spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Quantum effects are a leading edge field in computation, so I don't see why it would work in a high temperature brain and not in a potentially super cooled compiter.
Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That's outside my knowledge, temperature and wetness are problematic it seems. But to compare an organic brain to a inorganic computer seems problematic just for the type of "processing" alone.
Roger Penrose postulates that a moment of "consciousness" occurs during the quantum event. This would need an electro-chemically sensitive biological medium for expression in our minds and the resulting physical auto-response .
I'm not sure if this could be imitated with pure electrical stimulus. Consider "empathy", can an AI ever develop empathy? Sympathy, possibly, empathy, not likely, unless via wireless communication. But then it isn't involuntary or intuitive anymore.
But not equally good at processing complex information.
Their existence is proof of their existence, not the efficiency of the operating system, let alone the development of that system.
Not to mention algae and fungi. But their emotive capacity is so limited as to be irrelevant to this discussion.
A very, very long run, with a great many dead ends and failed attempts, and an end-product of dubious stability is not my efinition of "most efficient".
That, too, was a blind alley. That mode didn't work for us. Again, what's flight got to do with efficiency in processing and transmitting information?
Yes, AI, after some 30 years on this planet, is a little slower than human, after over 3 billion.
Not as many as nature crashed entire species of millions of individuals.
Exactly. And they can't be copied, so we had to go a whole different method to achieve a similar result.
So it must be with a new kind of intelligence.
Teaches us work with what you have if it works use it - very hit and miss approach
As above, a hit an miss approach with only a occasionally a hit
Agree, older I get I err I err I err forget err oh that's right I forget
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If the ability of birds to fly cannot be copied, does that make natural flight less effective than artificial flying machines? You seem to forget "navigation skills" as part of the natural package. The human improvisation on a theme is nothing special. Insects can fly without any intelligence at all.
I admit that humans are probably the most versatile species on earth, but in each of the natural evolutionary abilities, humans are far behind the specialized abilities of other species. Humans are only superior in one single area, intelligence. Animals outperform us in all other ways.
As far as performance is concerned, many animals are faster than humans, tree frogs can jump 7 feet, which is 50 times the length of their body. Many other frogs can jump at least 20 times their own length. An eagle has better eyesight than humans. Many wild animals have much keener sense of smell than humans. Bats, whales employ sonar. Sharks can sense electrical impulses at great distances. Lunar moths use pheramones over twenty miles to attract mates. Geese and many other birds use magnetic fields for navigation. The microscopic tardigrade—also known as the water bear—is the only animal that can survive the cold, irradiated vacuum of outer space. An extremophile (from Latin extremus meaning "extreme" and Greek philiā (φιλία) meaning "love") is an organism that thrives in physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental to most life on Earth.
What can humans do without the use of "tools"? Run for our lives, that's what....
In the end it is probabilistic Nature that produced humans. Let's not pretend humans are more capable than nature.
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm not comparing brains to present day computers, but to the theoretical computers of the future, who's basic architecture may greater resemble a neuro-network. And furthermore, I'm suggesting that the medium of computation is irrelevant.
Ok. But he's just guessing.
What about a computer based on light? Or a computer simulation of the conditions in a human brain, including all chemical (physical) reactions and electrical flow? Mouse brains have already been partially simulated on conventional computers, and exhibit realistic behavior.
No. It's just different. Faster, for one thing. In spite of doing it by a different method, airplanes, helicopters, drones and rockets do work. And they took a lot less time to perfect than bird flight.
Intelligent design mastered that a lot faster than natural selection, as well.
Dandelion seeds can do it without intelligence; insects use some intelligence, howbeit of limited scope.
Being merely electro-chemical, I still have not grasped the relevance of all these attributes of life to the
necessity of basing AI on the same mechanical principle as NI. How is it poof that artificial intelligence has to be insect-like, bird-like, cheetah-like, whale-like and whatever else.
All living things are wonderful. You'll get no argument from me.
I wish we hadn't destroyed so many already; I wish we could stop destroying them all.
But that doesn't make evolution efficient - it sure as hell doesn't make the human brain efficient. Evolution is mindless and profligate.
efficient: - achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
- preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource. -
S : well organized, methodical, systematic, structured, well planned, logical, coherent, well regulated, well run, well ordered, orderly, businesslike, systematized, streamlined, productive, effective, labor-saving, cost-effective
Last edited:
Well, there could be artificial emotional intelligence. I think that would be worth exploring.
Perhaps machines will get to the point of reacting to our emotions...?
Can't help but wonder though...will machines/robots only be able to replicate our emotions, and have no real independence of their own? Even if AI were to display emotion, would that display be little more than a deeply intricate program?
Perhaps machines will get to the point of reacting to our emotions...?
Can't help but wonder though...will machines/robots only be able to replicate our emotions, and have no real independence of their own? Even if AI were to display emotion, would that display be little more than a deeply intricate program?
No, that looks completely different.
Electricity alone has worked for several prosthetic treatments.
