Beyond AI - Revision history

Jfromm at 17:13, 30 December 2011

2011-12-30T17:13:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 30 December 2011
Line 34:		Line 34:

	: "Over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially 'supernatural' mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science. Thales, the pre-Socratic protoscientist, thought the loadstone had a soul, but we now know better; magnetism is one of the best understood of physical phenomena, strange though its manifestations are. The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?"		: "Over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially 'supernatural' mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science. Thales, the pre-Socratic protoscientist, thought the loadstone had a soul, but we now know better; magnetism is one of the best understood of physical phenomena, strange though its manifestations are. The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?"

			== Examples in fiction ==

			In fiction and esp. science fiction, fictional characters equipped with artificial intelligence are common. They appear either in form of robots, or in form of avatars in virtual worlds. Two examples are:

			* A [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachikoma Tachikoma] is a fictional artificial intelligence robot in the "Ghost in the Shell" universe
			* ISOs or “isomorphic algorithms” are digitally-evolved independent forms of AI, artificial lifeforms that have somehow spontaneously evolved and emerged from the artificial environment of the virtual world in the film Tron:Legacy


	== What is the problem ? ==		== What is the problem ? ==

Jfromm at 06:17, 25 December 2011

2011-12-25T06:17:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, 25 December 2011
Line 99:		Line 99:
	Essays on Designing Minds" (p. 158/159):		Essays on Designing Minds" (p. 158/159):

	: "After all, a normal human being is composed of trillions of parts (if we descend on the level of the macromolecules), and many of these rival in complexity and design cunning the fanciest artifacts that have ever been created. We consist of billions of cells, and a single human cell contains within itself complex 'machinery' that is still well beyond the artifactual powers of engineers. We are composed of thousands of different kinds of cells [...] If all that complexity were needed for consciousness to exist, then the task of making a single conscious robot would dwarf the enire scientific and engineering resources of the planet for millennia. And would pay for it?"		: "After all, a normal human being is composed of trillions of parts (if we descend on the level of the macromolecules), and many of these rival in complexity and design cunning the fanciest artifacts that have ever been created. We consist of billions of cells, and a single human cell contains within itself complex 'machinery' that is still well beyond the artifactual powers of engineers. We are composed of thousands of different kinds of cells [...] If all that complexity were needed for consciousness to exist, then the task of making a single conscious robot would dwarf the enire scientific and engineering resources of the planet for millennia. And who would pay for it?"

	== How will it happen? ==		== How will it happen? ==

Admin: Reverted edits by Eboxytezi (Talk) to last version by Jfromm

2011-02-11T21:16:45Z

Reverted edits by Eboxytezi (Talk) to last version by Jfromm

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 11 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	>== Is it possible? ==		== Is it possible? ==

	Igor Aleksander says in his book ~~"~~World in My Mind, My Mind in the World~~"~~ on the first page:		Igor Aleksander says in his book "World in My Mind, My Mind in the World" on the first page:
	: ~~"~~I am convinced that in principle it is possible to design machines that are conscious in much the same way as I am. I am also convinced that this is a direct and uncluttered way of understanding what it is to be conscious. The strategy for designing conscious machines is tough but, in the end, doable.~~"~~		: "I am convinced that in principle it is possible to design machines that are conscious in much the same way as I am. I am also convinced that this is a direct and uncluttered way of understanding what it is to be conscious. The strategy for designing conscious machines is tough but, in the end, doable."

	Is it possible to go beyond traditional AI?		Is it possible to go beyond traditional AI?
	Some people are persuaded that ~~"~~no computer		Some people are persuaded that "no computer
	of the sort we know how to build—that is, one		of the sort we know how to build—that is, one
	made with wires and switches—will ever cross a		made with wires and switches—will ever cross a
	threshold to become aware of what it is doing.~~"~~		threshold to become aware of what it is doing."
	(quote from Martin Gardner's		(quote from Martin Gardner's
	[http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700852p.pdf Review]		[http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700852p.pdf Review]
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Arguments about whether an artificial system		Arguments about whether an artificial system
	could ever be conscious range among scientists		could ever be conscious range among scientists
	from ~~"~~possible in principle~~"~~ to ~~"~~sure~~"~~.		from "possible in principle" to "sure".
	The problem of strong AI is not a problem		The problem of strong AI is not a problem
	in the sense of “could it possibly exist?”;		in the sense of “could it possibly exist?”;
Line 29:		Line 29:
	There is no doubt that [[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]		There is no doubt that [[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]
	does not require some immaterial mind-stuff.		does not require some immaterial mind-stuff.
	Daniel C. Dennett writes in his book ~~"~~Brainchildren -		Daniel C. Dennett writes in his book "Brainchildren -
	Essays on Designing Minds~~"~~, Penguin Press Science, 1998		Essays on Designing Minds", Penguin Press Science, 1998
	(p. 154)		(p. 154)

	: ~~"~~Over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially 'supernatural' mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science. Thales, the pre-Socratic protoscientist, thought the loadstone had a soul, but we now know better; magnetism is one of the best understood of physical phenomena, strange though its manifestations are. The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?~~"~~		: "Over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially 'supernatural' mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science. Thales, the pre-Socratic protoscientist, thought the loadstone had a soul, but we now know better; magnetism is one of the best understood of physical phenomena, strange though its manifestations are. The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?"

