4 ms·

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

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
  > Computers [...] cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can Like what? Vision, for one. Also, running. If they aren't computing, then what are they doing? You're looking down into the dualism abyss... I don't think dualism is what he was thinking of, but rather Searle's Chinese Room argument. Coming from a CS-heavy Philosophy-light background, it took me a long time to wrap my mind around what Searle was saying there, but it's a pretty solid point nonetheless. The best way I've found to explain it in CS terms is that while theoretically, intelligence could be modeled using Turing machines, in practice, we will never have a machine fast enough to do so. 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 We have no idea how you or I make decisions, and the notion that we can intuit how decisions are made is a huge road block in even beginning to think about decision-making. Lakoff, among others, does a great job explaining why "values", "goals", and "morals" are simply justifications we create after we've made a decision. > And what makes you think we couldn't build a biological computer We can, and we should - but let's agree that it won't be a Turing machine.
  - endtime 17y ago
    >>> Computers [...] cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can >>Like what? >Vision, for one. Also, running. Um, ever heard of a digital camera? Or if you mean interpreting images, guessing what, they can do that too. Computer vision is a subfield of AI (arguably; I believe some say it's signal processing). Also, blind people are still conscious, so... And running? Sorry, I hate to take this tone, but WTF are you talking about? Robots can run, and running has nothing to do with consciousness. >>If they aren't computing, then what are they doing? You're looking down into the dualism abyss... >I don't think dualism is what he was thinking of, but rather Searle's Chinese Room argument. Coming from a CS-heavy Philosophy-light background, it took me a long time to wrap my mind around what Searle was saying there, but it's a pretty solid point nonetheless. The best way I've found to explain it in CS terms is that while theoretically, intelligence could be modeled using Turing machines, in practice, we will never have a machine fast enough to do so. You've totally missed the point of the Chinese Room. The point is that something can appear to understand without actually doing anything we'd call understanding. In other words, ~Ax(OutwardlyIntelligent(x) -> ActuallyIntelligent(x)). It's an argument against the sufficiency of the Turing Test, that's it. And saying we'll never have a machine fast enough? The only limit on the speed of computation is the speed of light (and the physical size of the universe limits parallelization). But these values also bound our brains. In fact, iirc neurons are actually pretty slow relative to transistors. >>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 >We have no idea how you or I make decisions, and the notion that we can intuit how decisions are made is a huge road block in even beginning to think about decision-making. Lakoff, among others, does a great job explaining why "values", "goals", and "morals" are simply justifications we create after we've made a decision. Okay, maybe my deconstruction is correct and maybe it isn't. Whatever. Unless you can explain to me why no such deconstruction is possible, I have no reason to accept that deciding is not computation. In other words, if it's not computation, then what is it? >> And what makes you think we couldn't build a biological computer >We can, and we should - but let's agree that it won't be a Turing machine. Of course it won't. It will be less powerful, because Turing machines have infinite memory and the universe is finite. It'll be a DFA, just like all current computers.

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
> Computers [...] cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can Like what? Vision, for one. Also, running. If they aren't computing, then what are they doing? You're looking down into the dualism abyss... I don't think dualism is what he was thinking of, but rather Searle's Chinese Room argument. Coming from a CS-heavy Philosophy-light background, it took me a long time to wrap my mind around what Searle was saying there, but it's a pretty solid point nonetheless. The best way I've found to explain it in CS terms is that while theoretically, intelligence could be modeled using Turing machines, in practice, we will never have a machine fast enough to do so. 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 We have no idea how you or I make decisions, and the notion that we can intuit how decisions are made is a huge road block in even beginning to think about decision-making. Lakoff, among others, does a great job explaining why "values", "goals", and "morals" are simply justifications we create after we've made a decision. > And what makes you think we couldn't build a biological computer We can, and we should - but let's agree that it won't be a Turing machine.
- endtime 17y ago
  >>> Computers [...] cannot pass simple tests of consciousness that a mouse can >>Like what? >Vision, for one. Also, running. Um, ever heard of a digital camera? Or if you mean interpreting images, guessing what, they can do that too. Computer vision is a subfield of AI (arguably; I believe some say it's signal processing). Also, blind people are still conscious, so... And running? Sorry, I hate to take this tone, but WTF are you talking about? Robots can run, and running has nothing to do with consciousness. >>If they aren't computing, then what are they doing? You're looking down into the dualism abyss... >I don't think dualism is what he was thinking of, but rather Searle's Chinese Room argument. Coming from a CS-heavy Philosophy-light background, it took me a long time to wrap my mind around what Searle was saying there, but it's a pretty solid point nonetheless. The best way I've found to explain it in CS terms is that while theoretically, intelligence could be modeled using Turing machines, in practice, we will never have a machine fast enough to do so. You've totally missed the point of the Chinese Room. The point is that something can appear to understand without actually doing anything we'd call understanding. In other words, ~Ax(OutwardlyIntelligent(x) -> ActuallyIntelligent(x)). It's an argument against the sufficiency of the Turing Test, that's it. And saying we'll never have a machine fast enough? The only limit on the speed of computation is the speed of light (and the physical size of the universe limits parallelization). But these values also bound our brains. In fact, iirc neurons are actually pretty slow relative to transistors. >>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 >We have no idea how you or I make decisions, and the notion that we can intuit how decisions are made is a huge road block in even beginning to think about decision-making. Lakoff, among others, does a great job explaining why "values", "goals", and "morals" are simply justifications we create after we've made a decision. Okay, maybe my deconstruction is correct and maybe it isn't. Whatever. Unless you can explain to me why no such deconstruction is possible, I have no reason to accept that deciding is not computation. In other words, if it's not computation, then what is it? >> And what makes you think we couldn't build a biological computer >We can, and we should - but let's agree that it won't be a Turing machine. Of course it won't. It will be less powerful, because Turing machines have infinite memory and the universe is finite. It'll be a DFA, just like all current computers.