5 ms·

The field of cognitive science (lingistics + philosophy + computer science + neuroscience + biology etc.) has actually discovered the underpinnings more or less

The field of cognitive science (lingistics + philosophy + computer science + neuroscience + biology etc.) has actually discovered the underpinnings more or less. Consciousness is based on our bodily interaction with the world. Thought uses experiential metaphors from basic physical interactions with the world such as light/dark, up/down, etc. Read "Philosophy in the Flesh" by George Lakoff. AI will never come from digital machines.

spot 17y ago
a computer can simulate interaction with world just as well as it can simulate your brain. "actually discovered the underpinnings" is a vast overstatement anyway.
- chadmalik 17y ago
  Yes but simulating the brain will never be the same as the actual "wetware" in operation. To my understanding, the simplistic reason that hard AI has failed and always will - while it uses digital computation as a platform - is that its a HARDWARE deficiency. I'm generalizing but AI people all seem to be algorithm gurus who feel that the next algorithmic breakthrough will be "the one" to create an AI. I think what they miss is that the physical manifestation of brain and body are in fact required to be conscious. Disembodied consciousness cannot exist since conscious beings (animals) have complex biological systems known as bodies that enable what we view as intelligence. Yes, computers are infinitely better at rule-based computation than animals. No, they cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can, and theres really no prospect of it happening because a better algorithm is created; fact is, animals and even insects don't think based on algorithms. Algorithms are models of the real world, not the real thing. Being conscious means using ones eyes/ears/mouth/nose/skin to feel, hear, smell, speak to interact with the world around you. It means having agency and not just checking a set of pre-written rules in order to decide what to do next. Its a biological system that enables that.
  - hc 17y ago
    if some sort of accident rendered you unable to use your eyes/ears/etc. for the sensory purposes you describe, would you then cease to be a human being? the whole body certainly plays a role in thinking, but the threshold between consciousness and its absence is defined by what goes on inside the brain. "animals and even insects don't think based on algorithms" i think one could bring in some studies of insect behavior that suggest the opposite of this.
  - GavinB 17y ago
    A "digital machine" can have eyes, ears, mouth, nose and skin. Besides that, flesh animals do rules-based calculations--physics.
  - endtime 17y ago
    >Yes but simulating the brain will never be the same as the actual "wetware" in operation. To my understanding, the simplistic reason that hard AI has failed and always will - while it uses digital computation as a platform - is that its a HARDWARE deficiency. Are you saying that hardware deficiencies are never resolved over time? >I'm generalizing but AI people all seem to be algorithm gurus who feel that the next algorithmic breakthrough will be "the one" to create an AI. I study AI at Stanford and I've never met anyone who thinks that. >I think what they miss is that the physical manifestation of brain and body are in fact required to be conscious. Disembodied consciousness cannot exist since conscious beings (animals) have complex biological systems known as bodies that enable what we view as intelligence. You need to justify that. The reasonable argument closest to what you are saying is that sensory stimuli are required for intelligence. This isn't hard for a computer to simulate. >Yes, computers are infinitely better at rule-based computation than animals. No, they cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can, Like what? >and theres really no prospect of it happening because a better algorithm is created; fact is, animals and even insects don't think based on algorithms. This needs justification. If they aren't computing, then what are they doing? You're looking down into the dualism abyss... >Algorithms are models of the real world, not the real thing. No, algorithms are neither. Algorithms are sequences (trees, if you prefer) of instructions. >Being conscious means using ones eyes/ears/mouth/nose/skin to feel, hear, smell, speak to interact with the world around you. So are blind people less conscious? What about those with no sense of smell? >It means having agency and not just checking a set of pre-written rules in order to decide what to do next. What makes those two things mutually exclusive? When I make a decision I consult my values and my goals and attempt to make the decision that gets me closest to my goals without compromising my values. Where do my values come from? Some of them are based on instinct (i.e. genes, i.e. hard coded) and some come from parents/society. My goals? I'd say most of them are just milestones on the path to other goals, and then that there are a few fundamental goals that come from biology (e.g. I fundamentally want to reproduce, this means that I need to attract a mate and earn enough to support a family, this is made much easier by an good education, etc.). >Its a biological system that enables that. Why? And what makes you think we couldn't build a biological computer (other than by the traditional method ;-) )?
andreyf 17y ago
Thought uses experiential metaphors from basic physical interactions with the world such as light/dark, up/down, etc. That certainly seems part of it. I've read Lakoff, and second your recommendation to anyone interested in this stuff. I'd also recommend Pinker's "Stuff of Thought" (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143114247/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143114247/) for this topic. AI will never come from digital machines If you consider AI as limited to human cognition, sure. I don't think it's anyone's goal to clone human cognition, however - humans are full of biases, survival instincts, tribal intuitions, etc. Then I think we can agree that a subset of human cognition could also be very interesting, and I imagine the subset of cognition which can be "hoisted" without an embodied mind is quite significant. For example, I think we can achieve the level of cognition of congenial deafblindness (those born without vision and hearing), which is pretty extensive.