You could certainly argue that. However, you could make the same arguments with you - that your emotions are just deterministic bioelectrical reactions, and so you aren't really feeling emotions, just reacting to a program that evolution has prepared for you.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
IMO, it makes all the difference.
He has the credentials to make "educated" guesses.
To be clear, all brains make educated guesses from sensory information.
Our visual senses are light based, our auditory senses are sound-wave based, our smell and taste is chemically based, our touch is physically sensory based.
The brain itself does not perceive anything except electro-chemical information from the senses. But the brain does not perceive any of these sensory stimuli directly at all. It's in a dark "vat". Is light electro-chemical in nature?
Is it not more logical to trust nature in its successful evolutionary expressions and use nature's tools as extant proof of certain fundamental requirements in order to imitate Nature's variety of expression.
If Nature can do something without thought, perhaps humans can do as much with a little thought. All our accomplishments have already been "tried" by Nature. Probability becomes certainty over time.
Has anybody ever tried to calculate the numbers of natural "trials, errors, and successes" have been performed by Nature over 14.5 billion years?
A little taste of the exponential function, According to Robert Hazen, the Earth has performed; Two trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions during its lifetime of some 3.5 billion years. That's 2 x 10^54, a truly astronomical number.
The probability of life evolving from inanimate matter on an earthlike planet is actually very high. This directly contradicts the common assumption of pure chance with improbable odds. Given enough time and spaces the properties of the universe allow for the emergence of highly sophisticated "patterns" in physical reality from the very basic elements as found in the Table of Elements.
Thing is, I doubt that the brain functions in a purely binary way, like computers. I believe it has greater mathematical skills than that, due to its bio-chemical construction and a trillion mini quantum computers spread throughout the body.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You touched on the problem but you are not looking deep enough. You are missing the most important part, electrical wires don't do anything at all.
Wires in an electrical system are designed only for transport of electric information. But electrical wires do not do anything other than transport binary information, and you cannot replace neurons with electrical wires. They do not have the same function.
Neurons are not wires and they do a lot on their own.
If you look what neurons are made from, you will find that each neuron actually consists of a set of mini quantum computers (microtubules), a processing network inside each neuron.
Are Microtubules the Brain of the Neuron
November 29, 2015
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/are-microtubules-the-brain-of-the-neuron
IMO, a constantly ongoing process of cell duplication is a brilliant natural computational feat! An extraordinary success achieved by evolutionary processes.
Microtubules
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9932/
A trillion mini quantum computers (hive mind) is hard to beat.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Right, I overlooked the term prosthetic.
True and all current AIs run on electricity.
But that does not make them capable of emotion.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But where did we get the idea of flight to begin with? Someone looked up and saw a bird.
Nature did all the hard work of testing.
After someone looked at flying animals and wondered where they were going, and how they knew where they were going
And all a result of the Natural evolutionary way. You are supporting the notion that a designer is useful but certainly not necessary for the evolving complexity of life.
We're good at it.
Strange, you just accused humans of that. If humans are so efficient they should know better than the mindless evolutionary functions, no?
Yes, but are these not the qualities humans are using in their destruction of the earth's biosphere? Shall we speed up this efficient process?
Sometimes haste makes waste. And things seem more durable when they stand the test of time.
Your argument of humans as intelligent designers seems to lack a Universal perspective. So far our intelligent creations seem to destroy rather than be beneficial to our environment.
The Earth's biosphere evolved "hemp" an extraordinarily eco-friendly plant with thousands of commercial and industrial uses, yet in the US hemp is a prohibited crop. We're not smart, we're greedy and stupid and far from wise.
I'm sure an AI would have planted hemp a long time ago if only to benefit the human race.......
That's what I've been saying. The human brain is not the best possible example of a thinking-machine - not the most efficient, not the most durable and certainly not the most reliable. Whatever else it may be, it's not necessarily the only possible mechanism whereby its functions might be preformed.
All the other nature stuff is irrelevant.
Ummmm I would put it in terms of being intelligent enough to be GREEDY STUPID AND WISE (and a few other aspects) at the same moment
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I understand your perspective, but IMO, the rest IS the important part of brainpower. The human brain is the most sophisticated multi-tasking computer in the world by far. But yes, far from perfect, if perfection is even possible.
And so there can never be another kind?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Look around you, every living thing employs a form of computing, from the rigid chemical quasi-intelligence of bacteria to the fully intelligent but much greater flexibility of electro-chemical self-learning processes in the less rigidly constrained human brain and perhaps a few other highly intelligent animals in the oceans (the largest (71%) natural environment).
The problem is not in the ability to communicate, every living things communicates. It is the number and depth of logical and compatible analyses and actions that are available to the intelligent organism in order to communicate with the wisdom of Evolution and Natural Selection.
Certain AIs are going to be very popular, others not so much.
That's how evolution and natural selection works.......in the long run.......
So? That means natural intelligence has a common origin.
What's any of that got to do with an artificial intelligence? Chances are, whatever the basis of AI's processing function, all of its descendents will work on the same principle.
The difference is, in a couple of thousand years, those future generations of AI won't assume that their way is the only way, because something different went before. They won't know what comes after, any more that we do.