Neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch said about AI computers:

“IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.”

An interesting article discussing if AI intelligence is possible, worth a read if interested in the subject.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/why-digital-computers-cant-have-consciousness_b_9833520.html

Compliments of SSSF forum.

PermeateFree said:

Neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch said about AI computers:

“IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.”

An interesting article discussing if AI intelligence is possible, worth a read if interested in the subject.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/why-digital-computers-cant-have-consciousness_b_9833520.html

Compliments of SSSF forum.

In relation to some comments in SSSF about the author not backing up some of their statements. The links given throughout the article should if you wish to pursue it further, more than compensate for this, I think there are so many aspects to cover on this topic, you would need a very large book to cover it all. Nevertheless, the article summerises the complexities quite well.

“Among the fearful are intellectual heavyweights like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates”

Hawking in his field, I suppose some people might think that, but Musk and Gates are intellectual heavyweight?

They can’t be serious.

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

Goes back to article.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch said about AI computers:

“IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.”

An interesting article discussing if AI intelligence is possible, worth a read if interested in the subject.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/why-digital-computers-cant-have-consciousness_b_9833520.html

Compliments of SSSF forum.

In relation to some comments in SSSF about the author not backing up some of their statements. The links given throughout the article should if you wish to pursue it further, more than compensate for this, I think there are so many aspects to cover on this topic, you would need a very large book to cover it all. Nevertheless, the article summerises the complexities quite well.

OK, so this has been discussed before. I didn’t see that so this will probably repeat stuff.

I have two problems with the article.
1) Either/orism. “weak AI” and “strong AI” are discussed throughout as being indisputably different, rather than different places on a continuum, even though we have no idea how consciousness works, or even what it is.

2) Argument from Authority. He states hypotheses that support his argument as indisputably true, even though many people dispute them, but he dismisses hypotheses that do not support his argument, purely on the basis that some people dispute them.

The fact is that what he says might be true, or it might be wrong. Nobody knows, because we don’t know how consciousness works.

It is very very likely that those who think that “strong AI” is just around the corner are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen; so we should consider the consequences if it does happen, rather than just dismiss them.

Fundamentally, the author has a layer problem. The notion that qualia depends on biological factors is speculation, and any behaviour of neurons can be mimicked by a binary neural network. We don’t know enough about consciousness or computing at this point to say whether or not artificial consciousness is possible, and if he’s intellectually honest, he should just say so.

dv said:

Fundamentally, the author has a layer problem. The notion that qualia depends on biological factors is speculation, and any behaviour of neurons can be mimicked by a binary neural network. We don’t know enough about consciousness or computing at this point to say whether or not artificial consciousness is possible, and if he’s intellectually honest, he should just say so.

So we’re all agreed then.

Goes off to work.

There was a good day time doco about this yesterday. It featured the Chinese translation room illustration and aspects of hive intelligence leading to complex systems and emergent consciousness.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Among the fearful are intellectual heavyweights like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates”

Hawking in his field, I suppose some people might think that, but Musk and Gates are intellectual heavyweight?

They can’t be serious.

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

Goes back to article.

Musk still is.
Hawking lost the plot prior to 1988.
Gates lost the ability to program a computer prior to 1992, and lost the ability to hire good people in about 2001.

Haven’t read article yet.

Nothing new in OP article.

> Since as early as the 1960s, A.I. researchers have been claiming that Strong A.I. is just around the corner.

True. I have a reference to it from 1966.

Unfortunately, AI is not a chapter in the book “Soonish” which has chapters on ideas from the 1960s that have never come to fruition but are still just around the corner, such as fusion power and domestic robots.

mollwollfumble said:

Nothing new in OP article.

> Since as early as the 1960s, A.I. researchers have been claiming that Strong A.I. is just around the corner.

True. I have a reference to it from 1966.

Unfortunately, AI is not a chapter in the book “Soonish” which has chapters on ideas from the 1960s that have never come to fruition but are still just around the corner, such as fusion power and domestic robots.

You can add artificial corneas to that list. They were nearly there when I graduated 36 years ago.

>“IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.”

lot of the work done is a projection of the emergent qualities of, exhibited by humans, a desire to understand the tricks, replicate it (in non-organic machines), not entirely unlike a child wanting to be grown up.

they want to have a baby and teach it, teach it enough that it’ll teach itself, but in a sense the grownups are the children.

Neuroscience is a fast emerging field in science.