spot 17y ago

a computer can simulate interaction with world just as well as it can simulate your brain. "actually discovered the underpinnings" is a vast overstatement anyway.

chadmalik 17y ago
Yes but simulating the brain will never be the same as the actual "wetware" in operation. To my understanding, the simplistic reason that hard AI has failed and always will - while it uses digital computation as a platform - is that its a HARDWARE deficiency. I'm generalizing but AI people all seem to be algorithm gurus who feel that the next algorithmic breakthrough will be "the one" to create an AI. I think what they miss is that the physical manifestation of brain and body are in fact required to be conscious. Disembodied consciousness cannot exist since conscious beings (animals) have complex biological systems known as bodies that enable what we view as intelligence. Yes, computers are infinitely better at rule-based computation than animals. No, they cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can, and theres really no prospect of it happening because a better algorithm is created; fact is, animals and even insects don't think based on algorithms. Algorithms are models of the real world, not the real thing. Being conscious means using ones eyes/ears/mouth/nose/skin to feel, hear, smell, speak to interact with the world around you. It means having agency and not just checking a set of pre-written rules in order to decide what to do next. Its a biological system that enables that.
- hc 17y ago
  if some sort of accident rendered you unable to use your eyes/ears/etc. for the sensory purposes you describe, would you then cease to be a human being? the whole body certainly plays a role in thinking, but the threshold between consciousness and its absence is defined by what goes on inside the brain. "animals and even insects don't think based on algorithms" i think one could bring in some studies of insect behavior that suggest the opposite of this.
- GavinB 17y ago
  A "digital machine" can have eyes, ears, mouth, nose and skin. Besides that, flesh animals do rules-based calculations--physics.
- endtime 17y ago
  >Yes but simulating the brain will never be the same as the actual "wetware" in operation. To my understanding, the simplistic reason that hard AI has failed and always will - while it uses digital computation as a platform - is that its a HARDWARE deficiency. Are you saying that hardware deficiencies are never resolved over time? >I'm generalizing but AI people all seem to be algorithm gurus who feel that the next algorithmic breakthrough will be "the one" to create an AI. I study AI at Stanford and I've never met anyone who thinks that. >I think what they miss is that the physical manifestation of brain and body are in fact required to be conscious. Disembodied consciousness cannot exist since conscious beings (animals) have complex biological systems known as bodies that enable what we view as intelligence. You need to justify that. The reasonable argument closest to what you are saying is that sensory stimuli are required for intelligence. This isn't hard for a computer to simulate. >Yes, computers are infinitely better at rule-based computation than animals. No, they cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can, Like what? >and theres really no prospect of it happening because a better algorithm is created; fact is, animals and even insects don't think based on algorithms. This needs justification. If they aren't computing, then what are they doing? You're looking down into the dualism abyss... >Algorithms are models of the real world, not the real thing. No, algorithms are neither. Algorithms are sequences (trees, if you prefer) of instructions. >Being conscious means using ones eyes/ears/mouth/nose/skin to feel, hear, smell, speak to interact with the world around you. So are blind people less conscious? What about those with no sense of smell? >It means having agency and not just checking a set of pre-written rules in order to decide what to do next. What makes those two things mutually exclusive? When I make a decision I consult my values and my goals and attempt to make the decision that gets me closest to my goals without compromising my values. Where do my values come from? Some of them are based on instinct (i.e. genes, i.e. hard coded) and some come from parents/society. My goals? I'd say most of them are just milestones on the path to other goals, and then that there are a few fundamental goals that come from biology (e.g. I fundamentally want to reproduce, this means that I need to attract a mate and earn enough to support a family, this is made much easier by an good education, etc.). >Its a biological system that enables that. Why? And what makes you think we couldn't build a biological computer (other than by the traditional method ;-) )?

andreyf 17y ago

Thought uses experiential metaphors from basic physical interactions with the world such as light/dark, up/down, etc. That certainly seems part of it. I've read Lakoff, and second your recommendation to anyone interested in this stuff. I'd also recommend Pinker's "Stuff of Thought" (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143114247/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143114247/) for this topic. AI will never come from digital machines If you consider AI as limited to human cognition, sure. I don't think it's anyone's goal to clone human cognition, however - humans are full of biases, survival instincts, tribal intuitions, etc. Then I think we can agree that a subset of human cognition could also be very interesting, and I imagine the subset of cognition which can be "hoisted" without an embodied mind is quite significant. For example, I think we can achieve the level of cognition of congenial deafblindness (those born without vision and hearing), which is pretty extensive.