NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You would be very surprised to see how much of what we do in every day interactions, language and even thought is essentially rote, repetition, and fluff. Talk to someone who is "confabulating" (e.g. Korsakoff's syndrome, some dementias) and you will see how we fill in the blank with meaningless phrases and just make stuff up as we go. There are rules, and we can follow the rules even when we aren't really saying anything much. Like I just did. We have multiple "programmed responses" to language and actions, and most people probably never rise above the programmed response to have an original expression or thought. Even empathy can be expressed through language in response to painful situations. "I am so sorry for your loss." Am I? Of course I am. Or I wouldn't have said it. My grandmother had Alzheimer's Disease. Being a physician, you know what this does to their mind, yet when she used random words because she couldn't think of the right ones, the meaning of what she was thinking was still meaningful to her. Just not to us. I think people know when heartfelt words are said and when just "programmed resonses" are uttered. Even a look alone can express feelings without words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well, I do believe in the case gods. Rule #1: Never put the case back on the computer until you have booted it an tested it. God! I hate it when I do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Again, in the simplest terms nature begets nature through nature. Humans creating and crafting a tool cannot, by the very definition of them not be the natural system that creates them using its universal cooking pot in its way, can't make them what nature makes them. What I'm trying to say is that humans are natural, and what we make is a byproduct of our naturalness. Machines are, perhaps, the next stage in "our" evolution. Consider a factory that makes computers that are intelligent, and the factory is "run" by computers, and the design of the computers is made by computers, and the equipment to make factories and mine the materials, and every step in the design, construction and programming is done by computers. We may start the fire, but that doesn't mean we can control it. When "they" begin to take measures to improve their progeny and preserve their integrity, then they will be "alive". In a sense, the simplest self-replicating and self-propagating computer virus is alive, as a parasite of the computers. That is, they are as much alive as any carbon based virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How can so many make these bold claims about computers? Do you know what life and mind are so as to manifest them via computers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 By the way, Shyone, have you ever seen the sci-fi anime movie, Ghost In The Shell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to program compassionate and loving responses, either. However, there is a difference between a programmed response and a response that arises out of empathy. I've lived long enough to learn, "never say, 'never'". However, I stand by what I've said before. I'll be impressed when said device actually feels empathy and responds with compassion. The empathy being elicited from its own awareness of reality - not programmed into its response capabilities. I think it might be useful to examine what is meant by 'feeling' empathy - mind mindedness is something that 'develops' with guidance and explanation in a child, much of this 'awareness' is taught, what is it that we are saying is dfferent about programming? I do recognise that there is an apparent difference. I anticiapte that if I discovered that any of you were not 'real' people but computer simulations, I would 'feel' let down, but why? The feelings I generate in myself in response to the kindness shown would still be just as real. What is it that we see as so impressive about the feelings we generate, that we would only be impressed if we thought somehting similar was being reciprocated? There are studies that show that chemical inbalances in the brain during depression are linked to relationship breakdowns, and that if these inbalances are rectified then relationships are less likely to come to an end - one of my favourite questions is to ask people 'if a pill was invented that would ensure you stayed feeling 'in love' with your partner - would you take it? and if your partner was taking it, would you feel loved? If the sensations of love we experience can be altered and manipulated by chemicals - then I am sure this can be replicated. We are beginning to touch on human nature in a way that many people find distasteful. "Heartfelt" is an outdated term, and we know this intellectually. So, keeping thought and feeling in the mind... Feelings are thoughts. Through evolution, we are "programmed" to experience some emotions; particularly those emotions that favor our individual and group survival. I cry at movies that are "aimed" at my emotions, and I can't help that. I have tons of empathy for babies, people in pain or needing help. I also recognize that these are brain reflexes to situations. They are subjectively different from an urge to defecate or a hunger for food, but they are some of the most primitive thoughts we have. Anger, rage, lust, love and other feelings are part of nature, and part of our nature, and hardwired into our brains. Even so, it is possible for us to rewire, miswire, or detach feelings and/or sublimate them. That is something that is a property of having a huge brain capacity. The results may be unpredictable, however, and