[QUOTE]The point is that we are vastly underestimating human potential.[/quote]
To compare notes... I would have to know *how* extensive you consider this potential to be.
[quote]Neurons are not transistors, they are very different things. Its like comparing an apples to basalt.[/quote]
It is claimed... that a sufficiently large collection of neurons with suitable software and operating environment (a human who learnt this, supported by modern society)... is capable of understanding, designing and building transistors.
Similarly... a sufficiently large collection of transistors with suitable software... can do the opposite, namely model virtual neurons. And though our current understanding of software does not permit designing a system which would understand what a transistor is... computer programs *have* successfully designed a radio receiver, or independently learnt the trick of flapping flight (something a bird learns in similar try-until-you-succeed fashion... unless it's a smart bird, and imitates its parents).
[quote]From my understanding a 10000 transistor cpu can do the same functions as a 1^10 transistor chip, just a lot slower.[/quote]
A microcontroller is very unlikely to achieve much in image recognition. A full-fledged processor can.
Same goes with neurons. Fish neurons and human neurons are essentially the same -- we merely have more than fish. (And ours grow into different arragement.)
Like neural netoworks** of different complexity accommodate creatures of different ability... processors of different capability can solve different tasks, using different approaches and software.
** Admittedly as Biggles mentioned, not simple netoworks but complex sets of them, and not every aspect of their behaviour is understood.
[quote]Computer transistors are simply on or off, thats it.[/quote]
A sufficient quantity of bits... can reasonably represent floating-point values. If necessary, a digital computer can simulate the analog world... and likewise benefit from true randomness via a physical random generator (although for most purposes, pseudo-randomness suffices).
Just like our analog minds can model a digital computer.
[quote]The information set by neurons is much more variable with variable strength and rates, all of which are important.[/quote]
With a sufficient batch (perhaps even undetermined in size) of floating-point values... I believe that most properties of a neuron can be adequately modeled. While neurons are sure an interesting kind of cells... there is nothing impossibly unique in their nature.
[quote]It doesn't matter how many stars or neurons there are, the fact remains is that we underestimate ourselves.[/quote]
I can only say... that sometimes, underestimation is healthy. It allows for a positive surprise when we occasionally exceed ourselves.
[quote]Not in terms on how fast or how much multitasking we can do, but the simple but immense power we have as individuals.[/quote]
I have not the slightest desire to arugue against *that*. People should appreciate their ability to understand, choose and discover. It *is* a great fortune.
[quote]Computers arn't synergetic, but humans are.[/QUOTE]
Some neat little computers *are* somewhat synergetic. But admittedly yes... their cooperation falls short of that achievable by humans.
Then again... humans too frequently fall short... and behave as if they weren't synergetic at all.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
I attended a lecture a few months ago by one of the top researchers in how human memory works.[/quote]
Hush! Why must you insist on driving me envious? :eek:
[quote]He seemed to be of the opinion that it's anything but explainable.[/quote]
While I am certain that countless puzzles await in that field... I would still dare to claim... that the *most basic* behaviours of neurons and brains... if not are... then are becoming explainable.
Science *does* have a superficial understanding of how neurons transmit their signals... of the cellular metabolism operating below it... clues regarding how they store their data... and glimpses at how they interact.
By no means can we *completely* replicate a biological neuron in software... but we *can* create lifelike approximations.
[quote]The human brain is not a simple neural network of the kind you find in software.[/quote]
Admitted. Computer simulations are generally geared towards ease of coding, while the exact behaviour of biological neurons is currently nowhere near easy to code.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]While I am certain that countless puzzles await in that field... I would still dare to claim... that the *most basic* behaviours of neurons and brains... if not are... then are becoming explainable.[/B][/QUOTE]
I was talking about memory, not neurons. Memory is an extraordinarily complex system whereas neurons are single, very simple (by comparison) components of that and other systems. They do understand a lot about how memory works, but we are nowhere near understanding fully. It's not as simple as just neurons, either. Apparently it involves lots of different kinds of neurons and related cells and various chemical patterns and a whole heap of stuff I didn't understand.