Useful to medical science, understanding the brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience

Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology, that deals with the anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology of neurons and neural circuits. It also draws upon other fields, with the most obvious being pharmacology, psychology, and medicine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

The brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. The brain is located in the head, usually close to the sensory organs for senses such as vision. The brain is the most complex organ in a vertebrate’s body. In a human, the cerebral cortex contains approximately 15–33 billion neurons, each connected by synapses to several thousand other neurons. These neurons communicate with one another by means of long protoplasmic fibers called axons, which carry trains of signal pulses called action potentials to distant parts of the brain or body targeting specific recipient cells.

The study of the bodies sensory systems, nervous systems, the brain, the brains neural networks, synapses, neurons and axons, will be ongoing for years and will help in the development of AI and robots.

There are many different ways to look at this.

PermeateFree said:

Neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch said about AI computers:

“IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.”

An interesting article discussing if AI intelligence is possible, worth a read if interested in the subject.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/why-digital-computers-cant-have-consciousness_b_9833520.html

Compliments of SSSF forum.

Perhaps they need to be taught and raised like one does a human child.
Give them functional senses (machine equivalent of course)
Full access to our knowledge and history, hmmm maybe if we are honest and want to show ourselves warts and all, possibly disappoint it that it’s creators are so flawed, hopefully not horrify it assuming it’s capable of emotions.

I think its possible to have strong AI but not at the moment

A robot will have perceptions of the world, storage of information, retrieval of information, ability to carry out commands at different levels, various databases of information it can draw upon to interact with the world.

The different between us and robots is that robots are electrical/mechanical, humans are electro-chemical, when robots are elecrochemcial and have similar replication of the human brains functions, such as self awareness, then robots will be on the way to strong AI.

One main difference is we can feel emotions, robots cannot feel emotions, as these are electro chemical in nature.

Another difference is self awareness which we have but robots do not.

We are trying to do two things at the same time.

1 Studying the brain which we haven’t finished doing yet.

2 Trying to build robots that have a human brain without having all the knowledge of the human brain.

and there are other issues

People still cannot agree on how many emotions we have.

People still cannot agree what consciousness is (levels of awareness) and differentiate it from the human mind that’s in the human brain that’s in the human body.

Religious people with their interpretations of it.

In order to generate consciousness, a machine doesn’t have to “simulate” what the brain does when it generates consciousness – it just has to do the same thing, inorganically.

I’ve long said this is well out of reach of today’s technology and theoretical understanding, but I see no reason to suppose it’s impossible.

Bubblecar said:

In order to generate consciousness, a machine doesn’t have to “simulate” what the brain does when it generates consciousness – it just has to do the same thing, inorganically.

I’ve long said this is well out of reach of today’s technology and theoretical understanding, but I see no reason to suppose it’s impossible.

Yes.

i’d be surprised if consciousness is possible without the capacity to regress(which becomes intentional with age, a tool), meaning some comparative networks operate contrasting folded back operations with fuller operations, and consciousness is in that.

Bubblecar said:

In order to generate consciousness, a machine doesn’t have to “simulate” what the brain does when it generates consciousness – it just has to do the same thing, inorganically.

I’ve long said this is well out of reach of today’s technology and theoretical understanding, but I see no reason to suppose it’s impossible.

It could also emerge spontaneously when the neural network reaches a certain level of complexity
Also what sort of functioning level AI do people mean, you might be able to create a child like naïve AI with the reasoning of a toddler or young child (just don’t give it access to the missiles in case it has a tantrum) but not an adult. An artificial animal intelligence could also be a possibility

transition said:

i’d be surprised if consciousness is possible without the capacity to regress(which becomes intentional with age, a tool), meaning some comparative networks operate contrasting folded back operations with fuller operations, and consciousness is in that.

variously sleep and twilight states are part of regressional cycles, too.

transition said:

transition said:

i’d be surprised if consciousness is possible without the capacity to regress(which becomes intentional with age, a tool), meaning some comparative networks operate contrasting folded back operations with fuller operations, and consciousness is in that.

variously sleep and twilight states are part of regressional cycles, too.

Would we want an AI based on the human brain (it is the only model we have for a sentient intelligence being at the moment though) as our brains are subject to all manner of disorders and neuroses.

Cymek said:

transition said:

transition said:

i’d be surprised if consciousness is possible without the capacity to regress(which becomes intentional with age, a tool), meaning some comparative networks operate contrasting folded back operations with fuller operations, and consciousness is in that.

variously sleep and twilight states are part of regressional cycles, too.

