If a computer was powerful enough would it generate consciousness?

[butchersapron]

Say what, that we have very little understanding of it or that it would be a small stage to build it?

That you're making making asumptions on very little evidence. You're looking at reverse engineering a pc or something and then applying that model to consciousness. They're very different things.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I've already told you why.

Computers are very good at simulating things, but that is not the same thing as replicating.

If the simulation is good enough, then who's to say?.

 

[butchersapron]

If the simulation is good enough, then who's to say?.

So you mean it *might* be possible, not that just copying it will make it happen?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Computers can store and process analogue information.

Stricly speaking, no they can't, at least not without help.

But then the universe is digital at its essence.

All you need is the duality of something/nothing to construct anything you like.

 

[Crispy]

I'm really not so sure that's true. A neuron is either transmitting or not, isn't it?

*waits Axon to give confirm/ poo=poo.*

Yes, but the inner workings that decide whether to fire or not are most definitely analogue.

Plus, remember that the brain is asynchronous and so needs to be modelled in analogue time as well.

 

[axon]

I'm really not so sure that's true. A neuron is either transmitting or not, isn't it?

Well in the case of neurones that have 1 input and 1 output they could be considered digital. But most neurones have multiple connections so it's a bit more complex. You have to start invoking smaller 'units of computation' than neurone such as 'bit of dendrite'.

 

[sleaterkinney]

That you're making making asumptions on very little evidence. You're looking at reverse engineering a pc or something and then applying that model to consciousness. They're very different things.

I did do AI as part of my degree so it is a bit more than that. I don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes but to suggest a machine will never become self aware is ludicrous.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

1. Yes, but the inner workings that decide whether to fire or not are most definitely analogue.

2. Plus, remember that the brain is asynchronous and so needs to be modelled in analogue time as well.

I don't know how you can know the answer to 1.

2. is a good point - is time analogue?

 

[sleaterkinney]

So you mean it *might* be possible, not that just copying it will make it happen?

I thought that was a given, you can't just make an exact copy of the brain, fire it up and expect it to work. . No, you would "grow" it going through generations etc until it had reached that.

 

[butchersapron]

I did do AI as part of my degree so it is a bit more than that. I don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes but to suggest a machine will never become self aware is ludicrous.

Ooh a degree! Shall i i leave the thread?

To suggest that it will just happen, as you did, by just copying something is ludicrous - your other posts seem to recognise that it's only a possibility.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought that was a given, you can't just make an exact copy of the brain, fire it up and expect it to work. . No, you would "grow" it going through generations etc until it had reached that.

Oh right, you just seemed pretty definitive in your earlier posts. But it's only a possibility. Not one that you can say confidemntly yes on then.

 

[axon]

To suggest that it will just happen, as you did, by just copying something is ludicrous - your other posts seem to recognise that it's only a possibility.

But you need to come up with a reason why just copying won't work.

 

[butchersapron]

But you need to come up with a reason why just copying won't work.

Do i? Isn't there a large difference in claims of this type and other types of 'logical' arguments. Otherwise - yes this would work, and so would that and that too would become the normal discourse. I needn't come up with anything - the truth is concrete.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Ooh a degree! Shall i i leave the thread?

To suggest that it will just happen, as you did, by just copying something is ludicrous - your other posts seem to recognise that it's only a possibility.

You can stay and be educated if you want.

It's not ludicrous, you seem to be hung up on some sort of "elemental spark" for it, it that true?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do i? Isn't there a large difference in claims of this type and other types of 'logical' arguments. Otherwise - yes this would work, and so would that and that too would become the normal discourse. I needn't come up with anything - the truth is concrete.

Sorry, I don't understand this post.

 

[butchersapron]

You can stay and be educated if you want.

It's not ludicrous, you seem to be hung up on some sort of "elemental spark" for it, it that true?

Copying the physcial elements of a model is just that. If there's something that comes from outside that model then you've trouble.

 

[axon]

2. is a good point - is time analogue?

I think technically it isn't, you can't have something happen faster than the time it takes light to traverse a Plank length. Which I've just calculated to be 5.3 x 10^-19 seconds. (Dammit, am I ever going to start work this morning!). But this is much much faster than anything that ever goes on in a neurone firing and consciousness time scale. I don't think the digital versus analogue issue would be a problem in replicating the brain, if you made the individual units small enough.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Oh right, you just seemed pretty definitive in your earlier posts. But it's only a possibility. Not one that you can say confidemntly yes on then.

Well no, I haven't got one in the drawer I can fire up, but I would be shocked if it didn't happen one day.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Copying the physcial elements of a model is just that. If there's something that comes from outside that model then you've trouble.

Ah, now I understand. The 'and then a miracle happens moment'.

 

[axon]

Do i? Isn't there a large difference in claims of this type and other types of 'logical' arguments. Otherwise - yes this would work, and so would that and that too would become the normal discourse. I needn't come up with anything - the truth is concrete.

Well you personally don't. And you most certainly couldn't build a replica brain out of concrete!

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry, I don't understand this post.

The claim that if we copy the workings of the brain accurately enough we will induce/develop consciouness is not in the same catergory as if i spend all my money on beer i'll likely get drunk. I don't need a the same sort of counter-reason to invalidate the claim, and more importantly the lack of that counter-reason doesn't make the original claim true by default

 

[butchersapron]

Ah, now I understand. The 'and then a miracle happens moment'.

Not necesarily. The brain is of course part of a wider network of processes. A copy/aggregation model might work. Might not. Doesn't look like it has yet.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Copying the physcial elements of a model is just that. If there's something that comes from outside that model then you've trouble.

Obviously you're not going to build an intelligence without any sort of stimulus, no, in the same way as human beings don't develop without it. Rememeber HAL and the nursery rhymes?.

 

[butchersapron]

Nope.

And i don't remember how humans first developed consciousness either. Do you?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think technically it isn't, you can't have something happen faster than the time it takes light to traverse a Plank length. Which I've just calculated to be 5.3 x 10^-19 seconds.

Sorry, I'll let you work in a minute. Could you expand on this a little?

 

[axon]

It's already been done!

 

[sleaterkinney]

Nope.

And i don't remember how humans first developed consciousness either. Do you?

So what do you know about AI then or are you just sounding off?

 

[axon]

Sorry, I'll let you work in a minute. Could you expand on this a little?

Well only briefly because I have work to do, and it's getting away from artificial brains. And I'm getting near the limit of my knowledge.
So the Planck length is a fundamental unit in the universe, I think that nothing can be smaller than this length. Similarly the speed of light is about as fast as you can go, so the time it takes light to travel the planck length is the fastest that anything can happen. There are physicsy reasons why the Planck length exists but they make my brain hurt.

 

[Crispy]

Sorry, I'll let you work in a minute. Could you expand on this a little?

planck length = shortest move a particle can make, due to uncertainty principle. therefore plancklength/c=a very small amount of time.

trouble is that in the real world, this happens asynchronously - but a computer considers a simulation in 'frames' where the state of all elements changes at the same time, every time.

 

[butchersapron]

God, slap a 'theory' on the forum and they get all arsey if you dare disagree. Have i pissed you off by disagreeing with you and pointing out that you seem to disagree with own posts? Let the intellectual deference begin. Bring your awards and certificates to the inspection committee before you post.