18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJaySo how would you know if it is true or not; that our understanding is
Didn't you ask me to show you the metaphysical if I believed in it?
If it is as you describe, once it is shown it no longer is metaphysical
now is it?
So how would you know if it is true or not; that our understanding is
much more than pure process and voltages or whatever is moving
through our brains?
Can you tell me about our thought processe ...[text shortened]... el what they are, what
reason and understanding is within our brains if you don't mind.
Kelly
much more than pure process and voltages or whatever is moving
through our brains?
Well, it depends on how you define "understanding" to a large extent. Some ways to examine this would be to modify a living human brain and then see what the results are on understanding (which we have done), to make artificial brains (which we cannot yet do), give them access to communication tools and then try to see if they have understanding by some sort of measuring scale, and to try to make non-brain artificial devices which are intended to produce intelligence and understanding (again, we can't yet do this).
Can you tell me about our thought processes and how they can be
replicable? Describe in some detail high level what they are, what
reason and understanding is within our brains if you don't mind.
I haven't studied the issue, so I cannot answer your question.
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat makes you think the human mind is any different?
They simulate now, we can even call it learning as some chess
programs get better with each games they play. It is still for the
computer simply a matter of programing, not understanding.
It isn't for the comupter a 1 or 2 or an apple or orange, those
are simply outputs for our understanding. Inside the computer
it is simpy voltages being passed back and forth, 1 and 0 or
high and low voltages nothing more.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, do you think the brain and the body that supports it is sufficient for intelligence to exist? That is, do these purely physical things produce intelligence or is there something non-physical which is also necessary?
I disagree; inside our brains quite a bit is taking place. Our
understanding is much more than a simple high or low voltage
passing through a circuit. There is no real comparison, we don't
even really have a solid grasp on what is going on and why.
So making comparisons saying it is the same thing isn't really
valid in my opinion. Our thinking, our r ...[text shortened]... h more than a pattern of high and low
voltages flowing through the circuitry of a CPU.
Kelly
18 May 05
I agree with Palynka. If you reduce a human brain to its basic component, each neuron is either firing, or it's not. It is doing exactly what the chip bits on computers are doing. Neurons either allow an electrical impulse to go through, or they block it. So, it is *possible* to create an artificial brain (At some point). Because a neuron is a binary state machine, it lends itself quite well to being replaced by bit chips. Having said that, I don't think computers will reach a level of understanding in the foreseeable future, if ever. The reason is that humans do not want a new class of citizen running around in our streets. Humans want computers to remain slaves. It is of no interest to the market if a computer understands what it is doing. It is of no value whatsoever to the market for a computer to understand what 1+1 is. Because it is the market that dictates the evolution of computers, I can't imagine computer makers ever manufacturing computers capable of doing more than just what they are programmed to do. So, I think it is possible for humans to create artificial brains at some point, but it is highly doubtful that it will be done at all. Maybe as a research project at some University in a couple of centuries?
18 May 05
6 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is simply the little bit of knowledge I have on CPU design and basic
The problem with your position is that you assume intelligence is not a result of physical phenomena like voltages etc. I think it's pretty clear that intelligence and the physical world are quite closely interrelated. In fact the ...[text shortened]... art. I don't think there is any scientific reason to think this.
electronics. It is true that I believe only God can create life from non
life, but that isn’t the discussion. I am assuming intelligence is not a
result of voltage and circuitry design and lay out, because the circuitry
does not mystically turn electricity into something else after it gets run
through the processor’s circuitry; it instead is used to give start stop
commands, on off commands, high low, however you want to look at
it, it remains what it is.
If it were only a matter of just adding voltage and only voltage fir
creating intelligence getting the circuitry correct wouldn’t even be part
of the discussion now would it? If you believe that intelligence sprang
up from just the physical world, I’d suggest for you that is a matter of
faith on your part, it certainly has never been observed, duplicated,
and so on. I’d also submit to you that if you do indeed believe that
intelligence came up through evolution, you too have some bias in
the mix of this discussion as well.
Here is something you should think about, the same type of power
that is being used to turn on and off your computer and run it, is also
the same thing that is used to run your TV, turn on the lights in your
home, and so on. It is all the same except the circuitry, and it does
not do anything different in the CPU as it does in turning on the lights
in your house. It flows and obeys the same rules/laws and again
nothing is different except what is we are using it for.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by rheymansOf what use is a computer that does not do exactly what you want,
I agree with Palynka. If you reduce a human brain to its basic component, each neuron is either firing, or it's not. It is doing exactly what the chip bits on computers are doing. Neurons either allow an electrical impulse to go through, or they block it. So, it is *possible* to create an artificial brain (At some point). Because a neuron is a binary ...[text shortened]... t will be done at all. Maybe as a research project at some University in a couple of centuries?
exactly the way it is suppose to? I also believe that our CPU basic
componants are a far cry from what is going on in the brain.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayparallellism is the problem ... your 64-bit 4.0 Ghz desktop could simulate a lot of neurons, but the brain has jillions of neurons, how to simulate them all at the same time? ....
[Close how? There are several ways we can get it close, looks, ciruits,
chemical make up, and so on. What is it you think is required?
Kelly
plus the learning time ... (or rather, "times the learning time" ...)
now here's a thought. project seti uses idle time on thousands of owners' computers to search for alien life, why not use this method to simulate one brain? just make sure it's not hooked up to your X-10 home control network ... i just thought of another scifi book or short story on topic, it's by John Varley but i forget the name. really scary.
i coded a neural network for my thesis, that was interesting .... a few dozens of neurons running on a 286 ...
