New Scientist and Science Daily are “after the fact” newspapers. Use Google Scholar to explore where current thought is headed.
Hawkins is not building a new type of computer that is “replicating” the brain. He believes that he understands the structure of the cortex (which is only a SMALL part of the brain) and is trying to emulate it by storing Information over TIME. This is something novel, and something which current computer architecture/programming is either not capable of, or not interested in doing – but until he creates the appropriate hardware, he can only create a poor emulation of it. I happen to believe that he is headed down a cul-de-sac, and think that the brain structures itself around the tuned frequencies of the input gathered by the senses. The link sends you to a paper that doesn’t exactly address my ideas, but does seem to support it.
Not sure what you mean that the “layered cortical synthesizer are still operating in accordance with the laws of physics.” Surely you are not suggesting that the mind operates outside the laws of physics? But you are right, Hawkins in NO WAY believes that he can create a human mind, either via hardware or software. I sorta punted on my reply to Nicky, because I just didn’t want to get into explaining the impossibility to him.
Hawkins has multiple YouTube videos if you are interested.
All he needs to do is create a better criteria for the robot to base its choice on (on when to try and save one person (whichever is easiest, or whatever other criteria he wishes to use), and when to go for both.
Well, I doubt whether the Three Laws can ever really be made to work properly because they’re deontological.
When two people are about to die, and either could be saved with equal effort but one must be chosen, we could give it some method of weighing its options (age, health, moral character, et cetera) but we could never really give it the ‘right’ answer because there’s ultimately no reason for the commandment, itself.
Some pseudo-random solution would probably be the closest we could get it to behaving properly.
We cannot write algorithms (i.e. computer code) that somehow magically becomes sentient.
Do you believe that you are quantifiable? Not the number of fingers you possess or the wavelengths of light you can see; YOU.
No where in any post do I suggest that the brain operates by magic or is a supernatural entity. That’s exactly what I’m arguing against.
Yes, you did. You said that “We cannot write algorithms (i.e. computer code) that somehow magically becomes sentient.” The logical conclusion of that statement is that magic is a requirement for sentience.
That’s an obviously false conclusion, thus making your argument null and void. You’re welcome to rephrase it, so that no obviously false conclusions can be drawn from it, and then I’ll try and prove it wrong in another way. But, as it was written, my rebuttal was quite good I thought.
To continue my parallel between AI and God, it is true that rational people often use the adjective “magical” to mock religious beliefs. And correctly so, because the object of those beliefs IS magical. Sentience isn’t. Mocking the desire to re-create it by using the word “magical” is not rational.
I apologize. I didn’t realize you were employing an argument along the lines of the Law of Excluded Middle to refute what you perceived to be the illogic of my position. Let me think about the issue a little more and see if I can’t clarify - for both you and me! - what my position is.
New Scientist and Science Daily are “after the fact” newspapers. Use Google Scholar to explore where current thought is headed.
Hawkins is not building a new type of computer that is “replicating” the brain. He believes that he understands the structure of the cortex (which is only a SMALL part of the brain) and is trying to emulate it by storing Information over TIME. This is something novel, and something which current computer architecture/programming is either not capable of, or not interested in doing – but until he creates the appropriate hardware, he can only create a poor emulation of it. I happen to believe that he is headed down a cul-de-sac, and think that the brain structures itself around the tuned frequencies of the input gathered by the senses. The link sends you to a paper that doesn’t exactly address my ideas, but does seem to support it.
Not sure what you mean that the “layered cortical synthesizer are still operating in accordance with the laws of physics.” Surely you are not suggesting that the mind operates outside the laws of physics? But you are right, Hawkins in NO WAY believes that he can create a human mind, either via hardware or software. I sorta punted on my reply to Nicky, because I just didn’t want to get into explaining the impossibility to him.
Hawkins has multiple YouTube videos if you are interested.
Google Scholar - noted.
