Conceptual lineage

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Strictly logical:

I think that considering the issue in terms of "when" we create AI isn't entirely realistic.

I feel the same way; it's almost impossible that it won't be done someday.

But still, to talk about it as if it were in the past tense, requires many assumptions to be made.

Modern computers might not even be sufficient; what if different hardware is required? What if part of the computer must be living brain tissue?

There are so many unknown variables that should not be assumed at this point.

And who knows? Perhaps WHEN we discover the requirements for AI the question of whether it's alive will be a moot point.

We simply don't know yet.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Dreamweaver: don't motion sensors react to and influence their environment conditionally?

Don't roombas already surpass the behavioral complexity of insects?

Here's my pet theory: what would happen if you attached a supercomputer to such a robot, wired to sense its cpu the way it senses its environment?

I think the human brain is like dozens of simple [nonconscious] brains all watching each other; literally layers upon layers of awareness.

[dream_weaver]

What is relevent is the conditions which are present when consciousness is present, and all the evidence is conclusive with life being present when consciousness is present. Life and consciousness apart from the entity which is alive and conscious is specious given the evidence. Consciousness apart from an entity that is alive has no evidence that I am aware of that would even grant it the status of possible at this point.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

No attempted AI thus far, to the best of my knowledge, has had the slightest concept of "self".

That may not be enough for true consciousness; i don't know yet. But i do know that's one of the requirements.

---

Since this thread died long ago anyway: i also think aasimovs three laws are incompatible with consciousness; they're basically a hardwired altruism instinct.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Dreamweaver: this is all true and Im not advocating disembodied minds. And biology may well be necessary for consciousness.

But we don't know that yet, either. We know they've always coincided before but not why one would cause the other.

[dream_weaver]

Does the mercury in an incremented glass tube expand and contract proportionally to the ambient temperature of a room?

 

As to the thread dying, are we not identifying the conceptual lineage required for a specific particular?

[dream_weaver]

Does one study causal relationships via thought experiments?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Yes mercury works thusly. Are we reducing consciousness?

One doesn't gain knowledge of external reality from hypotheticals but one can gain incalculable knowledge of oneself; including the examination and reorganization of present knowledge.

There is no evidence thus far that computers could ever become conscious; you're right about that.

But if neurons are necessary for self awareness then someday, someone like me will build AI out of them.

[dream_weaver]

Consciousness is something we experience directly and infer it to others.

 

Watching a roomba, scooba or lawnbot shows ingenuity along the lines of human ablity at integrating technology to perform mundane tasks.

 

Jeff Hawkins is doing some intriguing research on the programmatic level with an eye on neurology.

 

There is interesting work in developing electronics that can be installed in the body starting with pace-makers, moving to cochlear implants and the latest dealing with sight and control of prosthetics via existing nerve pathways.

 

With our rudimentary understanding of what consciousness is, replicating it in a laboritory, or mass producing it outside the biological provisions of reproduction has much groundwork to be covered.

 

Like resting the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe on the fact that life exists here, does provide some evidence for it.

Creating consciousness apart from a living entity steps outside of that level of evidence as I understand it.

[dream_weaver]

After Watson, IBM looks to build 'Brain In A Box'

 

These new silicon “neurosynaptic chips,” which will be fed using about the same amount of energy it takes to power a light bulb, will fuel a software ecosystem that researchers hope will one day enable a new generation of apps that mimic the human brain’s abilities of sensory perception, action and cognition.
 
It's akin to giving sensors like microphones and speakers brains of their own, allowing them to consume data to be processed through trillions of synapses and neurons in a way that allows them to draw intelligent conclusions.

 

I would have to gather you are referring to research along these lines. $53 million is a substantial amount of coin to try to flesh out such an idea.

 

These chips would give way to a whole new “cognitive-type of processing,” said Bill Risk, who works on the IBM Research SyNAPSE Project, marking one of the most dramatic changes to computing since the traditional von Neumann architecture comprised of zeros and ones was adopted in the mid-1940s

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Yeah; that's roughly what i was referring to.

Honestly, I've spent a lot of time thinking about AI before, and the thing that strikes me is that no attempt thus far (as far as i know) has had any capacity whatsoever for introspection.

It's like we're trying to create self awareness without a self (i blame kant).

So it might not be enough but i suspect that the computer able to differentiate between itself and the rest of the universe (much like in Anthem) will be that decisive breakthrough.

Now, whether introspection is even possible to integrated circuits, is another matter.

[StrictlyLogical]

Yeah; that's roughly what i was referring to.

Honestly, I've spent a lot of time thinking about AI before, and the thing that strikes me is that no attempt thus far (as far as i know) has had any capacity whatsoever for introspection.

It's like we're trying to create self awareness without a self (i blame kant).

So it might not be enough but i suspect that the computer able to differentiate between itself and the rest of the universe (much like in Anthem) will be that decisive breakthrough.

Now, whether introspection is even possible to integrated circuits, is another matter.

 

 

I don't recall ever referring to integrated circuits...  however, I do not rule out the possibility that a "functional isomorph" of a human brain could be created with them.  I would assume a different paradigm technology more closely replicating the structure and function of neurons and their interconnectedness, etc. would be the first candidate for the first manmade non-human consciousness. 

 

Note:  Consider technology of 2000 years ago compare that with 200 years ago, compare with 20 years ago, and compare that with 2 years ago.  Now in terms of even modern human existence, 2000yrs is a pittance.  Modern Homo sapiens emerged/evolved (no bright line dividing point but its a good estimate) biologically distinct at about 50k to 70k years ago.  Try to imagine the advances in science and technology in the next 10, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years...  care to speculate when we can create an existent which replicates all of the natural functioning (the kind that matters) in its entirety, of a human brain and nervous system (including senses)?

 

Consciousness is natural and is exhibited in an arrangement and functioning of matter.  In the case of YOU, it was VERY difficult and slow to FORM that arrangement and functioning of matter: consider the transformation from egg and sperm... utilization and incorporation of matter, cell division, feeding, infant learning etc. until the arrangement and functioning is one sufficient for consciousness, your consciousness at somewhere between what 6 months and 2 years?  That consciousness can be destroyed upon a sufficient disturbance of the arrangement or functioning of the of the matter.  The ease with which we can destroy consciousness and the difficulty by which it is created should not be taken as an indication that that consciousness is supernatural or has any supernatural form. functioning, or constituents.  What went into to it, are matter and possibly information from learning (by that all I mean are patterns which set into play functioning and structure), and nothing else, but it is OK we are made of reality and real stuff... we are no less conscious for it... it is what is it.

 

Honestly, given the multiplicative effects of science and technology (and in particular the advances in nanotechnology and biotechnology... not necessarily integrated chip technology), man-made (other than the slow - sperm egg kind) consciousness will likely be possible within 100 years, 500 would be my pessimistic limit, and I would bet my life on it being done in less than 1000 years (if I lived greater than 1000 years I'd still make that bet!).