18 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm aware of the parallelisms issue, but what occurs within the
parallellism is the problem ... your 64-bit 4.0 Ghz desktop could simulate a lot of neurons, but the brain has jillions of neurons, how to simulate them all at the same time? ....
plus the learning time ... (or rather, "times the learning time" ...)
now here's a thought. project seti uses idle time on thousands of owners' computers to search fo ...[text shortened]... twork for my thesis, that was interesting .... a few dozens of neurons running on a 286 ...
neurons when they fire? I know what takes place in what we
design and how. Our circuitry has different components built
to do different things, everything working within spec.
What are the specs of a neuron, if we were to write one so that
others could make use of them in other designs? Not trying to
trick you, I have no idea and would like to know.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotBy the way, the next generation of PC are going to have multi core,
parallellism is the problem ... your 64-bit 4.0 Ghz desktop could simulate a lot of neurons, but the brain has jillions of neurons, how to simulate them all at the same time? ....
plus the learning time ... (or rather, "times the learning time" ...)
now here's a thought. project seti uses idle time on thousands of owners' computers to search fo ...[text shortened]... twork for my thesis, that was interesting .... a few dozens of neurons running on a 286 ...
processors which blows single core PC out the window. It is starting
with dual core (two processors on a die) and it will go up from there.
As powerful as they are getting to be, they will not become aware.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's exactly my point. That's why we will probably never develop a computer with intelligence equal to our own, even if the capability is there. Just because we won't do it, doesn't make it impossible though. However, it is worth noting that there are robots out there right now that make their own decisions without human intervention. Namely, space probes, and shipping port robots. They don't know why they do what they do, but they have AI. Knowing why is not the intelligence part. That's a reasoning thing. Robots don't need to reason to have some intelligence. In fact, most animals are robots. Insects have a biological program that they run without knowing why they do any of the things they do, but it works. That does not mean insects have no intelligence whatsoever. They have a primitive intelligence, but it is a level of intelligence. It's enough intelligence to allow their kind to continue to exist.
Of what use is a computer that does not do exactly what you want,
exactly the way it is suppose to? I also believe that our CPU basic
componants are a far cry from what is going on in the brain.
Kelly
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rheymansI guess it is splitting hairs, but I don't call programmed choices
That's exactly my point. That's why we will probably never develop a computer with intelligence equal to our own, even if the capability is there. Just because we won't do it, doesn't make it impossible though. However, it is worth ...[text shortened]... t's enough intelligence to allow their kind to continue to exist.
with all the possible outcomes mandated by the programmer AI,
it is simply cause and effect programmed into the system.
I can get my butt kicked by my chess software anytime I play it,
it moves the pieces by itself, but it is a matter of programming
not knowledge as I would define it. It goes back to the bag and
the rocks, it only has in it what I put in it, or what I allow to
come in. If any program starts picking up variables that are not
part of the intent of the program it can crash, or we could simply
get unidentified variable errors cluttering up the screen from the
output. All of which goes back to my original point, AI is not going
to happen with our current methods of computer hardware and
software skills and abilities, I just don't see us doing it period
from what I know about design and code.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm aware of the parallelisms issue, but what occurs within the
neurons when they fire? I know what takes place in what we
design and how. Our circuitry has different components built
to do different things, everything working within spec.
What are the specs of a neuron, if we were to write one so that
others could make use of them in other designs? Not trying to
trick you, I have no idea and would like to know.
Kelly
it's been a while ... i've forgotten ... you might check the wiki links ...
they've tried making electronic neuron chips with op-amp circuits, i think the issues might have been circuit size and lack of market.
sourceforge.net's "search facility is down", so tried freshmeat.net, "neural" found 35 projects: http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=neural§ion=projects
enjoy 🙂 ...
18 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess it is splitting hairs, but I don't call programmed choices
with all the possible outcomes mandated by the programmer AI,
it is simply cause and effect programmed into the system.
I can get my butt kicked by my chess software anytime I play it,
it moves the pieces by itself, but it is a matter of programming
not knowledge as I would define it ...[text shortened]... bilities, I just don't see us doing it period
from what I know about design and code.
Kelly
but if the designer made the program capable of learning, and it learned, then by that token it seems the program "understands" the problem without even having to pass the Turing test 🙂 ... (isn't that test just testing one facet of intelligence ... seems unfair to make it the only test ...)
18 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotI"ll check it out later. Right now I have a project at home I seem to
it's been a while ... i've forgotten ... you might check the wiki links ...
they've tried making electronic neuron chips with op-amp circuits, i think the issues might have been circuit size and lack of market.
sourceforge.net's "search facility is down", so tried freshmeat.net, "neural" found 35 projects: http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=neural§ion=projects
enjoy 🙂 ...
be avoiding by reading these posts and making chess moves.
So I need to get out of my little holding pattern and get to work. 😳
Thanks too, by the way.
Kelly
18 May 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotOne last responce before I go.
but if the designer made the program capable of learning, and it learned, then by that token it seems the program "understands" the problem without even having to pass the Turing test 🙂 ... (isn't that test just testing one facet of intelligence ... seems unfair to make it the only test ...)
It is a matter of understanding, not obeying commands with
conditions. I can flip a die and know it is going to land on
either head or tails, no understanding required, I can setup
conditions so that other outcomes occur with other things,
a purely machanical toy can be made to do certain things
under certain conditions, understanding not required.
It is understanding, not obeying a program that matters in
my opinion. For a computer is is all 0 or 1, and we filter
the computer's responces back to us in manners we can
grasp; however, for the computer is all about 0 and 1 nothing
else.
Kelly