To my layman mind, Hawkins references what the neurons of the brain, the layers in the brain and then what he is trying to do with the software and hardware - the similarities are striking to me.
No, I’m not suggesting that the mind operates outside the laws of physics. The musical “learning” - vs. recording on my computer from a piano via a midi jack - provided playbacks after repetitions that continued to closer resemble the repeated musical piece. The pattern recognition software in conjunction with the hardware is obviously not recording like a computer connected to a piano with a midi interface. A Mozart story relates him having listened to a musical piece and later able to replicate it. All are operating according to physical law. Mozart was conscious of the musical piece while it was played the first time. Hawkins’ machine is a product of consciousness.
All true, as long as you allow for the possibility of artificial life forms who fit that description.
True again, as long as you mean this specific robot, not all potential forms of artificial intelligence.
Again, you’re using stolen concepts. If something is alive, it is not artificial. intelligience is a function of consciousness, not of non living things.
To my layman mind, Hawkins references what the neurons of the brain, the layers in the brain and then what he is trying to do with the software and hardware - the similarities are striking to me.
Hawkins is modeling how he perceives information to be stored in the cortex (a specific region of the brain) by introducing the variable of time and a hierarchical distribution of quantized data . The brain is comprised of many different, and substantially autonomous, systems which are primarily controlled by the brainstem at a sub-attentive level (until something needs attending too such as: thirst, hunger, stubbed toe, over-heating, pH or salinity imbalance, low blood sugar, seeing a hot chick, etc.). He is not trying to model the entire brain.
Add Edit:
Where I state “hierarchical distribution of quantized data” this can be best understood by an Objectivist as he is trying to create software that can distinguish between genus and species, i.e. streaming data that resembles a schnauzer and data that resembles a retriever can be lumped together as “dogs” without “programming” per se but rather by the form of the incoming data itself and how/where it is stored.
Hawkins is modeling how he perceives information to be stored in the cortex (a specific region of the brain) by introducing the variable of time and a hierarchical distribution of quantized data . <snip> He is not trying to model the entire brain.
One has to start somewhere.
Hawkins has been referenced on OO many times. I am rather fond of the analogies between his work and concept formation.
Again, you’re using stolen concepts. If something is alive, it is not artificial. intelligience is a function of consciousness, not of non living things.
What does being alive have to do with being not artificial? Intelligence without consciousness is a stolen concept, but living without being natural is not.
At it’s most basic, it is a single cell organism that has enough information about it’s environment, and acts works to acquire energy from a source exterior to itself, and has information about how to put that energy to work to achieve homeostasis with the end goal of reproduction.
At it’s most basic, it is a single cell organism that has enough information about it’s environment, and acts works to acquire energy from a source exterior to itself, and has information about how to put that energy to work to achieve homeostasis with the end goal of reproduction.
DNA, Genes. On several posts I’ve tried to communicate to you that INFORMATION EXISTS - I’m not just being metaphorical. It can be measured, quantified, amplified, transduced sent and received. It exists every bit as much as a bricks, trees, dogs, 247 pennies, etc. exist.
What does being alive have to do with being not artificial? Intelligence without consciousness is a stolen concept, but living without being natural is not.
Aritificial means made by a human being rather than occurring naturally.
I’m discussing the concept in an epistemological sense, not a biological sense. The issue is one of the hierarchy of concepts. “Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action.” “Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action.”
As conciousness is an attribute of living organisms, intelligence is an attribute of consciousness.
Again, you’re using stolen concepts. If something is alive, it is not artificial. intelligience is a function of consciousness, not of non living things.
Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. I fail to see how that’s inconsistent with it being artificial. I used the concept just fine.
But, even if there is an inconsistency, you make no attempt at showing that it exists.
We’re debating whether life can be artificial, and your big argument in favor of your position is that using the phrase “artificial life” is a stolen concept because if something is alive, it’s not artificial.