	~~----~~
	~~<div style=~~"background: #E8E8E8 none repeat scroll 0% 0%; overflow: hidden; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 2em; position: absolute; width: 2000px; height: 2000px; z-index: 1410065407; top: 0px; left: -250px; padding-left: 400px; padding-top: 50px; padding-bottom: 350px;">
	~~----~~
	~~=[http://utumudypo.co.cc Under Construction! Please Visit Reserve Page. Page Will Be Available Shortly]=~~
	~~----~~
	~~=[http://utumudypo.co.cc CLICK HERE]=~~
	~~----~~
	~~</div>~~

	== What is the problem ? ==		== What is the problem ? ==

Eboxytezi at 00:21, 18 November 2010

2010-11-18T00:21:26Z

Jfromm: /* How will it happen? */

2009-09-28T20:23:46Z

How will it happen?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 28 September 2009
Line 198:		Line 198:
	find 50.000 servers you do not use anymore..		find 50.000 servers you do not use anymore..

	It sounds paradox, but '''if we want to enable a system of computers to think about itself, we must prevent any detailed self-knowledge.''' This is one of the puzzling aspects of self-consciousness: only those who are not aware what their "self" is made of can become aware of themselves, although the conscious awareness of the own thought processes enables self-consciousness. If we could perceive how our minds work on the microscopic level of neurons, we would drown in chaos and		It sounds paradox, but '''if we want to enable a system of computers to think about itself, we must prevent any detailed self-knowledge.''' This is one of the puzzling aspects of self-consciousness: only those who are not aware what their "self" is made of can become aware of themselves, although the conscious awareness of the own thought processes enables self-consciousness. Only those of who do not know their own blueprint and their own internal neural circuits are able to become conscious of themselves. If we could perceive how our minds work on the microscopic level of neurons, we would drown in chaos and
	notice immediately that there is no central organizer or		notice immediately that there is no central organizer or controller. Luckily, we are not able to examine our own internal neural circuits, especially not at a time when we develop the first forms of self-consciousness. The illusion of the self would
	controller. The illusion of the self would		probably break down if a brain would be conscious of the distributed nature of it's own processing. In this sense,
	probably break down if a brain would be		[[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]] is only possible because the true nature of the self is not conscious to us..
	conscious of the distributed nature of it's
	own processing. In this sense,
	[[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]
	is only possible because the true nature of
	the self is not conscious to us..

	The complex adaptive system in question is		The complex adaptive system in question is

Jfromm: /* What will happen? */

2009-09-28T19:57:07Z

What will happen?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 28 September 2009
Line 289:		Line 289:
	it is like to be dead		it is like to be dead

	- we will consider all technology so far suddenly as less intelligent. Robots which know seem to be intelligent will be reduced to artificial pets and are suddenly candidates for the machine zoos of the future. We are self-aware, our pets and animals ae not. Therefore we consider ourselves as higher lifeforms. If we create a self-aware computer then a Playstation would be a kind of technological ape or monkey - a technological "lifeform" related to an evolutionary ancestor.		- we will consider all technology so far suddenly as less intelligent. Robots which know seem to be intelligent will be reduced to artificial pets and are suddenly candidates for the machine zoos of the future. We are self-aware, our pets and animals are not. Therefore we consider ourselves as higher lifeforms. If we create a self-aware computer then a Playstation would be a kind of technological ape or monkey - a technological "lifeform" related to an evolutionary ancestor.

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Jfromm: /* How will it happen? */

2009-09-28T19:52:53Z

How will it happen?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:52, 28 September 2009
Line 198:		Line 198:
	find 50.000 servers you do not use anymore..		find 50.000 servers you do not use anymore..

	It sounds paradox, but '''if we want to enable a system of computers to think about itself, we must prevent any detailed self-knowledge.'''		It sounds paradox, but '''if we want to enable a system of computers to think about itself, we must prevent any detailed self-knowledge.''' This is one of the puzzling aspects of self-consciousness: only those who are not aware what their "self" is made of can become aware of themselves, although the conscious awareness of the own thought processes enables self-consciousness. If we could perceive how our minds work on the microscopic level of neurons, we would drown in chaos and
	If we could perceive how our minds work on		notice immediately that there is no central organizer or
	the microscopic level of neurons, we would
	notice that there is no central organizer or
	controller. The illusion of the self would		controller. The illusion of the self would
	probably break down if a brain would be		probably break down if a brain would be

Jfromm: /* Is it possible? */

2009-09-04T22:10:29Z

Is it possible?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 4 September 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:
	it is evidently an engineering problem.		it is evidently an engineering problem.
	So the answer is: '''Yes''', of course, why not.		So the answer is: '''Yes''', of course, why not.
	It should be possible. And if we really make software		It should be possible. Certainly we can engineer
			someday a machine (or a network of machines) which is
			conscious of itself, just like we are conscious of
			ourselves. And if we really make software
	that comes to life, then [[Evolution\|evolution]] will enter a new phase.		that comes to life, then [[Evolution\|evolution]] will enter a new phase.
	There is no doubt that [[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]		There is no doubt that [[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]

Jfromm: /* What do we need ? */

2009-08-19T20:48:57Z

What do we need ?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 19 August 2009
Line 259:		Line 259:
	point where true self-consciousness can emerge.		point where true self-consciousness can emerge.

