TUTORIAL: How to love a machine - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: TUTORIAL: How to love a machine

  1. #21
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Bludgeon,

    The your last premise is disturbing, denying a newborn sensory input.

    It can be overcome. Helen Keller was deprived most sensory input and rose above her "limitations". When children are denied by disability , they can learn, reroute and overcome. It's when an adult is suddenly handicapped that a problem begins because that adult has forgotten how to learn.


    Imagine if the human being could continue to learn throughout its life at the rate it learns in the first five years, we'd probably only make it to 30 before absoultely frying but man what a ride...
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    744
    Ah yeah, your Helen Keller point reminded me we would also have to remove any tactile sensations, as well.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    224
    Originally posted here by fourdc

    Imagine if the human being could continue to learn throughout its life at the rate it learns in the first five years, we'd probably only make it to 30 before absoultely frying but man what a ride...
    If this were the case, I believe that we would individually learn to overcome and manipulate physics as well as learn to communicate by different means other than speech. Not even teleknesis at that point. Just by perhaps facial expressions.
    There are many rewarding oppurtunities awaiting composure from like minds and great ideas. It in my objective to interconnect great things.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    224
    I mean Telepathy...
    There are many rewarding oppurtunities awaiting composure from like minds and great ideas. It in my objective to interconnect great things.

  5. #25
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Bludgeon I think you completely missed my point and I may have not have explained it enough, and there is a disclaimer here, those posts are my own thoughts so they may or may not be correct. I too will take things out of order. I am of "limited" intelligence, but I spoke for man as a whole. I believe the very key is the code; we are not talking about what already exists, but about making something new, thus the term "artificial" intelligence. I state that possibly the technology, in terms of processing power and transistors, will not be the pivotal factor but writing some sort of instruction set that mimics our own brains is more critical, the code. In fact you have done some very interesting research so you most likely understand that code at a cellular level is extremely basic. My thought is - we are going the wrong way and attempting to make very elaborate and complicated code. The smarter our machine comes the more complex the code, and eventually critical mass could be met in which to make something "smart", the code will be too complex for man to continue programming.

    I say this because I stated we already have computers millions of times more powerful that the Intel PC setting on my desk. Sure the pathways that the brain builds are incredible for man. That also part of the code or the connection of independent neurons and pathways. In fact connections of several transistors together form gateways in a computer. It’s a simple comparison I agree, but it is what digital logic processes are built on, AND gates, OR gates, exclusive OR etc. These are predetermined arrangements of transistors in a physical circuit encoded on a microprocessor that perform some logic function depending on their arrangement.

    I totally agree that no computer on earth compares to the complexity in establishing the pathways critical to the function or our brains. But at the same time it seems to me that a computer with 20 or 40 million floating point processing capability (per second) should be capable of reproducing the complexity of a brain the size of something along the lines of a Newt or maybe a hamster. Or be able to control a simple robotic shell without human intervention. Something along the lines of, go down all city streets for a 4 block radius and collect all garbage off the streets and come back once a day to empty garbage stored in your shell and recharge.

    My 1 to 1 comparison was to just show that computers exist to day with billions of transistors in their CPU function and we agree that given a brain with 20 billion neurons and a computer with 20 billion transistors or even 5 times that amount the computer is astronomically weak in comparison because there is some significant piece of knowledge missing. I state the code in developing or writing the pathways to simulate a brain is missing and the brain processes thing very differently than a computer. As you have stated the major difference is that each pathway is processing computations at the same time. That is the difference. You also mention memory and I was going to touch on that in my original post. In fact that is why I mentioned the blob of electricity, because unlike a computer the memory, bus and the CPU are all one piece (blob) of proverbial silicon. That technology doesn’t even exist on the horizon. By that I mean to match the brain’s capability the Memory, CPU and processing bus would all have to be the same device sharing the same transistors all firing and processing at the same time. Super computers can’t even do that. If they could then all those transistors might lead to comparable processing of the brain. But that would take code and pre-wired pathway designs for a basic structure to grow from.

