Artificial intelligence

[Tormod]

Maybe technology would permit us to then become androids with the looks we can choose ourselves.

Get yourself a copy of Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon. A great sci-fi novel based on that concept!

 

A few times I've been thinking about a programming language for the brain. It seems impossible...

Yes. Maybe that's the real problem with AI. It's just not possible to do with current programming techniques. We'd need some sort of neural networks and endless neural nodes and whatnot.

 

I've been thinking a lot about this. Isn't it possible that intelligence and self awareness are really manmade categories for properties that we see that some structures have? At least from our perspective...

Indeed. I have questioned the existence of intelligence before and I still haven't confirmed that it exists.

 

As for self-awareness there have been studies on animals that show obvious signs of self-awareness in some species but not in others (for example, cats and dogs seem to have it, mice don't). I have absolutely no link at hand to back that up so accept it just as a side note.

[infamous]

Thank you Tormod; I would like to stay on track here, even though each participent in this debate has put forth many interesting and original ideas. Could we first consentrate our energys and our thoughts on the question of self awareness. Self awareness must begin I believe with a definition of self. This may seem a little academic at first glance but this will prove to be " I believe" an unusually difficult task. When I consider myself "the self", am I talking about the electo-chemical image stored in the memory of my physical brain, or can that totally explain that sort of an understanding. If all I am is a catalog of memories, how can I form ideas in my mind that are aware of things like the future. It has been proposed by some scientists that that is one of the things that distinguishes us humans from the animal world. That may be true but it may not be intirely so. I'm not an expert on animal behavior, and even if I were, I find it difficult to believe that such a fact could be proven. Enough for now, Please feel free to help me with this search for a definition of self. The contributions of everyone interested will compose a better picture than mine alone. Thanks.

[Tormod]

I find this topic very interesting and will follow up. I might take this weekend off, though...it's been a very heavy week ending with a funeral for a colleague and I'm seriously worn out...

[alexander]

Very interesting topic here, i first want to note that i have not read through each word because i really wanted to post, i just skimmed through the text to get the direction of the discussion.

 

Ok, Tormod, take as much time off as you need, you are overworked and underpaid (well unless you are really Bill Gates, although i think you deserve a better pay than him, you do numerous times more work!)

 

About intelligence:

"While the definition and importance of intelligence is somewhat controversial, especially in the popular press, a consensus opinion exists among intelligence researchers on many issues. Most importantly, the concept of a single dominant factor of intelligence, general mental ability or g, is accepted by most experts (American Psychological Association task force report ( http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html ), Gottfredson 1998).

 

Some researchers have proposed that intelligence really consists of a set of relatively independent abilities. Yale psychologist Robert J. Sternberg has proposed a Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences breaks intelligence down into at least eight different components: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, naturalist, intra-personal and inter-personal intelligences. Daniel Goleman and several other researchers have developed the concept of emotional intelligence and claim it is at least as important as more traditional sorts of intelligence.

 

Proponents of multiple-intelligence theories often claim that g is, at best, a measure of academic ability. Other types of intelligence, they claim, might be just as important outside of a school setting. One theory even suggests the existence of two types of g (see Fluid and crystallized intelligence).

 

In response, g theorists have pointed out that g's predictive validity has been repeatedly demonstrated, for example in predicting important non-academic outcomes such as job performance (see below), while no multiple-intelligences theory has shown comparable validity. Meanwhile, they argue, the relevance, and even the existence, of multiple intelligences have not been borne out when actually tested (Hunt 2001).

 

When considering animal intelligence, a more general definition of intelligence might be applied: the "ability to adapt effectively to the environment, either by making a change in oneself or by changing the environment or finding a new one" (Encyclopædia Britannica).

 

Intelligence tests are often used to quantify human intelligence. This is not without controversy; see below for more information.

