The propaganda of artificial intelligence

[madmadmax]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

It would be hard enough to emulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

It's not hard - cockroaches do it all the time.
Nature can do it.
My parents did it when they produced me - so it's technically possible to create neurons.
No need to emulate them - just make them

If you would be using neurons identical to our own then you wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be leaving most of the work to nature and creating human beings rather than robots (or biological robots at the very least)

[1714668296]

1714668296

[deisik]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

If you would be using neurons identical to our own then you wouldn't be creating anything, you'd be leaving most of the work to nature and creating human beings rather than robots (or biological robots at the very least)

It is not given. We don't know what is consciousness, we don't know if artificial neurons that we would consider identical in functionality to natural would support it. If they would, then we could just take them alone and create a self-aware robot that you asked about in your opening post. This is an empirical way of dealing with such problems...

I thought it was pretty obvious

[Spendulus]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

A neuron is not a solution to the problem of consciousness or AI. 

It is an electro chemical mechanism.  There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.

Or that it is the preferred path, given that we start with silicon.

It is unlikely that any AI we create from silicon would have much interest in us, because of it's rapid growth in intelligence and knowledge.  Maybe for a few milliseconds, or evan a few seconds.

On the contrary, electro chemical mechanism such as neuron would limit intelligence and prevent it's exponential expansion.  Thus, it might converse with us.

[Anon136]

Actually i think some real progress has been made

https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html

these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.

[deisik]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

A neuron is not a solution to the problem of consciousness or AI. 

It is an electro chemical mechanism.  There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.

Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...

[Sindelar1938]

I think the premise is wrong

Folks are doing amazing work in AI. I wouldn't bet against CS.

[interlagos]

It might be easier to wrap one's mind around AI, when looked from the perspective of primacy of consciousness.
In this model nothing can create consciousness, but consciousness can create anything, including different kinds of masks, through which it can express itself.

If human brain (one kind of mask) is a receiver of consciousness, so can be a technological device (another kind of mask), built specifically to be sensitive enough for already existing consciousness to tap into.

Here is some more insight on the topic:

"AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s

[u9y42]

Actually i think some real progress has been made

https://groksolutions.com/landing-page.html

these guys have an open source algorithm that can solve captchas.

Sadly, this seems only like a modest improvement on the same machine learning problem at best, though I can't say I'm an expert in the field...  

EDIT:

"AI, Perspectives, Computers and The Higher Mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_MaV7JPYy0#t=2m24s

I just saw the video... 

Anyway, it's an interesting idea, but I know of no evidence that event points in that direction.

[Spendulus]

Assume for a moment that we can make artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to natural ones, and then we begin to gradually substitute neurons in brain with them. If consciousness would be preserved, then yes, the answer to your question is positive...

It would be hard enough to simulate a single neuron, let alone billions of them on the same scale is impossible (and illogical).

I'm not talking about simulation, you seem to have entirely missed my point. I speak about artificial neurons that would be functionally identical to our own. Actually, we don't even need to place them physically into the brain...

A neuron is not a solution to the problem of consciousness or AI.  

It is an electro chemical mechanism.  There is no certainty that this is the only path to consciousness.

Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...

Here's a (ridiculous) analogy.  Because all conscious creatures have two legs and two arms, machines that we build that think must have two arms and legs.  False, of course.  And any functionality of a neuron can be simulated exactly in software.

Here's a thought experiment.  You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.   NO computer circuits.  You have an unlimited supply of punched cards and machines, so you build the equivalent of a brain with them.

Can this group of punched cards 'think'?

My point was simply that the wrong starting point was to think neurons.  This is irrefutable, because the starting point is to think about the utility - the actual jobs that machines have to do, some of which involve weak or strong AI.  Then you build things to 'do those jobs.'

Hello, Skynet...

[deisik]

Yes, we can't be certain. But could you propose any other reliable way to create or at least support consciousness if we don't know what consciousness actually is in the first place. I think that we will never be able to explain it, but this by no means prevents us from being able to create it (just as nature obviously does)...

Here's a (ridiculous) analogy.  Because all conscious creatures have two legs and two arms, machines that we build that think must have two arms and legs.  False, of course.  And any functionality of a neuron can be simulated exactly in software.

Here's a thought experiment.  You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.   NO computer circuits.  You have an unlimited supply of punched cards and machines, so you build the equivalent of a brain with them.

Can this group of punched cards 'think'?

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

[Spendulus]

...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.  ...

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

How could you build something that works out of some parts you do not understand, then?

[deisik]

...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.  ...

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

How could you build something that works out of some parts you do not understand, then?

We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...

And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments

[madmadmax]

...You can exactly imitate a neuron in software, so you implement a neuron using old 1950s punched card type machines.  ...

This assumption is flat-out wrong. We can actually simulate some properties of neuron (or anything else for that matter), but we simply can't simulate some physical real-world processes (part of which we probably don't yet know). And this is principal limitation of this reality which would require real experiment and would fail any simulation. That's why I was proposing to plant artificial "live" neurons next to the real ones...

How could you build something that works out of some parts you do not understand, then?

We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...

And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

[superresistant]

Do you believe that one day you could philosophize with a robot?

This is one of the most impressive conversational robots I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY
Hanson Robotics seem to be leading the way in this area of technology.

My point exactly, 99% of the robots conversations have been scripted, he may pick up a word or two occasionally but overall it is nothing more than a piece of plastic with a bunch of fancy prop wires. He cannot understand or implement new concepts, he is only capable of swapping one word for another, in other words he is essentially an illusion of AI rather than an actual AI.

Because you believe that 99 % people understand or implement new concepts. You are overestimating humans.

[deisik]

We do it everyday really. We don't know many things that are happening at subatomic level but this doesn't prevent us from building ships and cars which consist of those subatomic particles. People began using electricity without ever knowing about electrons...

And it may not actually work after all. That's why we carry out experiments

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

What you say doesn't follow from my point I expounded on in my previous posts. If you think otherwise, please explain what actually makes you think so...

[superresistant]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

[deisik]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

[cbeast]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

[deisik]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself (you can generate the same music in many different ways). That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...

[cbeast]

So we reach the conclusion that the only known path to consciousness is the natural path e.g. the human brain, which would be more related to biology rather than computers, perhaps an artificially grown brain hooked up to a machine which is still something humanity is unlikely to see.

Consciousness is not the physical brain.

We actually don't know what consciousness is. We can only assert with a degree of certainty what it is not. Indeed, it is not the physical brain itself, but if we damage it, an individual whose brain is damaged nevertheless loses consciousness...

Saying that the brain is not consciousness is like saying the music you are hearing is not generated by your mp3 player. Much of the information may have external origins, but the hardware itself produces the actual experience.

Yes, it is generated by the player, but the music is not the player itself. That was the point proposed ("consciousness is not the physical brain") and I agree with that assumption...

Consciousness falls into what I consider emergent complexity. Memetics is also related going back to Jung's Collective Unconscious.