so we see foot fetishes, serial killers, and rapists who have a disconnect between the usual desires and the usual courses of action available to us. In summary, we can't even appreciate how deeply ingrained our emotions are, and how much these are triggered by external occurrences. Many will refuse to consider that the love they have for their family has an evolutionary basis. Original thoughts are, I contend, rare. But it may depend on what you consider to be an original thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 By the way, Shyone, have you ever seen the sci-fi anime movie, Ghost In The Shell? No, but many of my "ideas" come from sci-fi movies or books. I have very few original ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 In summary, we can't even appreciate how deeply ingrained our emotions are, and how much these are triggered by external occurrences. Many will refuse to consider that the love they have for their family has an evolutionary basis. Original thoughts are, I contend, rare. But it may depend on what you consider to be an original thought. Determinist aren't you? Can you explain how we learn anything new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 No, but many of my "ideas" come from sci-fi movies or books. I have very few original ideas. You have to watch it if you can because it deals with this theme of what if computers in the future gained a conciousness and what the difference between computers and humans are. It also partially inspired The Matrix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How can so many make these bold claims about computers? Do you know what life and mind are so as to manifest them via computers? I haven't seen them in the stores yet! Even Data had to have an emotion chip in Star Trek. I wonder what the emotion chip would entail? Would they need a different chip for anticipation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How can so many make these bold claims about computers? Do you know what life and mind are so as to manifest them via computers? I can't make claims, but I can make predictions based on projections. What can you say about offices and computers? How about factories and computers? How about computing power in general? Taking what we know about the human brain's connections and "computing capacity", we can compare that to computing power and make some extrapolations. People who used to say that computers could never play chess well enough to beat a human look pretty silly now, but we have our "apologies." "That's just mathematics, and of course computers are better at math! They can't do [enter task here],though, so they aren't intelligent." The problem is that language is math, music is math, art is math, and (although many can't see it now), feelings and emotions are math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 We are beginning to touch on human nature in a way that many people find distasteful. "Heartfelt" is an outdated term, and we know this intellectually. So, keeping thought and feeling in the mind... Why would it be outdated? The final two studies in this section are concerned with energetic communication by the heart, which we also refer to as cardioelectromagnetic communication. The heart is the most powerful generator of electromagnetic energy in the human body, producing the largest rhythmic electromagnetic field of any of the body’s organs. The heart’s electrical field is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the electrical activity generated by the brain. This field, measured in the form of an electrocardiogram (ECG), can be detected anywhere on the surface of the body. Furthermore, the magnetic field produced by the heart is more than 5,000 times greater in strength than the field generated by the brain, and can be detected a number of feet away from the body, in all directions, using SQUID-based magnetometers (Figure 12). Prompted by our findings that the cardiac field is modulated by different emotional states (described in the previous section), we performed several studies to investigate the possibility that the electromagnetic field generated by the heart may transmit information that can be received by others. ... Thus, the last two studies summarized in this section explore interactions that take place between one person’s heart and another’s brain when two people touch or are in proximity. This research elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. Our data indicate that one person’s heart signal can affect another’s brainwaves, and that heart-brain synchronization can occur between two people when they interact. Finally, it appears that as individuals increase psychophysiological coherence, they become more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals communicated by those around them. Taken together, these results suggest that cardioelectromagnetic communication may be a little-known source of information exchange between people, and that this exchange is influenced by our emotions. Science of The Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Some of my anticipation involves you Hans. I am sitting here making predictions about what your next response might be and shaping (controlling) what I write (my behavior) based on these predictions. I have a strong suspicion that you also anticipate. And I suspect all minds anticipate. Do you tend to agree or disagree with that? And why? Suspicion doesn't bring proof. You don't know because you suspect. You believe I'm a human, but you can't know, because there are no sufficient test to confirm that I have the same kind of "soul" or consciousness as you. And the same