Would we want an AI based on the human brain (it is the only model we have for a sentient intelligence being at the moment though) as our brains are subject to all manner of disorders and neuroses.

nature throws dice broad (of humans, the diversity of the neurology), lots of interesting things to select from, there’s the more hard wired structures, and there’s the softer unfolding potentials (in the womb and after), then there’s culture/environment, which has selection properties too.

humans got extra mind tools, and along with that the possibility of extra challenges.

humans nurture many different types of things, it’s a bit of an idealization but i’d like to think and say they’re the nurturing species.

nurturing’s a complex business, some of it comes from the mammal in us, often neglected.

where consciousness, self-awareness is involved in the broadest nurturing, an expansion of the nurturement landscape, this requires a regressional capacity, abilities so, as part of the mental tool box.

The mind is a collection of perceived and imagined memories which come and go and this is one reason why people change over time.

The external world is perceived by the body, through sensory perception using 5 senses.

Some emotions are perceived in the body through electro-chemical processes interacting with what the brain is processing about the external world, these emotions are created in the body and transmitted through the nervous system to the central nervous system of the brain, while other emotions are created more in the brain than the body. Whether emotions are created more in the body or more in the brain, the mind is still aware of them. There are over 80 known emotions where each emotion can change in intensity over time, emotions can also overlap.

Imagine mapping all those 80 + emotions to both the molecules and chemicals and that make them.

There are around 60 chemicals in the human body

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

The average 70 kg (150 lb) adult human body contains approximately 7×1027 atoms and contains at least detectable traces of 60 chemical elements. About 29 of these elements are thought to play an active positive role in life and health in humans.

===

Imagine that this mapping of emotions could be done in a different way using AI, database of emotions and algorithms reacting to stimuli based on rules of behavior etc.

To continue further imagine the technology which would allow robots and AI to map emotions to molecules and chemicals in the same way we do, that would mean both artificial life and AI

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

dv said:

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

Chemicals are bad m’kay

dv said:

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

Composed of about 60 elements (or ‘chemical elements’ as Wikipedia likes to call them).

dv said:

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

Reference?

these sites say around 60

https://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

Reference?

these sites say around 60

https://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

They are talking about elements.

60 elements, thousands of chemicals, it’s all good.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

Composed of about 60 elements (or ‘chemical elements’ as Wikipedia likes to call them).

ok, 60 elements

Thousands of chemicals.

Where can I find a list of these?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

“There are around 60 chemicals in the human body”

There are thousands of chemicals in the human body

Reference?

these sites say around 60

https://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

They are talking about elements.

ok elements

Bubblecar said:

60 elements, thousands of chemicals, it’s all good.

ok.

transition said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

variously sleep and twilight states are part of regressional cycles, too.

Would we want an AI based on the human brain (it is the only model we have for a sentient intelligence being at the moment though) as our brains are subject to all manner of disorders and neuroses.

nature throws dice broad (of humans, the diversity of the neurology), lots of interesting things to select from, there’s the more hard wired structures, and there’s the softer unfolding potentials (in the womb and after), then there’s culture/environment, which has selection properties too.

humans got extra mind tools, and along with that the possibility of extra challenges.

humans nurture many different types of things, it’s a bit of an idealization but i’d like to think and say they’re the nurturing species.

nurturing’s a complex business, some of it comes from the mammal in us, often neglected.

where consciousness, self-awareness is involved in the broadest nurturing, an expansion of the nurturement landscape, this requires a regressional capacity, abilities so, as part of the mental tool box.

humor among humans, this is an example of regression, often.

alcohol, drug use, facilitate regressions of sorts, though I don’t encourage over-indulge of that way of doing it.

it’s a feature of the human mind.

some people might be taken by the idea that consciousness is all about higher complexity, but the trips into less of it might be what makes it possible.

in a hundred years, after generations of children being denied a childhood, the geniuses might still be trying to work out how to make consciousness happen in machines.

How many types of memories are there?