    I also made a statement that implies that even if every technological hurdle is overcome and we build a computer that processes 5 times more than our brains can handle, we may find ourselves limited in our ability to produce simple instructions capable of delivering self awareness into the artificial machine. It has nothing to do with the size of my own brain or the gauge of my own personal intelligence. It has to do with something I am wrestling with. It is this: how can a machine create something smarter and more complicated that its own mechanism, in this case the machine is man? That is a valid scientific observation. I am going a little light hearted here; it’s like a rabbit waking up one day and creating a painting of a street in Paris? I am reaching for an analogy to describe my thoughts. Perhaps in this case the rabbit isn’t capable of creating something beyond his power in terms of processing creativity. He does have a limitation that cannot be overcome.

    Indeed if you take away all sensory input from a newborn you have some thing less developed but not a vegetable. Certain pathways will be missing – true, but you will still have an operational self-aware machine locked in a sort of hellish existence. I think that brain would develop its own surreal position in life. It may dream its own existence into an alternate albeit internal universe? The difference between this and someone in a coma would be brain activity. The brain is still processing and creating, it isn’t dead or even physically damaged. Even severely comatose people with brain activity below what is considered a living person, have reactions at a primitive level.

    Bottom line here is I wish man will create self aware beings and learn to time travel and drop into black holes and conquer the universe. I just like to think. And argue sometimes because my brain likes to build those new pathways to knowledge I might not otherwise get.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    I htink we are all missing the fact that the brain isn't a binary machine, nurons are analog not digital in how they fire, sure acording to the universal machine you can take any universal machine and emulate another (see danny hillis paterns on the stone). You could make a computer out of nurons, but I do not think yo can make a brain out of transisters..the key is in our errors we can make illogical "intuitive jumps" that a universal machine by it s very nature cannot make. we can make the jump form point a to point z in one step by dumb luck, a computer can not.

    eveolutionary computing is makeing some great strides but I think it has affectivly shown us that we cannot build a true AI.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Originally posted here by RoadClosed

    I totally agree that no computer on earth compares to the complexity in establishing the pathways critical to the function or our brains. But at the same time it seems to me that a computer with 20 or 40 million floating point processing capability (per second) should be capable of reproducing the complexity of a brain the size of something along the lines of a Newt or maybe a hamster. Or be able to control a simple robotic shell without human intervention. Something along the lines of, go down all city streets for a 4 block radius and collect all garbage off the streets and come back once a day to empty garbage stored in your shell and recharge.
    interestingly the most "inteligent" of the insect robots curently in research have no computers at all, I will try and dig up a link.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    224
    Damn!
    There are many rewarding oppurtunities awaiting composure from like minds and great ideas. It in my objective to interconnect great things.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    744
    Hmmmm, I see what your saying Road, but my point was that computers haven't come close to the computing power of the human brain. Rehash. . .
    "While human neurons are slow (a million times slower than electronic circuits), every neuron and every interneuronal connection is operating simultaneously. With about 100 billion neurons and an average of 1000 connections per neuron, there are about 100 trillion computations being performed at the same time. At about 200 computations per second, that comes to 20 million billion (2 x 1016) calculations per second.". . .
    Once again, the key is not the code. We start out, IMO, tabula rosa, brains cells (like stem cells) are undifferentiated until there is a stimulus that creates a function. What's needed to create AI, I think, is input. Sensory input.

    If you have an infant w/ no type of stimulus you will have a vegetable, no doubts. Maybe someone injured after an amount of interaction w/ the world around it would would still be processing, but if you start w/ nothing, you'll end w/ nothing.

    Ballad brought up the point that the brain is not a binary machine. I would disagree. . .a neuron is either firing or not. . .active or not. . .1 or 0. I'll leave it at that.
    Every now and then, one of you won't annoy me.

  10. #30
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Ok I agree with you when looking at the biological brain that input writes the program, as using my anology. But some kind of mechanical or electronic apparatus has to mimick that process with some sort of OS that can build pathways in the artificial brain. If it's not artificial but a blank biological brain that was grown or made from existing cells then I don't see how that is artificial.

    I was saying that a newborn is already wired and programmed to think and dream. A newly conciever fetus or zygote... now that's different but there is something in there that programs the initial pathways and starts the basic life functions going.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •