|
too vast subject I'm afraid, anyway if you are interested in such mind-boggling stuff read the works of Douglas Hofstader
|
|
|
|
|
yeah a vast subject indeed, will check that out.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we are closer than we have ever been.
IBM chip mimics human brain[^]
According to the article above, IBM has already been able to mimic the brain. It's only one step in the process of becoming self-aware but one step leads to another. It seems silly to me to think that it will not happen someday.
I'm not saying it will have a soul or be human but it will definately be self-aware. My dogs are not human but they are definately self-aware.
It's just a matter of time now that the first step has been taken.
Enjoy!
modified 27-Apr-12 11:41am.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. But such a thing is pure science fiction, and will remain so for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
It maybe near depending on what break through science will make.
|
|
|
|
|
well i used the "simulating the brain" to show that the program can,say, have a conversation with you, can recognize you and hear you. The brain is known to make us self aware so i was thinking that if a program processes sensory inputs as the brain does will that program somehow be aware of it's existence? okay but the simulated brain will be self aware 
|
|
|
|
|
I get your point but what then makes us self aware? is it not neural computations which can be replicated in a machine? just neurons firing action potentials makes us who we are, what we feel, so
Collin Jasnoch wrote: Nor does being self aware have anyting to do with processing what we humans deem as inputs.
but can you be aware of something without neurons processing the inputs from your sensory organs. I find it hard to believe that statement, because we are completely oblivious to things not exciting our sensory organs.
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: I think therefore I am.
There you are, you just used induction to reach that conclusion, so somewhere in your mind neurons were firing action potentials to process that induction process.
Collin Jasnoch wrote: Maybe we will never know.
So what makes you think computations are not responsible for our ability to be self aware? because you are objecting to the idea that self awareness is caused by mere computations, you cannot just drop this without disproving it first with facts on the table, neither can i disprove your view.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah you have a point, it is not a 1 to 1 issue, but who knows anyways, it might just be, maybe in the future when such experiments are possible and if these comments will be present, our future generations will laugh at our lack of knowledge on the subject matter of self awareness
But i still think a program can be self aware without even needing to be as complex as the human brain.
|
|
|
|
|
The only problem might be to test if the program is self aware or not, if we use the Turing test for self awareness i think then we already have self aware programs now.
|
|
|
|
|
One cannot even prove that a person is self aware!
|
|
|
|
|
No, unless the software is attached to a full censorial hardware pack that simulates the human body.
And I don't think software will ever simulate the brain. Maybe hardware can simulate it, but first, we'd need to fully understand how the brain works (we are still far from that) so we can replicate it in a machine.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still think software can't do that.
Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
Like in quantum mechanics, uncertainty reaches the physical level, unlikely to be accurately mimicked by software, for the simple fact that software is bound to rules much simpler than the physical world.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
I don't think uncertainties have anything good to offer apart from just inducing errors in the system, maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties. I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution?
Uncertainty allows randomnes and randomnes made it possible for us to be what we are. Without, we'd just be some lame program.
Edit:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties.
You're not thinking out of the box. If you are talking about raw speed, this makes sense, for exact calculations. Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain?
Our brain power is so much higher than our current technology that I cannot even start listing how our brain is superior to machines in so many aspects.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution?
Evolution? sure ready about that, i don't even think evolution is what happened, humans were designed by a greater being we call God.I'am not even a fun of evolution and it's another subject all together, evolution is not convincing i belief in creationism.
Fabio Franco wrote: Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain?
Let's wait on that issue because i have something to show to the world on visual object recognition. I'am currently modifying a vision system i have developed, soon it will be ready to go head on with human's ability to recognize visual objects. But i want to use it for internet based fast image retrieval system. Will have to wait on that
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: i belief in creationism.
Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion. I'm not atheist if you must know, but I really doubt we simply appeared out of the blue. And even if you believe that we came out of the blue, you can still observe the scientific findings that PROVE other creatures came out of evolution due to errors in DNA replication and natural selection.
Although errors usually produce bad results (i.e.: cancer), errors still produce breakthroughs (i.e.: Penicilin).
Again, I think you should think out of the box for a moment.
Edit:
The point I'm trying to make is that uncertainty and errors are not always a bad thing and it's what make us unique.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
I get you point on the matter of uncertainty but still that is not convincing that uncertainties and errors could be the secret behind the brains ability to be self aware or perform with exceptional abilities, it is accurate neural computations that give the brain those awesome properties.
Fabio Franco wrote: Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion.
Yeah i should not do that, but how can i put it, because humans are as a result of mere design with a purpose. I wanted to say that we were designed! That sounds religious no matter how i put it
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: I wanted to say that we were designed!
I also believe that, but in a different way. If you are curious, I believe that God set in motion a series of events and variables that made our universe and that He designed the universe, the physics, the uncertainties that finally led to us.
My point is that religiously or not I still think that we are the product of errors neatly designed and that randomnes allowed us to evolve to who we are and let everyone be unique.
I still think that if we were not subject to all these interferences from the universe, these errors, we would never be where we are. And these sort of complexities governed by the nature of physics is what is really difficult to replicate in a software simulation. To create something as majestic as our brain ought to take a lot of scientific evolution.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us, just the result of some spontaneous process left alone? I think God did more than setting events in motion. Anyways this is just another vast topic about creation. Going back to self awareness, do uncertainties help us be unique?Yes. Do uncertainties make us self aware?No,i don't think so, thus a computer program need not simulate uncertainties to be self aware, besides environmental factors in the input sensors and the inherent properties of semiconductors already have fluctuations,defects or uncertainties in them, any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
|
|
|
|
|
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us
That's where you're mistaken, I believe He designed and set the event in motion so perfectly to have the exact outcome He expected in the first place.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: Do uncertainties make us self aware?
Not particularly, but without it we couldn't be, that's what I believe.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote: any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
but it might be enough to get the job done. Maybe future experiments will elaborate on that. Maybe our future generations will carry out such experiments. Today,we are limited to do such experiments.
|
|
|
|
|
In a manner of speaking, there is already a program that is self-aware. The genetic code sequencing in a DNA molocule programs living things to act and react the way that they do. So we have "hardware" (the brain) and "software" (DNA) that allows biological systems to be self-aware.
IBM is working on the hardware to mimic the brain and has already made some progress. So all we need now is software to mimic genetic code sequencing and that will allow a computer system to be self-aware.
It's just a matter of time...
Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
