Artificial Intelligence: When Humans Transcend Biology

[JimHawkins]

how is that creative or art ?

yes most definately a matter of perspective .

Cognito ergo sum , not mimicry actual comprehension .

Original meaning not a copy of something else..

As to scrutinizing the "comprehension" of the artist, or the program the artist designed, I think you would have to take that up with him..

I don’t think that one can evaluate a work of art based on the comprehension of the artist since most of the greatest are dead..

Again.. I did not write the app, I am only reporting on what this gentleman did and said about it…

[Stryke]

hey Jim no stress , as I agreed matter of opinion .

I don’t think that one can evaluate a work of art

the first part of that sentence was the best .

just candor man

not discussing gung fu

[-Metablade-]

And because we are human, we will continue to mess up in our quest.
- Bill

At the end of the day, We are all just naked monkeys.
Naked monkeys with Particle Accelerators, that is..

[2Green]

Jim/ shaolin:
Actually the computational power of the human brain is many, many, many, times that of even the fastest conventional computer. This is because the human brain uses something called parallel processing.(Jim.)
-------------------------------------
This was my point.
But it's not exactly computational power, it's rationalization power.
The brain does not arrive at rational outcomes by computation.
As you point out, it uses something similar to the electronic parallel-processing we have devised in an attempt to mimic its behaviour.

But the human mind/brain is capable of interconnects and conclusions which completely transcend computational models.
In fact, computation is not really what the mind/brain IS best at.

Imagination and visualization are the hallmarks of the true power of the mind/brain, and it is these abilities that are behind human advancement.

The computer itself only exists because a human first visualized it, then devised a way to bring it into physical existence.

And then we somehow turned everything around and pretended that our own brain was somekind of inferior version of this thing we created.

Do you know what a "Clockwork Orange" is?
It's a British term for something which quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, yet is in fact NOT a duck...it's a "Clockwork Duck" or, in the vernacular, a "Clockwork Orange", not a REAL orange.

A computer is a "Clockwork Brain", able to emulate many attributes of an actual brain, yet unable to actually experience or spontaneously create them.
It can mimic the behaviour of human response in the (erroneously termed) "Turing Test" (Turing never referred to it as a test.), up to a point, but computers are simply tools: extensions of human power -- yes, like pliers.

Pliers multiply mechanical power, computers multiply computational power.

Not thought.

NM

[JimHawkins]

But it's not exactly computational power, it's rationalization power.

No idea what you mean here. Neurons are the processers...

The brain does not arrive at rational outcomes by computation.

If you don't feel "computation" accurately describes what each neuron does then what does? Based on modern thought each neuron IS a processor.. More complex than simple ANNs <Artificial Neural Networks> today, but still a processor of information.

But the human mind/brain is capable of interconnects and conclusions which completely transcend computational models.

A "model" of what?

You need to support these kinds of statements with factual information, studies or tests..

Can the brain be modeled? Will the brain be modeled? If the brain or more importantly, the concepts that the brain works on can be modeled it can be modeled in real time with computers, either in software or in hardware or with a combination of the two.

Models, that only scratch the surface of what the brain does have proven the ability to learn how to understand speech, to recognize shapes and letters, how to walk via a biped robot, etc, we can see that many simple human functions can be emulated using the very "model", albeit a basic one, found in the brain. Based on these early successes I would conclude that modeling the brain is quite valid and possible based on these results using this model. The key is in understanding how to model or to allow the model to build itself based on an open end design and then talking the next step into creative thinking..

If you wish to suggest that only "simple learning" can be modeled and more advanced "creative thought" cannot be modeled, well then the burden of prove is on you. All the data so far would IMO seem to indicate the opposite..

The brain is a biological machine--yes or no? If a machine then it can be modeled.

In fact, computation is not really what the mind/brain IS best at.

Again neurons process the electrochemical information they receive and output a result.. If you listen to the brain using the right equipment you can hear the neurons "clicking" when they fire, and it sounds amazingly mechanical..!

Again is the brain a biological machine or not?

Imagination and visualization are the hallmarks of the true power of the mind/brain, and it is these abilities that are behind human advancement.

Imagination can be simulated.. Not to the degree that us humans seem to be able to do but these things take time.. Again is the brain a machine or not?

The computer itself only exists because a human first visualized it, then devised a way to bring it into physical existence.

Yes and did you know that machines <computers> using "chips" design other "chips"?

And then we somehow turned everything around and pretended that our own brain was somekind of inferior version of this thing we created.

According to whom? No one is suggesting this today in the AI field that I know of; There are high hopes for the future of such endeavors.

But here is the question: Will man-made thinking machines eventually eclipse the capability of their creators.. and the answer at the present time is far from known. There is only speculation and logic to go by and the results of our present day efforts. But again according to the evidence of successes I would have to say it is possible that one day this may well happen.

A computer is a "Clockwork Brain", able to emulate many attributes of an actual brain, yet unable to actually experience or spontaneously create them.

That depends on who is doing the coding Neil.

I will put forth this hypothesis for you..

If the brain is a machine then it can be modeled.. If it can be modeled it can be built.. If it can be built it will be built eventually.

"Turing Test" (Turing never referred to it as a test.)

I don't recall the whole story but this is from Wikipedia..

The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's capability to perform human-like conversation. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing machinery and intelligence"

A very important test Neil because it has yet to be passed.. Why has it not been passed? Think about that..

To do so would show a very high degree of "machine intelligence.."

up to a point, but computers are simply tools: extensions of human power -- yes, like pliers.

Apples and Antelope..

I'll agree with you when pliers can learn.

[-Metablade-]

Robots learning social skills.

http://www.physorg.com/news70202621.html

[JimHawkins]

Good stuff Meta..

But a team of researchers led by the Institute of Cognitive Science and Technology in Italy are taking a new approach to the problem, developing technology to allow machines to evolve their own language from their experiences of interacting with their environment and cooperating with other devices.

This is key.. It is the "free will" or simply freedom to evolve that will allow for infinite possibilities of adaption and finally real intelligence, as was the case with us biological machines..

BTW Meta..

Are you "into" AI? Done any programming?

[2Green]

Hi Jim:

I'm a little taken aback at your responses to my posts.
I have laid out two fairly lengthy posts expressing my opinions of the subject of "machine thinking" versus "brain thinking", and I have taken great care to NOT simply "quote and slice" your posts, but rather to read them fully, absorb your overall thrust, and then respond.

I could easily address your responses sentence-by-sentence but I'm more interested in the larger concepts, not the semantic definitions.

However, you asked me about some specific ones, so in fairness I will respond to these specifically:

Machine:
"Definitions of machine on the Web:

* any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks
* an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently; "the war machine"
* an efficient person; "the boxer was a magnificent fighting machine"
* car: a motor vehicle with four wheels; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work"
* a group that controls the activities of a political party; "he was endorsed by the Democratic machine"
* turn, shape, mold, or otherwise finish by machinery
* a device for overcoming resistance at one point by applying force at some other point
* make by machinery; "The Americans were machining while others still hand-made cars"

>>>Please note that the definition makes a distinction between the machine and "human" tasks.<<<

So, is the brain a machine, you asked? My answer is "no, not by any established definition."
Machines are devices, designed BY the brain, to "perform or assist in the performance of human tasks."

This includes, obviously, computers.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Computation":
Definitions of computation on the Web:

* calculation: the procedure of calculating; determining something by mathematical or logical methods
* calculation: problem solving that involves numbers or quantities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Computation can be defined as finding a solution to a problem from given inputs by means of an algorithm. In turn, the theory of computation, a subfield of computer science and mathematics, provides analysis of problems, inputs, and algorithms.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computation

* A computation denotes an executing program composed of one or more active threads. Each computation consists of a code closure which specifies its behaviour, an execution state which stores all control information related to the execution the computation and a data space that includes all the resources accessible by the computation.
cui.unige.ch/~ecoopws/tpi/glos.html

* The manipulation of numbers or symbols according to fixed rules. Usually applied to the operations of an automatic electronic computer, but by extension to some processes performed by minds or brains. See also Cognitivism.
http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/books ... node1.html

* A calculation (usually of numbers) performed by means of an algorithm.
www.geocities.com/templarser/complexglos.html

* A sequence of states from a state space.
web.sau.edu/LillisKevinM/csci410/Fall2004/Formal%20Process.html

>>>It was my contention that this method is really not how the brain solves problems. Rather, the brain employs a higher order of intelligence to problem-solve, rather than brute-force computation. At least, mine does.<<<

I'll stop with the examples now.
I have also noticed that you have contextually mistaken some of my comments as being my personal beliefs or statements, when in fact I was presenting them as examples of fallacious thinking.
This prompted me to see that you were in fact shredding the posts line-by-line, therefore missing the real overall context.
Kind of like seeing the trees, but not the forest.

I know that lots of people do that on the forums, but one has to kind of "get back" and look at the real ideas being presented -- I think the "quote-shredding" thing really confuses the issue being discussed, which is why I try to avoid doing it. It's NOT because I feel I can't defend my opinions.

This is indeed a complex topic: one I would love to discuss in person, but I don't think a forum format really serves the subject matter in the best way.

NM

[JimHawkins]

I'm a little taken aback at your responses to my posts.
I have laid out two fairly lengthy posts expressing my opinions of the subject of "machine thinking" versus "brain thinking", and I have taken great care to NOT simply "quote and slice" your posts, but rather to read them fully, absorb your overall thrust, and then respond.