 

Some thinkers have explored the idea of collective intelligence, arising from the coordination of many people. Computer science has developed the field of artificial intelligence, which seeks to make computers act in increasingly intelligent ways. Many people have also speculated about the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence." wiki

 

as defined by encyclopedia britannica, intelligence is: " the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)"

 

Now, will we ever be able to reproduce intelligence artificially, i think ABSOLUTELY! What will happen as the result? Here I think that the end result will be similar to that of what happened in the Terminator and Matrix series and what started the saga off in Irobot. I think that the fight between men and machine is the inevitable consequence of the technological progress(actually uncontrolled technological evolution is what will bring us there). What's holding us now you ask? Well, firstly we dont know exactly how our mind works, its the small details that we miss, and that we probably need, and if that is the thing that we try to model artifficial mind after. Next, our mind proceses and stores enormous ammounts of information, the current computer chips are able to process certain things faster than our mind, but it is quite limited by what it can process. The current technology siply is too slow to be intelligent just yet, but in the near future things would change...

Also i saw something above on programming, i think that gaming technology is progressing quite well with AI, although not in its purest form, some game-developing companies put lots of money into AI research, they get my respect for it. I think that one of the problems is that we make programs that observe something, and then decide what to do in a similar scenario based on the best outcome, programs can not truly reason they can compare and do something that is preprogrammed, but they cant be creative and think outside the bucket (well, not all humans can either, I'd agree with that, but its the fault of the society, not necessarily the individual himself)...

 

here's a link to main AI resources page from berkley labs:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/ai.html

[Stargazer]

Yes. Maybe that's the real problem with AI. It's just not possible to do with current programming techniques. We'd need some sort of neural networks and endless neural nodes and whatnot.

I think that some tasks can be done with our current languages, like LISP, Prolog and many others. But I meant a language that you could write applications with - to run not on hardware but on wetware: the brain itself.

 

Indeed. I have questioned the existence of intelligence before and I still haven't confirmed that it exists. As for self-awareness there have been studies on animals that show obvious signs of self-awareness in some species but not in others (for example, cats and dogs seem to have it, mice don't). I have absolutely no link at hand to back that up so accept it just as a side note.

The thing is, I would like to say the same about self-awareness as with intelligence, that is, only intelligent and selfaware structures can recognise those things in other structures. I like to toy with reductionist ideas, which would make both intelligence and self-awareness just the workings of a complex structure all made up of nothing but atoms, the result of blind evolution. The interactions between the neurons, the information processing, all this results in the way we see ourselves, each other and the rest of the universe. Isn't it so that the entire universe is processing information, constantly computing itself?

[TINNY]

i don't think reduction works. a sodium atom and a chlorine atom put together does not manifest half of the sodium characteristics and half of the chlorine characteristics. It is a totally new thing altogether. At the higher level such as cerebral intelligence, as matter establish more complex relationships, it will offer even starker contrasts from its basic components.

[Stargazer]

Yes, the finished product is different, but it's still not made up of anything but its parts. Exactly how the brain works is not yet something we know completely, but I am sure we will come very close. I am also sure that our brain is not the only way to construct something we would consider intelligent.

[TINNY]

Yes, the finished product is different, but it's still not made up of anything but its parts.

that's mere tautology. come on.

I am also sure that our brain is not the only way to construct something we would consider intelligent

give an example of something else capable of it.

[Stargazer]

that's mere tautology. come on.

What else can I say? It seemed you disagreed that the brain is not just atoms. But since it is, I must have misunderstood things.

 

give an example of something else capable of it.

It depends on how one define intelligence. Information processing, awareness, selflearning... all these abilities should be able to develop in a computer system. It all depends on how, and to what degree.

[infamous]

Hello Stargazer; You bring up an interesting point, that maybe the universe itself is a vast computer, if I understand your logic about this point. I would have to give you a thumbs up on that posibility. Seeing that we consider ouselves to be conscious beings,"that would be at least some of us" can we assume that the universe, of which we are only a part, should be calculated as less than it's parts? Very good thought here, I don't think we can rise above the very thing that created us. Don"t assume now, that I am speaking about a God by definition, I'm talking only about the Big Bang from which all things have evolved. It would also be a good question to ask, is the universe aware of itself?