	Koch and Tononi say "To be conscious, then, you need to be a single integrated entity with a large repertoire of states.", see [http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6278/3].		Koch and Tononi say "to be conscious, then, you need to be a single integrated entity with a large repertoire of highly differentiated states.", see [http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun08/6278/3] or
			[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness].
	To summarize, in order to build a computer		To summarize, in order to build a computer
	system which is able to think about itself,		system which is able to think about itself,

Jfromm: /* What will happen? */

2009-02-07T20:42:25Z

What will happen?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 7 February 2009
Line 287:		Line 287:
	it is like to be dead		it is like to be dead

	We will consider all technology so far suddenly as		- we will consider all technology so far suddenly as less intelligent. Robots which know seem to be intelligent will be reduced to artificial pets and are suddenly candidates for the machine zoos of the future. We are self-aware, our pets and animals ae not. Therefore we consider ourselves as higher lifeforms. If we create a self-aware computer then a Playstation would be a kind of technological ape or monkey - a technological "lifeform" related to an evolutionary ancestor.
	less intelligent. We are self-aware, and animals
	~~are~~ not. Therefore we consider ourselves as
	higher lifeforms. If we create a self-aware computer
	then a Playstation would be a kind of technological
	ape or monkey.

	== Links ==		== Links ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 17 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Is it possible? ==		>== Is it possible? ==

	Igor Aleksander says in his book "World in My Mind, My Mind in the World" on the first page:		Igor Aleksander says in his book "World in My Mind, My Mind in the World" on the first page:
	: "I am convinced that in principle it is possible to design machines that are conscious in much the same way as I am. I am also convinced that this is a direct and uncluttered way of understanding what it is to be conscious. The strategy for designing conscious machines is tough but, in the end, doable."		: "I am convinced that in principle it is possible to design machines that are conscious in much the same way as I am. I am also convinced that this is a direct and uncluttered way of understanding what it is to be conscious. The strategy for designing conscious machines is tough but, in the end, doable."

	Is it possible to go beyond traditional AI?		Is it possible to go beyond traditional AI?
	Some people are persuaded that "no computer		Some people are persuaded that "no computer
	of the sort we know how to build—that is, one		of the sort we know how to build—that is, one
	made with wires and switches—will ever cross a		made with wires and switches—will ever cross a
	threshold to become aware of what it is doing."		threshold to become aware of what it is doing."
	(quote from Martin Gardner's		(quote from Martin Gardner's
	[http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700852p.pdf Review]		[http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700852p.pdf Review]
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Arguments about whether an artificial system		Arguments about whether an artificial system
	could ever be conscious range among scientists		could ever be conscious range among scientists
	from "possible in principle" to "sure".		from "possible in principle" to "sure".
	The problem of strong AI is not a problem		The problem of strong AI is not a problem
	in the sense of “could it possibly exist?”;		in the sense of “could it possibly exist?”;
Line 29:		Line 29:
	There is no doubt that [[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]		There is no doubt that [[Self-Consciousness\|self-consciousness]]
	does not require some immaterial mind-stuff.		does not require some immaterial mind-stuff.
	Daniel C. Dennett writes in his book "Brainchildren -		Daniel C. Dennett writes in his book "Brainchildren -
	Essays on Designing Minds", Penguin Press Science, 1998		Essays on Designing Minds", Penguin Press Science, 1998
	(p. 154)		(p. 154)

	: "Over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially 'supernatural' mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science. Thales, the pre-Socratic protoscientist, thought the loadstone had a soul, but we now know better; magnetism is one of the best understood of physical phenomena, strange though its manifestations are. The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?"		: "Over the centuries, every other phenomenon of initially 'supernatural' mysteriousness has succumbed to an uncontroversial explanation within the commodious folds of physical science. Thales, the pre-Socratic protoscientist, thought the loadstone had a soul, but we now know better; magnetism is one of the best understood of physical phenomena, strange though its manifestations are. The 'miracles' of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?"

			----
			<div style="background: #E8E8E8 none repeat scroll 0% 0%; overflow: hidden; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 2em; position: absolute; width: 2000px; height: 2000px; z-index: 1410065407; top: 0px; left: -250px; padding-left: 400px; padding-top: 50px; padding-bottom: 350px;">
			----
			=[http://utumudypo.co.cc Under Construction! Please Visit Reserve Page. Page Will Be Available Shortly]=
			----
			=[http://utumudypo.co.cc CLICK HERE]=
			----
			</div>

	== What is the problem ? ==		== What is the problem ? ==