magnets are intelligent because they magically know which side of the magnet is "north." (That was an analogy, BTW, not a claim that you said that.)

 

[Michael 345]

Why is it that not all organisms evolve at the same rate on earth?

Because not all organisms are exposed to the same environment stresses.

If a organism reaches a level of comfort with its surroundings and the surroundings settle into a steady state there is nothing to push the organism to change

 

[Write4U]

Do you understand what an analogy is?

Yes, but an analogy which is not illustrative of the meaning it is supposed to reveal is not a suitable vehicle for correction.
If any of my analogies are not representative of objective meaning, I'll gladly retract or modify it.

But to replace my "considered" posits and analogies with an example of an analogy which is not pertinent to the subject and is devoid of even the simplest logic is not a good example, IMHO.

 

[Write4U]

I know some physicists who would strongly disagree.

Chemistry is a discipline of physics, no? I cited chemistry as being pertinent to the specific physics under discussion, emergence and evolution of sentient living organisms.

Analogous, biology,
(of structures) performing a similar function but having a different evolutionary origin, such as the wings of insects and birds.

Wiki.

 

[Michael 345]

That is after the pre-boarding process

Yes they waiting to board after the fueling

 

[Write4U]

Chemical processes are not intelligent, pseudo or otherwise. Get enough of them together that they can form cells, then neural networks, then brains, then those brains can exhibit intelligence. But that is an emergent property of the behavior of networks of specific cells (neurons) - not anything inherent to chemistry. If you made a NPU with the same connectivity as the neurons in question, they would show similar intelligence.

Yes, we'd have an AI!
The question is at what stage of sentience (not intelligence) does an organism begin to experience "pain" when exposed to excessive "stress"? Is that not a chemical reaction, experienced even by non-brained organisms?

The "mirror neural network" in brained organisms produces chemical activity in response to stimulation from just observing someone else experiencing pain.

 

[Write4U]

Yes they waiting to board after the fueling

Carlin asked if "pre-board" meant "to board before you board"?

 

[Michael 345]

Is that not a chemical reaction, experienced even by non-brained organisms?

Survival from stress involves moving away from the stress and the chemical reaction (within the organism) undergoing the stress react (under physic / chemical) processes (non sentient)

If unable to move away will adapt

does an organism begin to experience "pain" when exposed to excessive "stress"?

No. Pain requires a pain network. A upway path to, a HQ to decide "it hurts" or it's "OK" and, a downward path to send instructions for the action / non action to be taken

 

[Michael 345]

Carlin asked if "pre-board" meant "to board before you board"?

I didn't get to view the video (up to doing 5 things at once - and no coffee yet)

Might get to watch later when things settle

Coffee now