I think therefor I am...
- Thread starter octane
- Start date
chemistry_geek
Registered
A lot of your questions Octane, can be answered by reading a few books. I originally came across these books by a recommendation on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/). These books are not light reading, they go very in depth into the subject matter. Go to Amazon.com and search for "consciousness" under "books". You'll get a number of hits for book titles and authors, where you can either purchase them or go to your local library and check them out for a while.
Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-8976740-9076019?v=glance&s=books
The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/002-8976740-9076019?v=glance&s=books
I think that consciousness requires some intelligence though the reverse is not true. I also don't like the term "artificial intelligence", there's nothing artificial about it; it either exists or it doesn't. There are rules for which our individual neurons fire and do not fire in response to stimuli. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here, READ THESE TWO BOOKS! You'll understand much better about how difficult it would be to create a sentient being. Can it be done, YES, in time, first modifiying an existing organism, like a cat, dog, or even better, another primate. Will we create sentient beings like "Data" from Star Trek? Of course, right around the time we are flying through the galaxy at warp speed. THAT's a long way off. Will we create an consciousness similar to that found in the movie "Artificial Intelligence"? Maybe, in about 200 years. Why will it take that long? We have to first figure out the human genetic code. Why? So we can reverse engineer that, so we can understand the genes that not only code for our proteins, which is not difficult by any means, but more importantly, to understand how we developed with our abilities. It is suggested that we share about 95% of the genetic code with our closest primate relative. After we can account for the ~5% of genetic code that gives us that edge, the ability to plan ahead, deal with abstract ideas, work with ideas in our minds and communicate them, account for personalities, then we can start making sentient beings like ourselves. It's all a very long ways away. Unfortunately, we'll never see it.
Another good book that more or less touches on the subject is an essay by Mark Twain titled "What Is Man?" - a good read about "Man the Machine", who can be no better or expected to exceed performance of its make "genetics".
Way back in June of 2003, in this thread (Question-Answer thread):
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?p=224605&highlight=consciousness#post224605
I asked "On a fundamental level, what is consciousness?" and Cat answered:
A: a secondary non-autnomous act of second order, directed at an autonomous primary act of first order. The primary act (or sense-datum) notices something, the secondary act, occurring contemporarily within the primary act has this act itself as its content. While the first act is consciousness of a content, the second act is consciousness of the act, and hence the most basic form of consciousness, since without it we would be mere stimulus-respons machines.
Basically, this says that we perceive a "story" and are aware of it, and can participate in it in our own mind, or to go join in the story. That requires intelligence, a memory, and knowledge of the physical world. READ THE TWO BOOKS I suggested, you'll understand! And have a good dictionary by your side when you do, you'll be increasing your vocabulary too.
Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-8976740-9076019?v=glance&s=books
The Mind's I by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/002-8976740-9076019?v=glance&s=books
I think that consciousness requires some intelligence though the reverse is not true. I also don't like the term "artificial intelligence", there's nothing artificial about it; it either exists or it doesn't. There are rules for which our individual neurons fire and do not fire in response to stimuli. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here, READ THESE TWO BOOKS! You'll understand much better about how difficult it would be to create a sentient being. Can it be done, YES, in time, first modifiying an existing organism, like a cat, dog, or even better, another primate. Will we create sentient beings like "Data" from Star Trek? Of course, right around the time we are flying through the galaxy at warp speed. THAT's a long way off. Will we create an consciousness similar to that found in the movie "Artificial Intelligence"? Maybe, in about 200 years. Why will it take that long? We have to first figure out the human genetic code. Why? So we can reverse engineer that, so we can understand the genes that not only code for our proteins, which is not difficult by any means, but more importantly, to understand how we developed with our abilities. It is suggested that we share about 95% of the genetic code with our closest primate relative. After we can account for the ~5% of genetic code that gives us that edge, the ability to plan ahead, deal with abstract ideas, work with ideas in our minds and communicate them, account for personalities, then we can start making sentient beings like ourselves. It's all a very long ways away. Unfortunately, we'll never see it.