I could easily address your responses sentence-by-sentence but I'm more interested in the larger concepts, not the semantic definitions.

So responding point by point is now unfair? Oh boy..

I can address all the points but somehow I am side stepping the "main thrust"? Not sure that would fly in an organized debate format.. Any position is based on sub assertions and if those assertions are flawed so is the entire position, that's how debates are conducted..

My debating style is what it is.. I address the points made when I see those points as flawed and I point out why.

I think I got your point Neil I just don't see the position as defensible or logical.

You are taking the position that the brain is not a machine in the sense of a organized system made of sub components that all function as a unit.. Are you not?

All of modern Science says the brain is a machine, no not made out of steel and wire but made out of cells..and chemicals.

Machine:
"Definitions of machine on the Web:

* any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks
* an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently; "the war machine"
* an efficient person; "the boxer was a magnificent fighting machine"
* car: a motor vehicle with four wheels; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work"
* a group that controls the activities of a political party; "he was endorsed by the Democratic machine"
* turn, shape, mold, or otherwise finish by machinery
* a device for overcoming resistance at one point by applying force at some other point
* make by machinery; "The Americans were machining while others still hand-made cars"

>>>Please note that the definition makes a distinction between the machine and "human" tasks.<<<

So you're going to define the future of Cybernetics by what the dictionary says a machine is?

Not reasonable or very open-minded IMO

It seems to me that you are hiding behind a false premise..

As we see here:
"the boxer was a magnificent fighting machine"

So, the boxer, who is human, is a "boxing machine" but the brain is not a machine? I'm afraid this argument is riddled with contradictions and doesn't address the key issue.

It's all semantics: Any "machine" is an integrated system of components. If you wish to distinquish between natural machines--organisms and man made that's fine and dandy, but both are integrated systems of components and therefore can be modeled once understood. And part of developing an understanding involves testing theories by building AI systems based on those theories. This exploration not only benefits technology but helps us get a better understanding of ourselves too.

So, is the brain a machine, you asked? My answer is "no, not by any established definition."

If a fighter is a "fighting machine" then the brain is a "thinking machine" thank you for making my point.

If we design a new CPU chip out of organic material it is still a CPU... The material that makes a thing work does not change why it works, what it does or what it is, functionally it's still a CPU.

>>>It was my contention that this method is really not how the brain solves problems. Rather, the brain employs a higher order of intelligence to problem-solve, rather than brute-force computation. At least, mine does.<<<

Higher than what? Pliers?

Intelligence is a fuzzy term that explains absolutely NOTHING in terms of functionality.

Intelligent how?

Intelligent why?

How does it work?

We already know much about how the brain works...

From Wiki..

Neurons are a major class of cells in the nervous system. Neurons are sometimes called nerve cells, though this term is technically imprecise, as many neurons do not form nerves. In vertebrates, they are found in the brain, the spinal cord and in the nerves and ganglia of the peripheral nervous system, and their main role is to process and transmit neural information. An important characteristic of neurons is that they have excitable membranes that allow them to generate and propagate electrical signals.

A chemical and organic MACHINE that contains little computers called neurons that "process and transmit"!

None of this involves any theory of a "ghost in the machine." Is it your position that there is a "ghost in the machine"?

If not then I'm not sure what you are asserting.

That any man made machine/system/device can never creatively solve problems?

That any man made machine/system/device can never be sentient?

I don't expect "machine intelligence" will ever be identical to "human intelligence", but I'm not ruling it out either.

I do believe that sentient machines can and will be built and base that on the success already made in the field.

This is indeed a complex topic: one I would love to discuss in person, but I don't think a forum format really serves the subject matter in the best way.

Not that complex, simple IMO.. The brain is either a biological machine.. meaning a system made of matter and sub-components that all work together to perform a task... OR There is some mystical and magical force that makes it work.. like a soul..

It's really one or the other folks.. I've been over this one many times..

All the evidence available shows us that the brain is a highly organized biological system--a machine.. Any system or machine can be modeled...

It's all about understanding how it works..

Then at some point someone will build one..



Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my laboratory..

[fivedragons]

Well if we can build a brain, who will write the user's manual?

Excuse me, I hear sanchin calling.

[Stryke]

theres just to many wasted brains around to be in need of building more .

I`m all for recycling

[fivedragons]

Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron.

[2Green]

However "Natural Stupidity" is not.

(Not referring to you Jim, I enjoyed our discussion very much and learned something too.)

NM

[JimHawkins]

I enjoyed our discussion very much and learned something too.

Thanks Neil.

[Tom Faigle]

theres just to many wasted brains around to be in need of building more .

I`m all for recycling

So true!

But along the lines of the thread, here are a few links to works being done to fuse brain cells with computer chips and create some real "intelligence". I'm sure Glasheen will offer some great insight, but I personally find this work both incredible and also something to worry about.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/braindish.htm

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19481