lindagarrette Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 I think thats the idea. I believe that Super Intelligence will happen from A.I sometime this century. Im not scientist or anything, I just read a lot of books and articles. But I just find it facanating I guess :hihi: I also think it is fascinating. I think some of the notions are wishful thinking and some are fear and ignorance driven. Seems to me that self awareness such as most animal life posseses is not necessarily a feature of intelligence, but rather a lot of biological evolution. Computers already store and process massively more data than any human is capable of, and much much faster. But neuroscience has not yet been able to produce the same type of learning results. One reason is that we don't process everything in our brain. For example a person hitting a tennis ball doesn't calculate the trajectory, distance, speed of impact, etc... Instead her entire body is involved in detecting signals form the surroundings, her own body, reflexes, and life experience. To enable a machine to accomplish anything similar would be to practically reproduce a human in every detail. That's my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 The tennis player analogy is good. I have always asked myself why we are trying so hard to emulate human beings (like the Honda robots etc). If AI is to become real, I think it is important to look beyond the "human" factor and come up with something completely different. Trouble is, I don't really know what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Yes I agree that cellular automatons have limited "inteligence" It seems to me the general attitude is it hasn't been done so it can't? Kinda like the Wright brothers huh? Thousands of years of humans speculating on flight & thousands of years of "them" saying absolutely imposiible or it must be this way or that"? Just more of the same. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 You also have to have a distinction of what Intelligence is in order to consider creating it...We can created digital form that appear to interact with it's environment. Yet to be able toadapt such that it can learn from it's mistakes and replicate in some fashion, I believe iscrucial to such a distinction... Just musing... :hihi: Maddog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 I have entered a musing. I mean , this is all a musing anyway. :hihi: :rant: :xx: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 I also think it is fascinating. I think some of the notions are wishful thinking and some are fear and ignorance driven. Seems to me that self awareness such as most animal life posseses is not necessarily a feature of intelligence, but rather a lot of biological evolution. Computers already store and process massively more data than any human is capable of, and much much faster. But neuroscience has not yet been able to produce the same type of learning results. One reason is that we don't process everything in our brain. For example a person hitting a tennis ball doesn't calculate the trajectory, distance, speed of impact, etc... Instead her entire body is involved in detecting signals form the surroundings, her own body, reflexes, and life experience. To enable a machine to accomplish anything similar would be to practically reproduce a human in every detail. That's my opinion.Outstanding point Linda, this view takes us to another level of investagation. We must consider the whole person when we think about intelligence, from the brain including the brain stem, then expanding out to every cell of our body. Information comes to us from every aspect of our existence, from the deepest abstractions of mental concentration, to the broken fingure nail we got while playing tennis. Very good point, we have here. For intelligence to progress in machines the same way or equivalent to the human experience the machine wil need to interact with it's enviorment to a much greater degree than is currently possible. Untill then this developement will not proceed to or be equal to the awareness that human beings are capable of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Seems like this thread is getting back to the Touring test I mentioned early on. Someone then pointed out that the test is about just fooling(convincing) another human of intelligence. Now isn't that we are doing? Each of us in this thread? Trying to convince humans we're inteligent. Aren't we electro chemical machines? Don't we adapt the newest technological terms to descirbe our inteligence; before Babbage there was no computer-mind model. :hihi: (click-click-whirr^^curchunkchunk) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I fail to see how the tennis player analogy works in this case. First off most of the actions involved in tennis would be regulated by the Cerebellum, what amounts to a pre/co-processor for the body's actions, not 'the whole body'. Ex: As I am typing this, my Cerebellum is converting data routed from my speech center, through my motor cortex and dealing with all the nasty intricasies of telling my fingers to run through the motions required to convey the message through the nastyqwerty keyboard layout, leaving the rest of my Cerebrial mass free to ponder just why we've 'failed' to create AI. I beleive the problems in AI creation to stem from a lack of co-processing potential in both software and hardware systems, the sheer linear nature of most approaches precludes this. Should we wish to mimic mamillian intelligence, we would need to create a system of conflicting programs, hard wire some into a computer network(instinctual responces: fight or