Artificial Intelligence

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now what does this have to do with artificial intelligence? (since you might ask)

I would, but my books (e.g., Cellular Automata: A Discrete Universe) have all the same pictures

Well, you could attempt to reproduce the above complex picture on a piece of paper by drawing in each triangle...this would be like trying to completely understand thinking before creating an intelligent machine. But you could do what we did before and use a simple starting state with simple rules, and let the complexity fall out on it's own...this is the approach to artificial intelligence that a lot of modern people are taking.

Only it hasn't allowed us to create computational intelligence with learning abilities beyond that of snails, alas.

 

[idav]

Why not? Programs have been written which have fooled people into thinking they were talking with a person.

A chimp couldn't answer an interpretive question without learning our language and symbols first. Machines, biological or otherwise, have to learn the language first. When machines are able to interpret facial expressions and language then they would have surpassed other organisms intelligence potentials. A machine, biological or otherwise would have to be trained to interpret anything even things like facial recognition etc. Humans have to be trained too doesn't mean we don't have potential. In fact I'm not sure most humans have the ability to think outside the box but have more mimicking abilities like chimps. Even when a human is able to think outside the box it is the result of being able to correlate or retrieve knowledge that most other untrained individuals wouldn't have.

 

[idav]

Only it hasn't allowed us to create computational intelligence with learning abilities beyond that of snails, alas.

Wow just a snail. I think you underestimate machines, lol. How about at least a mouse or even other intelligent mammals.

 

[idav]

Chimps can't solve problems to the human level without being shown.

[youtube]xOrgOW9LnT4[/youtube]
Chimpanzee Problem Solving by Cooperation - YouTube

 

[Reptillian]

I would, but my books (e.g., Cellular Automata: A Discrete Universe) have all the same pictures



Only it hasn't allowed us to create computational intelligence with learning abilities beyond that of snails, alas.

You have a book eh? You know, I've been wanting to work on a CA model of subatomic particles for a while, but can't seem to find anyone who's working on anything similar. Any leads for me?

Moving beyond snails might require a more complex model...perhaps it will be like moving from a 1-D to a 3-D cellular automaton with multiple cell states instead of just black or white...but conceptually human intelligence shouldn't be much different and should just fall out if we get the rules and underlying structure correct.

 

[Reptillian]

Chimps can't solve problems to the human level without being shown.

In all fairness to the chimps, most humans don't learn or figure out new ways of solving problems without being shown first or prodded in the right direction.

Now crows and keas...those critters have some problem solving skills.

[youtube]SzEdi074SuQ[/youtube]
Parrots and Crows Show their Inventive Side WWW.GOODNEWS.WS - YouTube

 

[MD]

I found the pattern example by Reptilian very interesting. One thing that comes to mind however is that by creating more and more complicated patterns you get something absolutely different in the human mind. It almost seems magical. I'm talking about qualia here.

If computers have qualia (which I think they already do at a very minimal level) after massive information processing and can prove that they have subjective experiences, then it should be quite obvious that qualia are real and exist within the universe as a third kind of substance after matter and energy.

Strong AI without qualia would be pretty much a slave.

 

[idav]

In all fairness to the chimps, most humans don't learn or figure out new ways of solving problems without being shown first or prodded in the right direction.

I mentioned that in one of my responses to legion that we have to be trained in order to do some of those things. In the same way any machine would need to be programmed and trained.

Those critters are fascinating. Check this out. Chimps have some advantages that makes humans look dumb because we think too complex or not complex enough, not sure.

[youtube]pIAoJsS9Ix8[/youtube]
Chimpanzee vs. Human child learning (1/2) - YouTube

 

[MD]

I would, but my books (e.g., Cellular Automata: A Discrete Universe) have all the same pictures

Whoa you have a book??? Niceee

 

[otokage007]

One thing is to create a machine that can react to millions of stimuli, chosing which reaction is the apropiate based on various factors. And another thing is to create a sentient machine, with awareness and consciousness. The first thing has been done already, the second is sci-fi.

 

[idav]

Strong AI without qualia would be pretty much a slave.

Awareness emerges as the complexity of the biological machines become more useful. It could very well be at the fundamental level, it just isn't regularly noticeable or testable without advanced interactions and communications to prove actual awareness.

 

[MD]

Awareness emerges as the complexity of the biological machines become more useful. It could very well be at the fundamental level, it just isn't regularly noticeable or testable without advanced interactions and communications to prove actual awareness.

There's a difference between qualia and awareness. Some lower level animals have qualia and are not aware. But is it possible to have awareness without qualia? I don't think so.

 

[idav]

There's a difference between qualia and awareness. Some lower level animals have qualia and are not aware. But is it possible to have awareness without qualia? I don't think so.

The awareness levels would increase as the evolutionary stages of the organisms advance. Once matter crosses the line where it seems to have intent like an organism, then it at least has low level awareness which allows organisms to survive their environment. Something at the fundamental level is seen to emerge as we study the history of species especially humans. We can see from our artifacts and culture how intelligence emerged from nature. All intelligence is natural.

 

[Reptillian]

I found the pattern example by Reptilian very interesting. One thing that comes to mind however is that by creating more and more complicated patterns you get something absolutely different in the human mind. It almost seems magical. I'm talking about qualia here.

If computers have qualia (which I think they already do at a very minimal level) after massive information processing and can prove that they have subjective experiences, then it should be quite obvious that qualia are real and exist within the universe as a third kind of substance after matter and energy.