I got to thinking about the silicon vs carbon thing above...
IF... and I say IF...
the human mind IS structured (dare I say designed) to not only work in 3 dimensions and time, but interface at higher levels (dimensions) as well subconciously...
... That until we take this into account for our binary brotherhood and design into them the concepts of reaching past our limited view, they will never succeed at anything more than imitating us.
Can conciousness come from a large database of knowledge and experience alone? This isn't Star Trek, this is real life...
commuters may be able to design radios, but radios are directly related to the four known forces of nature (strong weak grav and em). While everything, even what goes on up here *taps head* is the product of these four, there are more steps in between.
Computers can only model what we know. We can't even get climate prediction to be consistent and that is something we seem to understand better and is more simple than sentience. Meteorology is just fluid dynamics and we all know how well THAT works!
[quote]To compare notes... I would have to know *how* extensive you consider this potential to be[/quote]
This can't be known, at all. I am not talking about being smarter or faster, but being more (for the lack of a better term) in thisness.
[quote]Then again... humans too frequently fall short... and behave as if they weren't synergistic at all.[/quote]
Exactly. We live below our potential. No genetic modifications needed or special surgeries.
As Jack pointed out, as long as computers are using binary logic they can never reach human capacity. I am not saying that artificial sentience isn't possible, but we have much more to learn and understand about ourselves.
If we could have artificial sentient beings with mechanical appendages I wont have to worry about my lack of love life either.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Can conciousness come from a large database of knowledge and experience alone? This isn't Star Trek, this is real life... [/B][/QUOTE]
Not conciousness, no. But you can get an effective imitation of intelligence capable of functioning in the real world. It just won't be able to do things like dream and imagine.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Meteorology is just fluid dynamics and we all know how well THAT works![/B][/QUOTE]
Not entirely true since meteorology involves a system with an enormous number of unknown inputs and chaos theory stuff. This is why it doesn't work to well. :) As you say, we can only model what we know.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Not conciousness, no. But you can get an effective imitation of intelligence capable of functioning in the real world. It just won't be able to do things like dream and imagine. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. So the term Artificial Intelligence is appropriate as long as it doesn't include sentience/conciousness.
This gets back to what really defines LIFE then...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
IF... and I say IF...
the human mind IS structured (dare I say designed) to not only work in 3 dimensions and time, but interface at higher levels (dimensions) as well subconciously...[/quote]
To some extent... one could think it must be. We include countless variables in our world-models, and navigate among their combinations. It merely seems that, unless we know relations by shortcuts of experience... solving such multi-variable problems demands that we too perform what a computer is generally required to.
The intuition we exhibit in certain matters... does not appear to extend everywhere. It is my personal opinon... that certain kinds of problems are inherently ill suited for human hardware to solve. That problems exist where human intuition is counterproductive, the structure of our mind mismatches the structure of the problem... and untangling the problem would be easier if the solver could knowingly alter how it represents the problem within itself.
[quote]... That until we take this into account for our binary brotherhood and design into them the concepts of reaching past our limited view, they will never succeed at anything more than imitating us.[/quote]
I personally think that *if* a computer starts approaching human abilities... it will inevitably have to be capable of *building* its own ways of representing things, its own ways of thinking.
I doubt such a system would find productivity or efficiency in emulating a human mind. Most probably, it would take on a rather different internal structure... and to communicate with humans, merely use a convenient interface.
[quote]Can conciousness come from a large database of knowledge and experience alone? This isn't Star Trek, this is real life... [/QUOTE]
I cannot be sure.
But theoretically... if the database contained data about itself... succeeded in reasoning about itself and its relations to world... could influence itself and the world, and gather information about the changes said influence produced...