I have

Visual memory
Auditory memory
Feeling memory
Smell memory
Dream memory
Concept memory
Imagination memory

transition said:

transition said:

Cymek said:

Would we want an AI based on the human brain (it is the only model we have for a sentient intelligence being at the moment though) as our brains are subject to all manner of disorders and neuroses.

nature throws dice broad (of humans, the diversity of the neurology), lots of interesting things to select from, there’s the more hard wired structures, and there’s the softer unfolding potentials (in the womb and after), then there’s culture/environment, which has selection properties too.

humans got extra mind tools, and along with that the possibility of extra challenges.

humans nurture many different types of things, it’s a bit of an idealization but i’d like to think and say they’re the nurturing species.

nurturing’s a complex business, some of it comes from the mammal in us, often neglected.

where consciousness, self-awareness is involved in the broadest nurturing, an expansion of the nurturement landscape, this requires a regressional capacity, abilities so, as part of the mental tool box.

humor among humans, this is an example of regression, often.

alcohol, drug use, facilitate regressions of sorts, though I don’t encourage over-indulge of that way of doing it.

it’s a feature of the human mind.

some people might be taken by the idea that consciousness is all about higher complexity, but the trips into less of it might be what makes it possible.

in a hundred years, after generations of children being denied a childhood, the geniuses might still be trying to work out how to make consciousness happen in machines.

An AI would need to dream and fantasize as well I imagine and would it get bored

Cymek said:

transition said:

transition said:

nature throws dice broad (of humans, the diversity of the neurology), lots of interesting things to select from, there’s the more hard wired structures, and there’s the softer unfolding potentials (in the womb and after), then there’s culture/environment, which has selection properties too.

humans got extra mind tools, and along with that the possibility of extra challenges.

humans nurture many different types of things, it’s a bit of an idealization but i’d like to think and say they’re the nurturing species.

nurturing’s a complex business, some of it comes from the mammal in us, often neglected.

where consciousness, self-awareness is involved in the broadest nurturing, an expansion of the nurturement landscape, this requires a regressional capacity, abilities so, as part of the mental tool box.

humor among humans, this is an example of regression, often.

alcohol, drug use, facilitate regressions of sorts, though I don’t encourage over-indulge of that way of doing it.

it’s a feature of the human mind.

some people might be taken by the idea that consciousness is all about higher complexity, but the trips into less of it might be what makes it possible.

in a hundred years, after generations of children being denied a childhood, the geniuses might still be trying to work out how to make consciousness happen in machines.

An AI would need to dream and fantasize as well I imagine and would it get bored

We still do not know why we dream.

How does a dream form?

Then if artificial life is possible

What is life?

A self replicating electro-chemical reaction to energy?

But is it possible to have a life-form that is non replicating like a human made cyborg?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Then if artificial life is possible

What is life?

A self replicating electro-chemical reaction to energy?

But is it possible to have a life-form that is non replicating like a human made cyborg?

God moves in mysterious ways, friend.

• But is it possible to have a life-form that is non replicating like a human made cyborg?

A cyborg is a person who has had technological additions made to their body in order to enhance their abilities…

>What is life?

I guess it starts with arrangements (mechanisms, then systems, and processes) that tend to maintain something.

probably a structure that exploits an energy gradient to self-maintain.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Then if artificial life is possible

What is life?

A self replicating electro-chemical reaction to energy?

But is it possible to have a life-form that is non replicating like a human made cyborg?

opps, a robot is what I meant

should read

It is possible to have a life-form that is non replicating like a human made robot.

so what is life becomes.

A self replicating or non replicating electro-chemical and/or electro-mechanical reaction to energy?

transition said:

>What is life?

I guess it starts with arrangements (mechanisms, then systems, and processes) that tend to maintain something.

probably a structure that exploits an energy gradient to self-maintain.

Yes, a body that contains systems like autonomous organs and processes like the digestive system which give the body its energy source, yes life is self-maintaining, self replicating, self educating, lifeforms fill their minds with information about the world.

For life forms, perceptions of the outside world connect the body to the mind.

The mind is a collection of perceived information, emotions, concepts, memories, thoughts, speculations and dreams, visual and auditory memories stand out more than olfactory, gustatory or somesthetic memories, a lot of these memories are automatically discarded, memories that are remembered can be forgotten as new ones are created all the time pushing out older ones.
Over time all of the perceived and remembered information is structured in the mind by parental education and by learning at schools, interacting with other people and lifeforms, information is also structured by identifying it, categorizing it, storing it, retrieving it, comparing it and evaluating it.

Robots and AI units will have collections of information as concepts, their perceptual memories will be derived from physical sensors, AI units and Robots will also have running out of memory space issues as well, they will structure their information using databases, logic and ethic algorithms will dictate how their use that information, for now AI units and robots have very fragmented information systems, very tightly focused logic and ethic algorithms, no self awareness, no chemical emotional feelings.

Robots and AI units that feel emotions, have self awareness of their physical form and self awareness of their mind will come much later on.

ATM is hard to say whether its going to take 5 years 10, 20 or 50 years to full AI.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch said about AI computers:

“IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behaviour were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.”

An interesting article discussing if AI intelligence is possible, worth a read if interested in the subject.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bobby-azarian/why-digital-computers-cant-have-consciousness_b_9833520.html

Compliments of SSSF forum.

In relation to some comments in SSSF about the author not backing up some of their statements. The links given throughout the article should if you wish to pursue it further, more than compensate for this, I think there are so many aspects to cover on this topic, you would need a very large book to cover it all. Nevertheless, the article summerises the complexities quite well.

OK, so this has been discussed before. I didn’t see that so this will probably repeat stuff.

I have two problems with the article.
1) Either/orism. “weak AI” and “strong AI” are discussed throughout as being indisputably different, rather than different places on a continuum, even though we have no idea how consciousness works, or even what it is.

2) Argument from Authority. He states hypotheses that support his argument as indisputably true, even though many people dispute them, but he dismisses hypotheses that do not support his argument, purely on the basis that some people dispute them.

The fact is that what he says might be true, or it might be wrong. Nobody knows, because we don’t know how consciousness works.

It is very very likely that those who think that “strong AI” is just around the corner are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen; so we should consider the consequences if it does happen, rather than just dismiss them.

Bet you never read it all, let alone the explaining links. Keep trying Rev, you will get there I’m sure.

dv said:

Fundamentally, the author has a layer problem. The notion that qualia depends on biological factors is speculation, and any behaviour of neurons can be mimicked by a binary neural network. We don’t know enough about consciousness or computing at this point to say whether or not artificial consciousness is possible, and if he’s intellectually honest, he should just say so.

You didn’t read it all did you dv?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Fundamentally, the author has a layer problem. The notion that qualia depends on biological factors is speculation, and any behaviour of neurons can be mimicked by a binary neural network. We don’t know enough about consciousness or computing at this point to say whether or not artificial consciousness is possible, and if he’s intellectually honest, he should just say so.

So we’re all agreed then.

Goes off to work.

All nicely pigeon holed then. :)

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>What is life?

I guess it starts with arrangements (mechanisms, then systems, and processes) that tend to maintain something.

probably a structure that exploits an energy gradient to self-maintain.

…/cut/..

For life forms, perceptions of the outside world connect the body to the mind.

…/cut/..

not sure about the focus of some of what you said, perhaps most of it.

firstly, of humans, of minds, and the body-vehicle, i’d say it apprehends the world (local environment anyway).

structure engaging structure.

moving on a bit…..

I don’t think vast amounts of information are required for consciousness, given that five year olds and younger exhibit it.

so the special attribute is more in some potentials.

a have a couple of questions for you ….

if I took a thousand years to respond, instead of the few hours I did here (I had a sleep, haven’t checked the time), might I still qualify as conscious?

and, if I had just one single thought in a thousand years, might I still qualify as conscious?

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

>What is life?

I guess it starts with arrangements (mechanisms, then systems, and processes) that tend to maintain something.

probably a structure that exploits an energy gradient to self-maintain.

…/cut/..

For life forms, perceptions of the outside world connect the body to the mind.

…/cut/..

not sure about the focus of some of what you said, perhaps most of it.

firstly, of humans, of minds, and the body-vehicle, i’d say it apprehends the world (local environment anyway).

structure engaging structure.

moving on a bit…..

I don’t think vast amounts of information are required for consciousness, given that five year olds and younger exhibit it.

so the special attribute is more in some potentials.

a have a couple of questions for you ….

if I took a thousand years to respond, instead of the few hours I did here (I had a sleep, haven’t checked the time), might I still qualify as conscious?

and, if I had just one single thought in a thousand years, might I still qualify as conscious?

Yes I think so, in fact you could have life that’s so infinitely vast it takes that long for a single thought to occur.

>Yes I think so, in fact you could have life that’s so infinitely vast it takes that long for a single thought to occur.

yeah, my point is you could have one thought in a thousand years that qualified an entity as conscious, so fairly clearly consciousness is in potentials.

this does away with the misconception it’s a lot of something happening quickly.