[TINNY]

What else can I say? It seemed you disagreed that the brain is not just atoms. But since it is, I must have misunderstood things.

of course it is made up of those stuff. But didn't I mention this:

i don't think reduction works. a sodium atom and a chlorine atom put together does not manifest half of the sodium characteristics and half of the chlorine characteristics. It is a totally new thing altogether. At the higher level such as cerebral intelligence, as matter establish more complex relationships, it will offer even starker contrasts from its basic components.

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I just hope you explain to me why my statement does not refute your reductionism, and not just by saying that "it is made of atoms". thanks.

[TINNY]

Hello Stargazer; You bring up an interesting point, that maybe the universe itself is a vast computer, if I understand your logic about this point. I would have to give you a thumbs up on that posibility. Seeing that we consider ouselves to be conscious beings,"that would be at least some of us" can we assume that the universe, of which we are only a part, should be calculated as less than it's parts? Very good thought here, I don't think we can rise above the very thing that created us. Don"t assume now, that I am speaking about a God by definition, I'm talking only about the Big Bang from which all things have evolved. It would also be a good question to ask, is the universe aware of itself?

If we're just part of the universe and made up of atoms, we are just manifestations of those atoms playing with each other. We don't "do" anything at all. even the word "we" is meaningless because we are just part of the same thing - a group of atoms that are organized. "we" cannot control ourselves to "do" something, it's the atoms that are doing the things for us. In the end, we get to Laplace's Demon.

[Stargazer]

Hello Stargazer; You bring up an interesting point, that maybe the universe itself is a vast computer, if I understand your logic about this point. I would have to give you a thumbs up on that posibility. Seeing that we consider ouselves to be conscious beings,"that would be at least some of us" can we assume that the universe, of which we are only a part, should be calculated as less than it's parts? Very good thought here, I don't think we can rise above the very thing that created us. Don"t assume now, that I am speaking about a God by definition, I'm talking only about the Big Bang from which all things have evolved.

I wonder if it's more or less than its parts. Maybe more? But, how would we know, considering the universe being all there is and supposedly all there ever was (if we can assume this for the moment). Or what do you mean?

 

It would also be a good question to ask, is the universe aware of itself?

It depends on how we look at it. If we see us as parts of the universe (I can't see how we're not!) and if we see ourselves as aware of the universe including ourselves, then indeed isn't the universe, in some parts, aware? I suppose it depends on what it means to be aware.

[Stargazer]

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I just hope you explain to me why my statement does not refute your reductionism, and not just by saying that "it is made of atoms". thanks.

 

Sorry, but I don't understand how it does refute my reductionism in the first place.

[infamous]

Yes Stargazer; The question is defining awareness of self. We are aware of our existence, and thinking in the abstract we can conjure up ideas on fantastic proportions. May we also assume that the universe itself might in fact be a thinking and reasoning entity. If we don't consider this to be at least a possibility, we may be holding ourselves in much too high reguard.

[lindagarrette]

I used to think AI in the real sense (with ability to learn independently from human intervention) was not realistic but after reading a lot about how the brain works, it seems reasonable to expect something along the lines of a purely mechanical form of intelligence. The hurdle will be integrating the mental functions with a central nervous system so it can maintain itself. Forms of artificial intelligence have been around for decades, even before computers. But they are jjust robots, with explicitly limited capabilities. The movie I Robot which vaguely followed a concept in Assimov's classic is a pretty unlikely scenario at this time although it is possible even now for someone to create and activate a robot that would be capable of doing a lot of damage on command.

[Stargazer]

Yes Stargazer; The question is defining awareness of self. We are aware of our existence, and thinking in the abstract we can conjure up ideas on fantastic proportions.

It's the structure of an object that makes it aware, I think, like our brains and other brains for example. We recieve impressions in various kinds which are then sent to our brains. But all objects are hit by electromagnetic radiation and so on. The difference is how that object is affected. It's terribly difficult to explain what I mean.

 

May we also assume that the universe itself might in fact be a thinking and reasoning entity. If we don't consider this to be at least a possibility, we may be holding ourselves in much too high reguard.

The universe has planets and stars, and it also has human brains.