goes for me to know if you have a consciousness like me or not. If we one day would be able to construct a device that can respond according to the anticipations you have, then you would consider it a human, according to the Turing test. But I think it's wrong. It's not enough. And I think you would agree. Seriously, if you would encounter an online personality who seems to be a woman. You anticipate and you suspect the other party anticipate things, and later you get to know that this woman was a man, a poser, a pretender. Why didn't you know? We identify other human beings based on their behavior. We judge them from what we see and hear. But we're very close to make machines replicate that behavior, without being conscious. So my argument is that it's not enough. We can't judge a "mind" based on responses only. There must be something more in our test, otherwise it will be fairly easy to create artificial minds. The brain is far more advanced than the current machines and computers we have, but when we have established sufficient data of how the brain is built, and we replicate that using, lets say, silicon based neurons, we will get much closer to a synthetic mind. Okay, I suppose that’s fair enough. Do you have some idea of what the correct design would be? First of all it has to be more like analog, not digital. Secondly, it has to be plastic in construction, so it can reprogram the synaptic connections. Next, we need to know sufficiently the basic modules in the brain and what they do. Also, the "brain" will not be programmed, but raised through training and experience. I thought about a couple more earlier, but forgot what they were. I might remember them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 In summary, we can't even appreciate how deeply ingrained our emotions are, and how much these are triggered by external occurrences. Many will refuse to consider that the love they have for their family has an evolutionary basis. Original thoughts are, I contend, rare. But it may depend on what you consider to be an original thought. Determinist aren't you? Can you explain how we learn anything new? Determinism does not preclude progress. For the moment, I'll just mention evolutionary programming and the results. We are programmed to analyze, learn, and apply information and we can see this beginning shortly after birth. We have preprogrammed emotions and desires, some of which are triggered as we reach certain ages (and other physiologic processes begin to influence our thoughts and behavior). Those who fail to learn anything new are left out of the gene pool. They will not reproduce. They won't wipe their asses, clean the snot off of their faces, bath or change clothes. They won't drive, get a degree or learn whatever is necessary to have a trade and support a family. If they have desires, but can't learn, they will be extremely frustrated. Almost everything we do, including learning, derives from a baser desire. With this response, I am "defending my honor" so I don't look foolish which is something I did while searching for a mate. The desire to avoid looking foolish or weak is still there even though I have a mate and there are no potential conquests reading this. As far as determinism goes, even if everything, including the stuff we do to be "different" was all pre-programmed from the initial big bang, it wouldn't feel any different. I'm not that deterministic. I just believe that what we think of as original desires (all of us love like no one has ever loved before...) are the products of our heredity and "nature." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 How can so many make these bold claims about computers? Do you know what life and mind are so as to manifest them via computers? I can't make claims, but I can make predictions based on projections. What can you say about offices and computers? How about factories and computers? How about computing power in general? Taking what we know about the human brain's connections and "computing capacity", we can compare that to computing power and make some extrapolations. People who used to say that computers could never play chess well enough to beat a human look pretty silly now, but we have our "apologies." "That's just mathematics, and of course computers are better at math! They can't do [enter task here],though, so they aren't intelligent." The problem is that language is math, music is math, art is math, and (although many can't see it now), feelings and emotions are math. You do know that math is a measurement of reality and not reality itself though don't you? Math is a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I can't make claims, but I can make predictions based on projections. Okay, so you examine computers, you reason about their nature and capabilities and you also know the nature of life and mind and then conclude that computers will one day be able to manifest them? What can you say about offices and computers? How about factories and computers? How about computing power in general? Well I’ve heard it argued with some rigor that if an artifact’s behavior can be partitioned into hardware and software and if software is unable to affect changes in hardware then this artifact will be incapable of anticipatory behavior. The problem is that language is math, music is math, art is math, and (although many can't see it now), feelings and emotions are math. I agree with those who say that math is the study of sub-languages of natural language. I think music also a language. And I think emotions are an aspect of the anticipatory nature of our minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Again, in