Another good book that more or less touches on the subject is an essay by Mark Twain titled "What Is Man?" - a good read about "Man the Machine", who can be no better or expected to exceed performance of its make "genetics".
Way back in June of 2003, in this thread (Question-Answer thread):
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?p=224605&highlight=consciousness#post224605
I asked "On a fundamental level, what is consciousness?" and Cat answered:
A: a secondary non-autnomous act of second order, directed at an autonomous primary act of first order. The primary act (or sense-datum) notices something, the secondary act, occurring contemporarily within the primary act has this act itself as its content. While the first act is consciousness of a content, the second act is consciousness of the act, and hence the most basic form of consciousness, since without it we would be mere stimulus-respons machines.
Basically, this says that we perceive a "story" and are aware of it, and can participate in it in our own mind, or to go join in the story. That requires intelligence, a memory, and knowledge of the physical world. READ THE TWO BOOKS I suggested, you'll understand! And have a good dictionary by your side when you do, you'll be increasing your vocabulary too.
octane
I have issues, OK!
chemistry_geek said:
Now there's stating the obvious!
I'm as interested in making an interesting debate as the interest in the debate itself [read it twice .. believe me, it does make sense]
I like to engage people with this kind of thing.
I'm quite argumentative and I enjoy forcing people to think about odd things and make them choose in very simple its-either-black-or-its-white situations.
I also ask questions that attract the right kind of thinkers. This is partly because I'm lazy; I don't have to think too hard or go find answers myself, and because I enjoy building a [more] complete and comprehensive perspective built up of differing points of view.
chemistry_geek said:
I've had this discussion with a friend before.
Yes, intelligence surely is by it's very nature 'real' or it simply wouldn't be intelligence at all.
However, you could argue that Eliza is AI, since it purports to be intelligence yet it clearly isn't and is only designed to appear to be.
So it could be argued that Eliza is AI...
Cat
Registered
Remember that Dennet holds just one of very many positions within current cognitive science ...
A good approach would be to read some manual on AI before taking the plunge with scientific articles. I would recommend Dawson's "Understanding Cognitive Science" or Churchland's "Matter and Consciousness"
A good approach would be to read some manual on AI before taking the plunge with scientific articles. I would recommend Dawson's "Understanding Cognitive Science" or Churchland's "Matter and Consciousness"
hulkaros
The Incredible...
You know what scares me the most besides having not THAT intelligent humans trying to create "A.I."?
That humans aren't actually mammals but another kind of cancer which "thinks" that it has and/or can have control over anything else...
I think=I am? Bah! It is more like:
I think=I like to think that I am
That humans aren't actually mammals but another kind of cancer
which "thinks" that it has and/or can have control over anything else... I think=I am? Bah! It is more like:
I think=I like to think that I am
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
Check out The Inventing Machine:
Invention Machine
Myself, I believe that a man-made machine that thinks like we do, ponders its own existence and nature, and perhaps takes initiative to improve it's situation IS possible - but will not arise accidentally, rather only if someone intentionally works toward this as an explicit goal.
And furthermore, I believe somebody inevitably WILL strive towards exactly this goal.
Invention Machine
Myself, I believe that a man-made machine that thinks like we do, ponders its own existence and nature, and perhaps takes initiative to improve it's situation IS possible - but will not arise accidentally, rather only if someone intentionally works toward this as an explicit goal.
And furthermore, I believe somebody inevitably WILL strive towards exactly this goal.
chemistry_geek
Registered
brianleahy said:
That was a very interesting read. I particularly liked the part where he created the Grim Reaper program to start killing off the neural network and the digital life flashed before the computer's "eyes". That's kind of how I would expect the dying process in humans to be, eventually fading to black. Gosh, it would be a bummer to finally get all those questions answered about the universe, the REAL purpose of life, where did I put my wallet in 8th grade?, etc... and then be unable to tell anyone about it or do anything about improving your life. Well, I suppose THAT experience will be unique to everyone. We'll all go through it, and it shouldn't be painful in the end; we'll be too busy watching the incredible moving flashing before our "eyes".