...then can we really exclude that it couldn't form a complete personality... develop identity, purpose, direction... know who it is (or admit not knowing sufficiently well)... know what it wants (or admit some uncertainty in the matter)... or perceive a reason for living, as opposed to falling apart?
Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead: [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead: [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, we do use the entiriety of our brains, just not all the time. At one exact moment we do not use more than 10% of our brain, but we use all of our grey matter during our daily work.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Actually, we do use the entiriety of our brains, just not all the time. At one exact moment we do not use more than 10% of our brain, but we use all of our grey matter during our daily work. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nah.. I dont think those people I have to deal with every day even have capacity to use that 10%... Sorry. But that's just how it is.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead: [/B][/QUOTE]
What brain capacity?
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."
-Andre Gide
"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."
-Scott Adams
"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race."
-Don Marquis
"All the problems of the world could be settled if people were only willing to think. The trouble is that people very often resort to all sorts of devices in order not to think, because thinking is such hard work."
-Thomas J. Watson
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
-Calvin
"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience"
"The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor; he took my measurement anew every time he saw me, while all the rest went on with their old measurements and expected them to fit me."
-George Bernard Shaw
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this."
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
-Bertrand Russell
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead."
"Most of one's life is one prolonged effort to prevent oneself thinking."
"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
-Aldous Huxley
For a some reason I tend to agree with these gentlemen.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]If people are so stupid, how could they be smart enough to notice? [/B][/QUOTE]
We are freaks. The ones who notice.
Some are in the position to use it for advantage and some (like me) cant do anything about it.
And I am pretty fucking stupid too. Was/AM. Or maybe i'm just a bit nuts after everything...
I mean. I'm perfectly ordinary now, normal. My brain works a bit slower than when I used to play games most of the time or watch tv, but it works in rather normal way.
Just that I get the desire to start cutting my face when i'm bored or sick. I guess that's one of the "major" signs of my difference.
Comments
:p
To compare notes... I would have to know *how* extensive you consider this potential to be.
[quote]Neurons are not transistors, they are very different things. Its like comparing an apples to basalt.[/quote]
It is claimed... that a sufficiently large collection of neurons with suitable software and operating environment (a human who learnt this, supported by modern society)... is capable of understanding, designing and building transistors.
Similarly... a sufficiently large collection of transistors with suitable software... can do the opposite, namely model virtual neurons. And though our current understanding of software does not permit designing a system which would understand what a transistor is... computer programs *have* successfully designed a radio receiver, or independently learnt the trick of flapping flight (something a bird learns in similar try-until-you-succeed fashion... unless it's a smart bird, and imitates its parents).
[quote]From my understanding a 10000 transistor cpu can do the same functions as a 1^10 transistor chip, just a lot slower.[/quote]
A microcontroller is very unlikely to achieve much in image recognition. A full-fledged processor can.
Same goes with neurons. Fish neurons and human neurons are essentially the same -- we merely have more than fish. (And ours grow into different arragement.)
Like neural netoworks** of different complexity accommodate creatures of different ability... processors of different capability can solve different tasks, using different approaches and software.
** Admittedly as Biggles mentioned, not simple netoworks but complex sets of them, and not every aspect of their behaviour is understood.
[quote]Computer transistors are simply on or off, thats it.[/quote]
A sufficient quantity of bits... can reasonably represent floating-point values. If necessary, a digital computer can simulate the analog world... and likewise benefit from true randomness via a physical random generator (although for most purposes, pseudo-randomness suffices).
Just like our analog minds can model a digital computer.
[quote]The information set by neurons is much more variable with variable strength and rates, all of which are important.[/quote]
With a sufficient batch (perhaps even undetermined in size) of floating-point values... I believe that most properties of a neuron can be adequately modeled. While neurons are sure an interesting kind of cells... there is nothing impossibly unique in their nature.
[quote]It doesn't matter how many stars or neurons there are, the fact remains is that we underestimate ourselves.[/quote]
I can only say... that sometimes, underestimation is healthy. It allows for a positive surprise when we occasionally exceed ourselves.