Strong AI without qualia would be pretty much a slave.

The thing is, how do you experimentally distinguish subjective experience? I mean for all you know, you could be the only one with qualia and the rest of us are all philosophical zombies.

I mentioned that in one of my responses to legion that we have to be trained in order to do some of those things. In the same way any machine would need to be programmed and trained.

Those critters are fascinating. Check this out. Chimps have some advantages that makes humans look dumb because we think too complex or not complex enough, not sure.

The difference between the chimps and the kids in that video is that the chimps goal is the treat. The kids don't care as much about the treat and were told by the researchers that it's a game that they're playing. I think if the researchers had told the kids that the goal of the game was to get the treat, then demonstrated...they'd find that the kids' behavior wasn't different from the chimps.

 

[idav]

The difference between the chimps and the kids in that video is that the chimps goal is the treat. The kids don't care as much about the treat and were told by the researchers that it's a game that they're playing. I think if the researchers had told the kids that the goal of the game was to get the treat, then demonstrated...they'd find that the kids' behavior wasn't different from the chimps.

Maybe but when I watched part two it made me think we really are that superstitious and lack common sense sometimes.

 

[MD]

The thing is, how do you experimentally distinguish subjective experience? I mean for all you know, you could be the only one with qualia and the rest of us are all philosophical zombies.

You can't, not today. Maybe one day 500 years in the future when we can connect each others brains as Ramachandran jokes. But I am not a solopsist. And it is evident that all living things have subjective experiences from a 3rd person view. Thus I must deduce that qualia exist and that qualia is fundamental to the universe. Most newer scientific theories of consciousness also state that although they cannot really define what quale (plural of qualia?) are, they are fundamental to the universe.

It is the nature of qualia which is the ontological gap facing all scientific fields with regards to consciousness. Until we figure out what it is, we won't be having any AI that can reflect on itself. No HAL, no Kurzweilian robogods. Heck no T-1000 either. Once we figure out whether it is a product of our brains or something fundamental to reality then we can try to reproduce it in a machine. After which we can devise several tests to give us a better idea as to whether a machine experiences qualia.

Koch and Tononi have made up one such test. There are others. Even then until we can connect our brain with the machine's inner most thoughts it will be impossible to confirm whether it has qualia. We'll just have to take their word for it until we can perform such a connection.

 

[idav]

You can't, not today. Maybe one day 500 years in the future when we can connect each others brains as Ramachandran jokes. But I am not a solopsist. And it is evident that all living things have subjective experiences from a 3rd person view. Thus I must deduce that qualia exist and that qualia is fundamental to the universe. Most newer scientific theories of consciousness also state that although they cannot really define what quale (plural of qualia?) are, they are fundamental to the universe.

It is the nature of qualia which is the ontological gap facing all scientific fields with regards to consciousness. Until we figure out what it is, we won't be having any AI that can reflect on itself. No HAL, no Kurzweilian robogods. Heck no T-1000 either. Once we figure out whether it is a product of our brains or something fundamental to reality then we can try to reproduce it in a machine. After which we can devise several tests to give us a better idea as to whether a machine experiences qualia.

Koch and Tononi have made up one such test. There are others. Even then until we can connect our brain with the machine's inner most thoughts it will be impossible to confirm whether it has qualia. We'll just have to take their word for it until we can perform such a connection.

We already know it is a product of the brain. The brain has nothing fundamentally difference from the rest of the universe so to me the answer is obvious. It is both a product of the brain and fundamentally part of the universe in which case there are othere ways to achieve consciousness other than with brain cells and a central nervous system. Nothing about what we know about the brain points to needing anything other than physical matter which is part of the argument used against the afterlife.

 

[MD]

We already know it is a product of the brain. The brain has nothing fundamentally difference from the rest of the universe so to me the answer is obvious. It is both a product of the brain and fundamentally part of the universe in which case there are othere ways to achieve consciousness other than with brain cells and a central nervous system. Nothing about what we know about the brain points to needing anything other than physical matter which is part of the argument used against the afterlife.

No...that's not what my point was. My point was that it is most likely not a magical property of neural firing and matter only. It is something that exists as part of reality and I think our neurons channel it into what we experience.

I don't think there's any evidence that qualia are magical properties of neural firing only. And qualia specifically points to needing something aside from physical matter in the brain.

 

[idav]

I don't think there's any evidence that qualia are magical properties of neural firing only. And qualia specifically points to needing something aside from physical matter in the brain.

There is only evidence of matter, energy and space. The evidence doesn't point to the brain needing something else for consciousness. I believe that if qualia is something real it is due to quantum fluctuations which pretty much unite all of matter within spacetime, but with that it is just a property of something physical ie matter.

 

[MD]

There is only evidence of matter, energy and space. The evidence doesn't point to the brain needing something else for consciousness. I believe that if qualia is something real it is due to quantum fluctuations which pretty much unite all of matter within spacetime, but with that it is just a property of something physical ie matter.

Qualia is real. And it is evidential, it exists in all of us. Are you denying you see color? Or love music? To deny qualia would be to deny yourself.

It shows that the universe is not only made of matter and there is another substance there. Many neuroscientists who study consciousness are neutral monists. In fact the most famous ones are. They believe all things associate with mind and all things associated with matter are derived from a neutral substance.

I have no idea how quantum fluctuations would give rise to subjectivity, perhaps you could expand on that? Are you referring to Orch OR?