|
Fabio Franco wrote: Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
I don't think uncertainties have anything good to offer apart from just inducing errors in the system, maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties. I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution?
Uncertainty allows randomnes and randomnes made it possible for us to be what we are. Without, we'd just be some lame program.
Edit:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties.
You're not thinking out of the box. If you are talking about raw speed, this makes sense, for exact calculations. Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain?
Our brain power is so much higher than our current technology that I cannot even start listing how our brain is superior to machines in so many aspects.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution?
Evolution? sure ready about that, i don't even think evolution is what happened, humans were designed by a greater being we call God.I'am not even a fun of evolution and it's another subject all together, evolution is not convincing i belief in creationism.
Fabio Franco wrote: Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain?
Let's wait on that issue because i have something to show to the world on visual object recognition. I'am currently modifying a vision system i have developed, soon it will be ready to go head on with human's ability to recognize visual objects. But i want to use it for internet based fast image retrieval system. Will have to wait on that 
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: i belief in creationism.
Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion. I'm not atheist if you must know, but I really doubt we simply appeared out of the blue. And even if you believe that we came out of the blue, you can still observe the scientific findings that PROVE other creatures came out of evolution due to errors in DNA replication and natural selection.
Although errors usually produce bad results (i.e.: cancer), errors still produce breakthroughs (i.e.: Penicilin).
Again, I think you should think out of the box for a moment.
Edit:
The point I'm trying to make is that uncertainty and errors are not always a bad thing and it's what make us unique.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
I get you point on the matter of uncertainty but still that is not convincing that uncertainties and errors could be the secret behind the brains ability to be self aware or perform with exceptional abilities, it is accurate neural computations that give the brain those awesome properties.
Fabio Franco wrote: Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion.
Yeah i should not do that, but how can i put it, because humans are as a result of mere design with a purpose. I wanted to say that we were designed! That sounds religious no matter how i put it
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: I wanted to say that we were designed!
I also believe that, but in a different way. If you are curious, I believe that God set in motion a series of events and variables that made our universe and that He designed the universe, the physics, the uncertainties that finally led to us.
My point is that religiously or not I still think that we are the product of errors neatly designed and that randomnes allowed us to evolve to who we are and let everyone be unique.
I still think that if we were not subject to all these interferences from the universe, these errors, we would never be where we are. And these sort of complexities governed by the nature of physics is what is really difficult to replicate in a software simulation. To create something as majestic as our brain ought to take a lot of scientific evolution.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us, just the result of some spontaneous process left alone? I think God did more than setting events in motion. Anyways this is just another vast topic about creation. Going back to self awareness, do uncertainties help us be unique?Yes. Do uncertainties make us self aware?No,i don't think so, thus a computer program need not simulate uncertainties to be self aware, besides environmental factors in the input sensors and the inherent properties of semiconductors already have fluctuations,defects or uncertainties in them, any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us
That's where you're mistaken, I believe He designed and set the event in motion so perfectly to have the exact outcome He expected in the first place.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: Do uncertainties make us self aware?
Not particularly, but without it we couldn't be, that's what I believe.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
but it might be enough to get the job done. Maybe future experiments will elaborate on that. Maybe our future generations will carry out such experiments. Today,we are limited to do such experiments.
|
|
|
|
|
In a manner of speaking, there is already a program that is self-aware. The genetic code sequencing in a DNA molocule programs living things to act and react the way that they do. So we have "hardware" (the brain) and "software" (DNA) that allows biological systems to be self-aware.
IBM is working on the hardware to mimic the brain and has already made some progress. So all we need now is software to mimic genetic code sequencing and that will allow a computer system to be self-aware.
It's just a matter of time...
Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, even us humans, are programmed genetically speaking, some people are finding it hard to assimilate the fact that there is a possibility that programs can be made aware of their existence or they are already.
|
|
|
|
|
It is unlikely that a single computer will be self aware. However, a sufficiently large system with sufficient randomness and errors, that constantly changes, evolves, and attempts to self-correct (heal) errors may just evolve such awareness.
Consider the Internet. It connects vasts amounts of information, has sensory input of various types, sound, vision, news feeds, etc.
Given a threat to its existence, and the right 'errors' in its fault tolerence algorithms, who knows what could happen.
For an interesting read on this possibility check out Robert J. Sawyer's 'Wake' trilogy.
For an oldy but goody try 'The Adolesences of P1', author forgotten by me.
|
|
|
|
|
yes it can be hard to do such a simulation on a single computer, but i also think self awareness can be achievable with programs not anywhere near as complex as the brain.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, animals are self aware in a form and their brains are less complex.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to see some support
|
|
|
|
|
'The Adolesences of P1', author is Thomas J Ryan.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe there are aspects of a biological organism that just cannot be fully replicated in electronics.
We may get to the point where CPUs and software can replicate the processing power of a human brain (like one post says: we are as close to that as earth is to the edge of the universe) but I don't think it would ever be "alive" or aware of its self.
Of course, this is my non-professional opinion so take it with a grain of salt.
This is indeed a very interesting and thought-provoking post.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah it is hard to get around this thought, i was thinking that if you can hold a meaningful conversation with a machine and it can recognize you and respond to your emotions i don't see why it shouldn't be considered to be aware of it's environment and whats going on at least.
|
|
|
|
|
You know you've looked into a can of worms that people have been looking into for many many years.
I would argue that once a comptuer passes the turing test than it will probably demand human rights or "intelligent lifeform" rights and will probably get some form of legal protection.
I would call it self aware, it would probably call itself self aware.
Good question. And judging by the number of responses many other people are interested too.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice reply Tim Yen.
|
|
|
|
|
When you build it, you should ask it.
|
|
|
|
|
Good one, but i think it can argue that it is self awareness and can convince a lot of people, and i think if it did that then it deserves to be considered self aware.
|
|
|
|
|
One newbie mistake is looking at this from *only* a computer science aspect. Defining consciousness, as well as answering certain fundamental questions such as how it arises and is kept up are currently being researched very heavily.
Anyone coming back with solely "In my opinion, *blah* defines consciousness" will be summarily dismissed 
Thanks,
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
I'am afraid i did not look at this from "only" a computer science perspective, i have researched in neural sensory processing as well.And i don't seem to get your point, the reply is not clear. 
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man.”
|
|
|
|
|
In the free online course CS101 from Stanford University, available at www.coursera.com[^], they say that:
The fundamental equation of computers is:
Computer = Powerful + Stupid
Where does "Extreme Artificial Intelligence" come in?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