[quote]Not in terms on how fast or how much multitasking we can do, but the simple but immense power we have as individuals.[/quote]
I have not the slightest desire to arugue against *that*. People should appreciate their ability to understand, choose and discover. It *is* a great fortune.
[quote]Computers arn't synergetic, but humans are.[/QUOTE]
Some neat little computers *are* somewhat synergetic. But admittedly yes... their cooperation falls short of that achievable by humans.
Then again... humans too frequently fall short... and behave as if they weren't synergetic at all.
I attended a lecture a few months ago by one of the top researchers in how human memory works.[/quote]
Hush! Why must you insist on driving me envious? :eek:
[quote]He seemed to be of the opinion that it's anything but explainable.[/quote]
While I am certain that countless puzzles await in that field... I would still dare to claim... that the *most basic* behaviours of neurons and brains... if not are... then are becoming explainable.
Science *does* have a superficial understanding of how neurons transmit their signals... of the cellular metabolism operating below it... clues regarding how they store their data... and glimpses at how they interact.
By no means can we *completely* replicate a biological neuron in software... but we *can* create lifelike approximations.
[quote]The human brain is not a simple neural network of the kind you find in software.[/quote]
Admitted. Computer simulations are generally geared towards ease of coding, while the exact behaviour of biological neurons is currently nowhere near easy to code.
[B]While I am certain that countless puzzles await in that field... I would still dare to claim... that the *most basic* behaviours of neurons and brains... if not are... then are becoming explainable.[/B][/QUOTE]
I was talking about memory, not neurons. Memory is an extraordinarily complex system whereas neurons are single, very simple (by comparison) components of that and other systems. They do understand a lot about how memory works, but we are nowhere near understanding fully. It's not as simple as just neurons, either. Apparently it involves lots of different kinds of neurons and related cells and various chemical patterns and a whole heap of stuff I didn't understand.
IF... and I say IF...
the human mind IS structured (dare I say designed) to not only work in 3 dimensions and time, but interface at higher levels (dimensions) as well subconciously...
... That until we take this into account for our binary brotherhood and design into them the concepts of reaching past our limited view, they will never succeed at anything more than imitating us.
Can conciousness come from a large database of knowledge and experience alone? This isn't Star Trek, this is real life...
Computers can only model what we know. We can't even get climate prediction to be consistent and that is something we seem to understand better and is more simple than sentience. Meteorology is just fluid dynamics and we all know how well THAT works!
[quote]To compare notes... I would have to know *how* extensive you consider this potential to be[/quote]
This can't be known, at all. I am not talking about being smarter or faster, but being more (for the lack of a better term) in thisness.
[quote]Then again... humans too frequently fall short... and behave as if they weren't synergistic at all.[/quote]
Exactly. We live below our potential. No genetic modifications needed or special surgeries.
As Jack pointed out, as long as computers are using binary logic they can never reach human capacity. I am not saying that artificial sentience isn't possible, but we have much more to learn and understand about ourselves.
If we could have artificial sentient beings with mechanical appendages I wont have to worry about my lack of love life either.
[B]Can conciousness come from a large database of knowledge and experience alone? This isn't Star Trek, this is real life... [/B][/QUOTE]
Not conciousness, no. But you can get an effective imitation of intelligence capable of functioning in the real world. It just won't be able to do things like dream and imagine.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Meteorology is just fluid dynamics and we all know how well THAT works![/B][/QUOTE]
Not entirely true since meteorology involves a system with an enormous number of unknown inputs and chaos theory stuff. This is why it doesn't work to well. :) As you say, we can only model what we know.
[B]Not conciousness, no. But you can get an effective imitation of intelligence capable of functioning in the real world. It just won't be able to do things like dream and imagine. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. So the term Artificial Intelligence is appropriate as long as it doesn't include sentience/conciousness.
This gets back to what really defines LIFE then...
