The singularity is near - raymond kurzweil

[Dan w]

I supose that may be true, but what exactly is self awerness? If what you mean by that is that a human knows that they have a body, then is that not the same as a comutor assesing, controling and observing its own construction? Monitering the heat of the cuircity and changing the speed of the fan, as a simple example. Or a computor aware of deficiencies in its own code, and then rewriting those deficiencies to improve them. Computor code such as that has already been deveoloped. If you left it for a while with access to the internet, it could reserch and eventualy compute what it, itself is. is this not self awarness?

 

[Dan w]

Emotions, ethics, morals, pity, sympathy, forgiveness, instinct, etc, etc.

The human brain is not, in essence, a computer. How do you justify this statement? The human brain is as yet 60% mystery. We dont even know what most of the genes in the human body are there for, or how the brain controls them to allow/inhibit behavior/action. The computer part is just a tiny fraction of the overall functionality of the human brain.

Well, if you take the brain and remove all this higher level stuff, you get to nurons. And all nurons do is recive an electrical signal, possibly alter it in some way, and then pass it on to some other nurons. This is pretty much exactly what a group of transistors do, other than that they work in binary code.

 

[Bambulus]

I supose that may be true, but what exactly is self awerness? If what you mean by that is that a human knows that they have a body, then is that not the same as a comutor assesing, controling and observing its own construction? Monitering the heat of the cuircity and changing the speed of the fan, as a simple example. Or a computor aware of deficiencies in its own code, and then rewriting those deficiencies to improve them. Computor code such as that has already been deveoloped. If you left it for a while with access to the internet, it could reserch and eventualy compute what it, itself is. is this not self awarness?

The computer analogy is used all over in certain aspects of psychology. Believe me. The cognitive schools of psychology love computer analogies, and have unrelentingly used them since their inception.

The problem is that they are just analogies. Nothing more. They're only ever used as a 'this COULD be the basis of how the brain works', and no further. The human mind is so complex that not a single person on earth knows how it works. People only know how certain elements work, and even then it's such a new subject that it's not an exact science (and I use that phrase as a metaphor only - Psychology is not a 'science', and I see no point in calling it so, other than to try and gain some form of accreditation). Some neurophysiology is known, but nowhere near enough to build even a portion of the full picture.

Point being, if you're going to use a computer analogy for how the brain functions, read up on cognitive psychology to get a better picture of it. Also try and find some other schools, so you can understand just how ineffective computer analogies are and how little is actually known about brain function. Don't even bring the mind, or conciousness into it. Nobody has any clue how either works, especially in relation to brain function.

Building a functioning brain out of a computer would first require an understanding of brain function, the mind, conciousness and how these all interlink. Which ain't happening any time soon.

 

[Robbo]

I supose that may be true, but what exactly is self awerness? If what you mean by that is that a human knows that they have a body, then is that not the same as a comutor assesing, controling and observing its own construction? Monitering the heat of the cuircity and changing the speed of the fan, as a simple example. Or a computor aware of deficiencies in its own code, and then rewriting those deficiencies to improve them. Computor code such as that has already been deveoloped. If you left it for a while with access to the internet, it could reserch and eventualy compute what it, itself is. is this not self awarness?

Dan, I hinted last time, this time I'm asking you politely, please get a spell-check mate.
It's disconcerting getting into a debate on such a potentially complex subject with someone who has a problem spelling the word 'computer' let alone discussing it's complex workings ... you get my point I hope?

Now, to take you on:- Self awareness can best be understood by stating it's the ability to be aware of one's self independent of your own thoughts and actions .... you might have to think about that for a moment to let it sink in.
You seem to think it's being aware you have a body which is not right at all, it's more you are aware of your own entity outside of the psycho-mechanics of thought and action.

It is most certainly not the same as a computer reacting to a program that tells it to turn the heating up if the ambient temp falls below a certain figure, this is nothing more than Pavlovian reflexing and nothing to do with self-awareness.
In your analogy, you could just as easily state a thermostat is self aware which it patently isn't.

As for a computer knowing it has a deficiency in its own code?
For a computer to be aware of deficiencies in its own code, it has to have the ability to do realise its own deficiency but once again, if it could ever do that, it would be an emergent property of conditional programming ... this is not self-awareness at all mate ... it's just program writing to respond to differing conditions.

You seem to be having a problem in appreciating what exactly defines intelligence or self awareness and because of this, you go on to ask questions such as wondering if a computer could become self-aware just leaving it on line ..... the problem with that is, you need the appropriate complexity of programming that could already be described as intelligent and therefore makes your question academic.

This notion you hark on about is romantic science, nothing more.

Dan, Bambulus has hit all the nails on the all the heads with his post and is an excellent read that explains all you need to know really.

 

[Dan w]

Sorry, most of that was miss typing, I should have gone over my posts.

I also do not think that I accurately worded what I had posted, but on further consideration, I believe that what you are saying is true.

I know what I mean, but I am not very good at putting it across. It is one of my weaknesses, I must admit.

I guess that I just do not know enough about the subject to debate it with someone who does.

Sorry again for the incorrect posts.

 

[Bambulus]

Hey, don't worry about it.

At least you had the confidence to enter a discussion with your view, some people wouldn't. And don't worry about being wrong - we've all been wrong before, and it's one of the best ways to learn. No need to apologise.

 

[Dan w]

But just a question, if technology ever became advanced enough to actually download the function and consciousness of a human brain (I'm not saying that this will happen, I am asking if), do you think that your own mind and consciousness would perceive the world from your own perspective or from that of the downloaded brains? And if you died, would you then still live on and be able to think as the download?

 

[Skeet]

I'm a bit late, sorry about that.

I think the notion of true AI is, really speaking, never going to happen, for the reasons already stated.

In the quest for immortality, (as the thread seems to suggest, via technology) cybernetics is the only way forward.

We do have the technology to replace most parts of the human body and that technology will only improve. So immortality in that sense, will be gained by enabling the brain and nerve centres, to be mated to a "body".

The brain, as an organ has no moving parts. So the only wear and tear that I can see, would be on those areas that transport fluid (blood). As the brain is living, it replaces it's own cells and as such, should be capable of living for considerably longer than it's human host can currently.

 

[Joshie15]

very late...but

what was the name of the book? the topic sounds very interesting



Edit

nevermind just read the title of this thread.....

 

[Robbo]

As the brain is living, it replaces it's own cells and as such, should be capable of living for considerably longer than it's human host can currently.

...er, actually Skeet, for the most part, brain cells do not regenerate mate ...... once deaded, they remain deaded