36 replies to this topic

[eacao]

Agreed, lines of code = no self awareness

Brain with no code = self aware.

I wonder what will you say once it's determined that brain is prewired with some sort of code. And that's more than likely.
Most likely we are born with code that allows our brain to record memories, to make sense of sensory input, and so on.
Will you say then that humans aren't self aware?

Remember that the amount of information which our DNA can hold is finite. Pre-wiring the brain requires an enormous amount of instructions and I am assuming DNA would be the information carrier to code for it.

[Alric]

Are you sure though? It seems very likely that humans are the same, we are just more complex and we can't see the programming code. Programs can be built to learn and eventually shut them self off. You say humans are doing stuff their not programmed to do but there is no real evidence of that. We do based on stuff we learned, and we learned stuff based on our original programming. If you let a computer program start to learn, it will probably eventually get to the same place we are at.

[Craven]

Pre-wiring the brain requires an enormous amount of instructions and I am assuming DNA would be the information carrier to code for it.

I don't think it's enormous, just very basic feedbacks, that will allow you to make sense of inputs, that will make you enjoy sex and avoid pain, make you hungry when your stomach is empty and so on.

Observing children makes it quite clear that it's self-learning mechanism - baby makes random movements and step by step makes sense of world and it's own body. Over time movements become coordinated, connections between causes and effects become clear.

[Alric]

That reminds me of the little four legged robots I seen before. They weren't programmed with how to walk but learned it by them self. So the first time they turned them on they would wobble and fall all over but then in like 30 seconds they were walking. Looked a lot like many baby animals when they first tried to walk.

[GNR Rvolution]

Aye you normally start from basics and as you learn stuff. From what I gather as you learn, each time you use or remember something, the brain reinforces the neural pathway relating to that act. This is why walking becomes extraordinarily easy as it is something you do over and over again. And it's also why you stop remembering stuff, if you don't reinforce the neural pathways relating to something, eventually the existing ones die off and you lose that bit of memory.

Now apply that to a computer, it doesn't need to reinforce connections to prevent memory loss (well, apart from hardware failures) so this element should be very easy. But what the brain also does is it associates actions and reactions to stimuli which come from either internal or external feedback. A computer is unlikely to ever receive many of these, so much of what we classify as the base emotions (happiness, pain, hunger) would not apply. Something with a body in which these can be experienced would however need to have these things in order to function, well maybe not happiness but certainly reaction to pain / threat stimuli.

However, back to a previous post about self-awareness, my thoughts are that this is one of a few things that define us as humans. The ability to choose freely, to create as opposed to simply recreate, the concepts of abstract and lateral thinking, these are also things that make us what we are. Any artificial life would presumably need these as well in order to be considered 'alive'?

[Alric]

I suppose you can't really program a computer to release chemicals to induce happiness, but you could program one to seek out certain actions. If the computer starts to prefer certain outcomes over others, then it does have some kind of emotions. If it is a self learning computer then eventually it will have it's own goals and wishes. So what makes it happy will no longer be solely what was programmed into it.

[CyberMisterBeauty]

What the hell are you talking about?The brain release chemical to process emotions?Don't be so stupid!The brain basically functions doing inputs and outputs between neurons,just like a processor,the only difference between them is the complexity and parallelism.If we mimic all functions of the brain in a non-biological substrate we will finally create an artificial brain ...

[GNR Rvolution]

Alric is talking about endorphins, adrenaline etc that the brain sends signals to create in certain situations - I thought he was pretty clear.

And an artificial brain does not equate to an artificial person.

<br /><br />Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

Edited by GNR Rvolution, 03 May 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[CyberMisterBeauty]

Well I think these hormones will be pretty well simulated by electrical/optical signals,quantics or another similar technology...

[SG-1]

Its not as easy as you think. Just because we have hardware doesn't mean we will have the capability to create the software. Hormones have physical effects as well as mental. Once my burglar alarm went off (glitch) and I jumped over my bar (shoulder height at age I was) landed and grabbed a knife lol.

All I am saying is hormones and such are going to be really hard to mimic. Each person becomes scared to different situations and the brain needs to decide what the heck its feeling and release hormones instantly without thought (or code).

[Alric]

That doesn't make it any harder to replicate, it just shows how inefficient our brains are. Which they are, and that is why we get scared or jump at shadows. Like you said our brain releases those chemicals without thought which is why it is so often wrong. Humans are really good at picking out patterns and a large part of our brains are designed for picking out those patterns but we still kind of suck at it.

[GNR Rvolution]

It may well be that we will have to rewrite the definition of what it means to be alive. Currently life is defined as being such according to 7 phenomena as stolen from Wikipedia below:

• Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
  
• Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  
• Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things requireenergy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  
• Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
  
• Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism'sheredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  
• Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
  
• Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Clearly some of these are going to be harder to replicate in an artificial host than others, particularly I think adaptation, growth and reproduction. From a biological perspective if it doesn't meet these requirements then it ain't life as we know it Jim. But there's no reason that androids or other machine-based lifeforms should fit into this structure, it is after all based on biology.

Edited by GNR Rvolution, 04 May 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[Alric]

There are robots that can adapt right now. Like how I was speaking of the robot that learned to walk, I remember another one that had a program to adapt to different terrain so that it could walk on any terrain even stuff it wasn't programmed for. It would learn and adjust. It is fairly simple but I think in the future they will be more able to adapt for whatever jobs they are made for. Also robots can build stuff already. If a robot builds another robot, then its producing robots. Meaning it is reproducing. Currently we need to give them the supplies but in the future they will probably be able to go out and get their own supplies.

I don't know how growth is going to fit in, but I agree that the definitions probably need to change in the future. If a robot can do everything listed but doesn't 'grow' does that mean it isn't alive? What if a human downloaded their brain into a robot, by those definitions they would no longer be alive.

[GNR Rvolution]

Oh, of course all of these are theoretically achievable, and some have already been achieved to a greater of lesser degree. Adaptation like walking is one thing, but think of all the things we learn as we grow older, none of which are hard-wired into our genetics. Walking, talking, reading people's emotions, mathematics, science, creativity, there's a lot of stuff to have to be able to take in, in many cases overlapping themes.

Growth is a strange one to be sure, I guess it's more upgrade in the case of machines, they would need to be capable of upgrading themselves, either from a hardware or software perspective.

[Craven]

Clearly some of these are going to be harder to replicate in an artificial host than others, particularly I think adaptation, growth and reproduction.

I think adaptation is already in some machines and it will be one of basic things in AI.
On funny note - if someone is unable to reproduce, do we deem he's no longer a lifeform?

[Raklian]

Clearly some of these are going to be harder to replicate in an artificial host than others, particularly I think adaptation, growth and reproduction.

I think adaptation is already in some machines and it will be one of basic things in AI.
On funny note - if someone is unable to reproduce, do we deem he's no longer a lifeform?

I think at some point in the future, we'll manage to eliminate our propensity to reproduce (at least in the traditional manner) and put more emphasis on adaptation. If we're efficient at adapting in ever-chaing situations, what is the point of reproduction?

[GNR Rvolution]

Clearly some of these are going to be harder to replicate in an artificial host than others, particularly I think adaptation, growth and reproduction.

I think adaptation is already in some machines and it will be one of basic things in AI.
On funny note - if someone is unable to reproduce, do we deem he's no longer a lifeform?

Hehe, I don't think the definitions are based on an individual life-form, but rather the species as a whole.