flight, hungers/urges, etc...), while uploading the rest to the memory of diffent machines on the network(learning responces, adative programs) and them let them war it out over the data we imput into the system.I know the preceeding is overly complex, but it's ment to convey the concept rather than write the book. Still if we can't build it, maby we can clone and train the computers of tomorrow; remember the rat-brain that flew the virtual plane?just my 2c, canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I fail to see how the tennis player analogy works in this case. First off most of the actions involved in tennis would be regulated by the Cerebellum, what amounts to a pre/co-processor for the body's actions, not 'the whole body'. I can't figure why you are diasgreeing with the tennis player analogy. It certainly fits your explanation of how the cerebellum works The cerebellum processes input from other areas of the brain, spinal cord and sensory receptors to provide timing for coordinated, smooth movements of the skeletal muscular system, i.e. "the whole body." The problem with creating an AI that has survival instincts is that we have not been able to provide a machine with endorphen-like capability. That's what really makes us "alive." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Ahh, I see where I misunderstood; I though you were implying that the 'whole body' actually thought and planned the actions, thus my confusion. Endorphens, wouldn't that be built in, 'hard-wired' so to speak? My understanding of endorphens is that they wourk as a quick method of exciting/repressing several 'systems' at roughly the same time, much like a mass-mail system really. In that essecnce, doesn't the monthly newsletter sufficiently emulate that function? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Ahh, I see where I misunderstood; I though you were implying that the 'whole body' actually thought and planned the actions, thus my confusion. Endorphens, wouldn't that be built in, 'hard-wired' so to speak? My understanding of endorphens is that they wourk as a quick method of exciting/repressing several 'systems' at roughly the same time, much like a mass-mail system really. In that essecnce, doesn't the monthly newsletter sufficiently emulate that function? I think Linda makes an excellent point here, even if as you state endorphens are considered to be hard wired. Makes no difference in my opinion, all biological processes however we define them are with out question connected directly or indirectly with that ultimate processor, the human brain. The total machine, if I can be allowed to define it as such, is functioning within a harmonious copperation, thus our intelligence is a product of this total exchange of information, from which ever member it originates. This is an absolutely excellent point, one I must confess that I had not personally understood before Linda posted this observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 GAHD's comment about the linearity seems a good point. By way of Life as a cellular automaton example again; it is shown how arranging the initial conditions that the game can function as a computer, regularly spitting out gliders which stand in for electrical signal. Now maybe one isn't that big a deal, like one soldier is no national threat. But when you have an army, that's something all together different. So an army of AI soldiers, coordinated to efficiently communicate & with specialties of operation. It's not so linear any more. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAHD Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Seems you're thinking of a hive-mind there turtle. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 I hadn't considered the hive analogy, but why not? What's wrong with the hive? It's no great stretch, the human hive. Don't bees dance to communicate? Don't we consider them (if not other hive types) intelligent? Sure; sure, I like your hive. By the by, did you know honey bees done build hexagonal combs? No, they build round cells and the wax is then squished into a hexagon by surrounding cells. Yes, this hive is OK by me. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Endorphens, wouldn't that be built in, 'hard-wired' so to speak? My understanding of endorphens is that they wourk as a quick method of exciting/repressing several 'systems' at roughly the same time, much like a mass-mail system really. In that essecnce, doesn't the monthly newsletter sufficiently emulate that function?Endorphins are neurotransmitters that are key to our survuval. They are created in the central nervous system in response to adverse conditions or can be generated by heightened activity, sex, eating, etc.. They affect our feelings of hapiness, drive and motivation, stability, alertness, good feelings toward others, calmness in cases of difficulty. I think this pretty much sums up what will always distinguish biological beings from other forms of intelligence. AI has been around for a long time. My washing machine, for example. What we seem to want is a robot that can behave like a human. So far, nothing has been accomplished that even remotely approaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 In summary, AI is a thinking machine. That's all. We can develop a computer that functions similarly to the human brain but, with its machanical limitations, it cannot "live." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Yep; summed up & all answered. Not! All these absolute statements like "won't ever" & "cannot" & such! AI exists because we're talking about it & where it may go is all speculation. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.