:rolleyes: :cool:
IF... and I say IF...
the human mind IS structured (dare I say designed) to not only work in 3 dimensions and time, but interface at higher levels (dimensions) as well subconciously...[/quote]
To some extent... one could think it must be. We include countless variables in our world-models, and navigate among their combinations. It merely seems that, unless we know relations by shortcuts of experience... solving such multi-variable problems demands that we too perform what a computer is generally required to.
The intuition we exhibit in certain matters... does not appear to extend everywhere. It is my personal opinon... that certain kinds of problems are inherently ill suited for human hardware to solve. That problems exist where human intuition is counterproductive, the structure of our mind mismatches the structure of the problem... and untangling the problem would be easier if the solver could knowingly alter how it represents the problem within itself.
[quote]... That until we take this into account for our binary brotherhood and design into them the concepts of reaching past our limited view, they will never succeed at anything more than imitating us.[/quote]
I personally think that *if* a computer starts approaching human abilities... it will inevitably have to be capable of *building* its own ways of representing things, its own ways of thinking.
I doubt such a system would find productivity or efficiency in emulating a human mind. Most probably, it would take on a rather different internal structure... and to communicate with humans, merely use a convenient interface.
[quote]Can conciousness come from a large database of knowledge and experience alone? This isn't Star Trek, this is real life... [/QUOTE]
I cannot be sure.
But theoretically... if the database contained data about itself... succeeded in reasoning about itself and its relations to world... could influence itself and the world, and gather information about the changes said influence produced...
...then can we really exclude that it couldn't form a complete personality... develop identity, purpose, direction... know who it is (or admit not knowing sufficiently well)... know what it wants (or admit some uncertainty in the matter)... or perceive a reason for living, as opposed to falling apart?
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead:
[B]Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead: [/B][/QUOTE]
Hmmm... the essence of being sentient...
"It takes one, to know one..."
:D
[B]Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead: [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, we do use the entiriety of our brains, just not all the time. At one exact moment we do not use more than 10% of our brain, but we use all of our grey matter during our daily work.
[B]Actually, we do use the entiriety of our brains, just not all the time. At one exact moment we do not use more than 10% of our brain, but we use all of our grey matter during our daily work. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nah.. I dont think those people I have to deal with every day even have capacity to use that 10%... Sorry. But that's just how it is.
Dont turn into A# here ;)
[B]Well.. I was bored to read all that silly text you been putting there, but I can honestly say that human races ability to use even that 10% of their brain capacity is deteriorating in alarming speeds.
I can see it working every day at work.. The stupidity of humans. Honestly.. You couldnt believe it..
the horror... horror... HORRROR!! :dead: [/B][/QUOTE]
What brain capacity?
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again."
-Andre Gide
"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."
-Scott Adams
"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race."
-Don Marquis
"All the problems of the world could be settled if people were only willing to think. The trouble is that people very often resort to all sorts of devices in order not to think, because thinking is such hard work."
-Thomas J. Watson
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
-Calvin
"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience"
"The only man who behaved sensibly was my tailor; he took my measurement anew every time he saw me, while all the rest went on with their old measurements and expected them to fit me."
-George Bernard Shaw
"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this."
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
-Bertrand Russell
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead."
"Most of one's life is one prolonged effort to prevent oneself thinking."
"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
-Aldous Huxley
For a some reason I tend to agree with these gentlemen.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein
[B]If people are so stupid, how could they be smart enough to notice? [/B][/QUOTE]
We are freaks. The ones who notice.
Some are in the position to use it for advantage and some (like me) cant do anything about it.
And I am pretty fucking stupid too. Was/AM. Or maybe i'm just a bit nuts after everything...
I mean. I'm perfectly ordinary now, normal. My brain works a bit slower than when I used to play games most of the time or watch tv, but it works in rather normal way.
Just that I get the desire to start cutting my face when i'm bored or sick. I guess that's one of the "major" signs of my difference.