the simplest terms nature begets nature through nature. Humans creating and crafting a tool cannot, by the very definition of them not be the natural system that creates them using its universal cooking pot in its way, can't make them what nature makes them. What I'm trying to say is that humans are natural, and what we make is a byproduct of our naturalness. We are natural, but we are not Nature. We are products of Nature. We can't create what is Ground in Nature. The best we can hope to do it allow that to come through into what we doing, like Alice was saying, being a focal point for it, a lens. However, what my argument was is that we can't take mined minerals and design them in such a way as they manifest the Soul of the universe. They might manifest our manifestation of that to some degree, but it will never be what nature cooks up in its lab. Only Nature can manifest itself. Man can manifest man. And if our souls are not yet fully manifest, imagine the state of what we might create would be? Since we don't have a soul that is our own, then what we would create would be soulless. The problem is you believe Love, Compassion, Life are products of the machine. I don't. I believe the machine manifests them as the emanations of "God" into the universe. You look at the exterior machine, I look at the interior spirit, creating the exterior machines you look at and conclude is the whole picture. Machines are, perhaps, the next stage in "our" evolution. I would prefer to see spirit be the next stage of our evolution. Our souls seem a bit out of touch as it is already with our eternal damned machines. So, who's building the latest nuclear bombs? You think we need more evolved machines??? Gads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Suspicion doesn't bring proof. You don't know because you suspect. You believe I'm a human, but you can't know, because there are no sufficient test to confirm that I have the same kind of "soul" or consciousness as you. And the same goes for me to know if you have a consciousness like me or not. I don’t feel that you’re answering me Hans. I mean, do you anticipate or not? Would you agree that all minds anticipate? First of all it has to be more like analog, not digital. Secondly, it has to be plastic in construction, so it can reprogram the synaptic connections. Next, we need to know sufficiently the basic modules in the brain and what they do. Also, the "brain" will not be programmed, but raised through training and experience. I thought about a couple more earlier, but forgot what they were. I might remember them later. Okay cool. So you almost envision something quasi-organic in its organization, even though it may be radically different in material realization from Earth’s natural organisms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 We can't create what is Ground in Nature. I respectfully disagree. I think we will one day create organisms from scratch in a lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 First of all it has to be more like analog, not digital. Secondly, it has to be plastic in construction, so it can reprogram the synaptic connections. Next, we need to know sufficiently the basic modules in the brain and what they do. Also, the "brain" will not be programmed, but raised through training and experience. I thought about a couple more earlier, but forgot what they were. I might remember them later. The Human brain is digital. The dendritic connections are either on or off - there is no in-between state. The enormous numbers of connections make it act as though it were analog in the same sense that calculus uses an infinite number of divisions to accomplish the area under a curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You know, I'm kinda thinking (run!)... that there may something that may be able to be "created" that would be able to interact with this "field of consciousness" because all things were intially, what we could call, dead to begin with. In my beliefs, they came "alive" of the interaction of intelligence that was already in the minerals and the field of consciousness. So, maybe we can build something with these minerals, that already has this ability to "come alive" in it, that will be alive. Okay, I'm freaking myself out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 You know, I'm kinda thinking (run!)... that there may something that may be able to be "created" that would be able to interact with this "field of consciousness" because all things were intially, what we could call, dead to begin with. In my beliefs, they came "alive" of the interaction of intelligence that was already in the minerals and the field of consciousness. So, maybe we can build something with these minerals, that already has this ability to "come alive" in it, that will be alive. Okay, I'm freaking myself out... Okay, I'm quoting myself again, but I'm still thinking. Chalmers has some papers on AI on his website. I found this (not from Chalmers): One of the most intriguing theories comes from Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose and UA Medical Center anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, who is also an associate director of the consciousness center. The Penrose-Hameroff model postulates a so-called Platonic Realm at the Planck's Scale, the unimaginably small scale at which physical reality loses its apparent seamlessness and becomes "granular." Penrose and Hameroff have theorized the raw qualia of experience - the ultimate nature of the color red, for example, which our brains perhaps only imperfectly interpret - reside in this ultra-tiny, ultra-fast, and yet all-pervasive (and currently only theoretical) gap in our reality. Our brains access this realm - named for the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who postulated a world inhabited by ideals - through a series of rapid-fire quantum mechanical interactions, they speculate. Many researchers in the artificial intelligence community, on the other hand, believe the ultimate nature of consciousness resides in algorithms, those calculational programs by which computers do their work. If an algorithm for human consciousness exists, those who take the extreme view of this position speculate it may reside in the actual formula itself, the numbers as it were, and not necessarily in its interaction with the brain. In this scenario, a robot running the human consciousness algorithm would be no less conscious than a human brain running the same program. Penrose and Hameroff, on the other hand, argue the human brain's alleged deep connection to nature on the quantum level may preclude machines from ever achieving consciousness as we know it. Today's consciousness theories take some bizarre twists and turns, and Chalmers, who began his studies as a mathematician, is delighted to be in the thick of it. "Much of science these days is really just a matter of filling in the blanks," he says. "Most of the big discoveries have already been made. But this is certainly one area where great discoveries are still possible." ... Whatever science might turn out in some distant future, Chalmers today certainly doesn't claim to know all the details about where consciousness might reside. "I've argued strongly, for example, that a theory of consciousness will require new fundamental laws connecting physical processes to consciousness. So you might say I suspect consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain, but isn't reducible to physical processes in the brain." In other words, it's still a mystery. And that's what makes the Hard Problem so fascinating for a philosopher like David Chalmers. What's Really on (or in) Our Minds? And here we are arguing both sides! It's great. (Shyone, I see you in there!) I happen to be on the side of Penrose and Hameroff and think that anything built will have to be able to access this quantum realm and we would have to have an indisputable understanding of every organ in our body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 2, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted October 2, 2009 Okay, I can't help myself. If we assume there is spirit, consciousness or mind (terminology is tricky here but you know what I mean) that is in essence nonlocal, then ponder this. If consciousness is not a product of the brain, where was consciousness and what did it do prior to the evolution of humans? Did it attach itself to monkeys, and before that fish, amoebas, algae, rocks? If a consciousness is floating around out there somewhere just waiting to take over a brain, why not a brain made by us rather than directly by nature? We are a product of nature, and whatever we do is therefore natural. The so-called artificial intelligence that evolves out of our existence should be as likely a target as ourselves for consciousness to adapt to, since the machine or being doesn't have to be able to create it, only host it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Okay, I can't help myself. If we assume there is spirit, consciousness or mind (terminology is tricky here but you know what I mean) that is in essence nonlocal, then ponder this. If consciousness is not a product of the brain, where was consciousness and what did it do prior to the evolution of humans? Did it attach itself to monkeys, and before that fish, amoebas, algae, rocks? If a consciousness is floating around out there somewhere just waiting to take over a brain, why not a brain made by us rather than directly by nature? We are a product of nature, and whatever we do is therefore natural. The so-called artificial intelligence that evolves out of our existence should be as likely a target as ourselves for consciousness to adapt to, since the machine or being doesn't have to be able to create it, only host it. You know, that is sort of where I was going right above your post. I just think we would have to have a total understanding of physiology. Maybe we could then replicate it, but it may have to be organic. It's not only a host though, it's an interaction between the two or whatever is interacting with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 And here we are arguing both sides! It's great. (Shyone, I see you in there!) I happen to be on the side of Penrose and Hameroff and think that anything built will have to be able to access this quantum realm and we would have to have an indisputable understanding of every organ in our body. I'm going to get philosophical for just a moment. Or maybe the word is maudlin. We are the product of eons of evolution, and we are suited to our environments very well. The smell of the earth, the feel of a breeze, the sight of blue sky and sunshine are part of what makes us human. Warmth of skin, combat for survival, the taste of food make us human. No machine will ever share those things with us, even if they can walk and eat and "reproduce" in some fashion. But then, I wish I had an eagle's eyesight, the smell of a hunting dog, an the speed of a cheetah. I am animal, but not those animals. I can't share their joys or sorrows, and they can't share mine. Machine intelligence won't be the same as human intelligence. It will be different, foreign, alien, machine-like. Different doesn't mean non-existent however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts