Humans do respond to stimuli but not in the same way and not by the same process.
I mostly disagree. We store the causality of stimuli, like when you play with fire you get burned, when you wash your hands they get clean, etc. Over time we propagate one heck of a large cross-referencing database of causality. We learn to identify variables that affect probability to more accurately determine causality in complex situations. We just do it all without thinking of 'how' we do it. Computer software literally works in exactly the same way, except that this 'cross-referencing database of causality' is very narrow and broken down into small fragments that are hard-coded into the software's logic.
However, one could easily write software to access an actual searchable 'cross-referencing database of causality'. The same software could be designed to access this database and store a new entry every time the software encounters a cause-and-effect scenario. This would make up one of the major components of an AI because the software would literally expand and become 'smarter' at predicting outcomes each and every time that it observed causality.
. A person tries to win a chess game out of a desire to win and with an intention to win. A computer simply plays the game with no desire or intention. The computer is only doing what it was made to do just like a car doesn't have a desire or intention to run so I can go to the pub to have a black and tan. The systems of today have no free will in the sense that we do.
I agree. The systems <i>of today</i> do not. Software however is the key. If the software says to enjoy a game of chess, then that's what it will do. It's all simply a matter of software. We currently program computers to not have desire or intention because it is the most efficient way of getting the computer to do what we want. That however does not make it the <i>only</i> way to write software.
Anyone can simply follow instructions but it takes intelligence to come up with an answer to any problem thrown at you. Here is where you could say, "but hey, computers can write code." and I would agree but the computers can't quite do it alone. The computer can't be presented the information in just any old way. The computer still must be hand fed the data in a way that it can understand and plug it into its algorithm (which someone else wrote) and spit out some code. This is simply human intelligence again - the computer didn't have to think up anything - it was simply following instructions once again
But again, this is all assuming that an AI's software is written purely by us. Where as a true AI would have the ability to modify its own programming and write completely new software for itself. No computers at the moment don't (not can't, just don't) do it all on their own. However if someone wrote software to do so then a computer could in fact do so. It isn't impossible, it just hasn't been done.
And that's not even entirely true. There are some pieces to this software that are already written. It is just a matter of time, not a matter of possibility.
This is analogous to a computer in that even if a computer of today appears to be acting in an intelligent way it is just like the man in the Chinese room who is simply following his manual.
Which is because the software that the computer is running was written with that intention. Again, just because this is the most efficient way to get a computer to do what we want it to do does not mean that it is the <i>only</i> way to do so.
If the computer were indeed in such a scenario, was programmed with cryptography subroutines, was running a 'cross-referencing database of causality', and one of it's primary threads was dedicated to making new entries into this database, then the computer would use cryptography to 'crack' the language and in doing so teach itself Chinese. From there on it would be capable of providing its own unique answers. Again, it's just simply a matter of software.
It was thought for a while that the connections where more digital - connection on or connection off - but more recent studies suggest that there is a rate of fire that is more analog in nature.
Really it's simply about reducing resistance and minimizing signal noise along pathways. We've known that electricity travels better when there is less resistance and interconnects are laid out to produce less signal noise for a long time. Yet for some odd reason modern doctors have been slow to think of our own nervous system as simply paths of conductivity. I find it rather funny really since 'alternative medicine', the very 'quackery' that these modern doctors scoff at so often, had things such as this figured out for centuries and even millennia before our modern doctors have.
The human brain is still a mystery to a large extent so I can't really say too much about that.
It is only a mystery to modern doctors. There are plenty of homeopathic healers who have much more of a clue.
I would however not really call our brain a "processor" in the sense of a computer processor as it does our brains little justice. The ability of the human brain to fix itself when damaged and to "rewire" itself is remarkable.
But these are just properties of organic systems. Cells are designed to repair. Take away the organic nature and you simply have a chemically-powered electrical computer with a huge load of write-once memory instead of an electrically-powered computer with small amounts of electro-mechanical rewritable memory. Our brains and computers are actually very similar in nature, and I think that this is a testament to the amazing concept of the computer, not an insult to our brains. The computer is actually quite an amazing device with decades of work done by the world's top engineers. It's pretty darn impressive.
Another thing is that we defintely do not understand how the human brain works and I would think that if our brain worked like a computer processor that we could figure it out a little better (since we thought up computer processors
I think that if scientists were a little more open-minded they'd know a considerable amount more about the brain than they do now. But they have to do things the hard way, so it'll take them time. Granted, their research on how the brain works go a lot faster if the brain didn't keep dying every time you poke around in it and pull it apart to really get at the inside.
And <i>that</i> is what has made it so hard for them to figure out. The brain really doesn't hold up so well once you start trying to disassemble it. You can't just put it together again or watch just one part of it work by itself because it keeps dying. It's really quite a pain in the arse to work with and not cause significant damage to.
😉 Hence research on the brain goes slowly.
So when I said that our brains had no processor or memory like a computer system I was more referring to the details of HOW it works not the big picture because I feel it is the "how" of it all that makes one of the biggest differences here
But the 'how' the logic functions has nothing to do with the underlying hardware. The 'how' is just 'software'. If humans didn't fundamentally have a layer of software involved then neither hypnosis nor psychology could ever have any effect whatsoever on a person's thought and behaivoral patterns. The major difference is not the hardware, it's the software.
I would bring up again that in a problem solving process there is much more than following an algorithm. There are a few different aspects of problem solving that a computer does not do:
1. figuring out a different way to look at a problem that no one else thought of.
2. figuring out what the important parts of a problem are and presenting or changing them into something understandable and useable.
3. knowing what to do these parts once you have them
4. application of all of this together.
But I have seen computers do these very things. How? Because they were programmed to. Computers <i>can</i> solve problems, and sometimes very more efficiently than the average human, so long as they are programmed to.
Ideally right now if we wanted a computer to do so, we would have to program it to do so. That does not make it impossible. That just means that we have to take the time and effort to do it.
In the future however with software that can write and refine itself humans will no longer even be required for this step.
Would a computer have come up with algebra or calculus? Would a computer be able to look at nature and figure out that something like evolution might exist? I can't see a computer of today (even if it had the means to identify every kind of input that we can) being able to accomplish this. While I can see computers as being good imitators of intelligence the act isn't quite good enough yet for me to call it intelligence.
But again, this is simply a matter of software. The computer itself <i>could</i> do these things <i>if</i> it was programmed to. That is the barrier between an innert PC and a true AI. It is also the reason why most AIs can never be 'true' AI, because they're simply designed to fool the average human with an imitation of intelligence. Once people start writing AIs on the basis of a self-learning code-refining system with threads of 'prime directives' and searchable databases for both data storage and causality charting then AI will begin to emerge. It's just a matter of time, and how long it takes is really more just a matter of how long it takes for a paradigm shift in the minds of the people trying to write 'AI'.
While we have instructions we also have something more which is hard to describe and pin down. But to go here would enter into a whole new discussion.
It's not that hard to pin down. If you take things to their extremes you will find that there are generally just two different points of view on what that 'something more' could be. (Three if you count 'nothing' as one of the points of view.)
1) That something more is a pattern of energy. Call it a soul, a spirit, whatever, it is ultimately just a component of pure energy which exists without matter and interacts with the physical components of our nervous system through the electrical impulses that our brains and nerves function on. What happens to this pattern of energy when it is no longer tied down to a component of matter (such as when we die) and how this pattern of energy got there in the first place is a rather debatable subject amongst the believers in this possaiblity, but the fundamental aspect of what it is always remains the same.
2) That something more is a culmination of knowledge and experience. Whether learned from the time we were born or even partially genetic, it is simply the sum of what we have learned and born witness to. Some even believe that some of this knowledge is passed on from the divine, but those folks are becoming less common as most of them switch over to group one eventually.
Ultimately I personally view it as a mixture of both, but I've never heard nor read anyone express that "something more" as anything that won't fit into one of these two categories.
"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
) I'll think about it later. Gotta work a little now... I'll figure it out later...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram