| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| Artificial consciousness http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6908 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | DukeNuke [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Artificial consciousness |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness Quote: It may be possible biologically to create a being by manufacturing a genome that had the genes necessary for a human brain, and to inject this into a suitable host germ cell. Such a creature, when implanted and born from a suitable womb, would very possibly be conscious and artificial. But what properties of this organism would be responsible for its consciousness? Could such a being be made from non-biological components? Can the techniques used in the design of computers be adapted to create a conscious entity? Would it ever be ethical to do such a thing? Quote: In principle the carrier could be anything, even steel balls or onions, and the machine that implements the instructions need not be electronic, it could be mechanical or fluidic. Quote: The most serious problem is John Searle's Chinese room argument in which it is demonstrated that the contents of an information processor have no intrinsic meaning - at any moment they are just a set of electrons or steel balls etc.
What do you think about this? I think that if the mind or AI is powerfull enough, it could be conscious. But it doesn't seem logical that a system of steel balls could have any sort of consciousness... |
|
| Author: | Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Artificial consciousness |
DukeNuke wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness
Quote: It may be possible biologically to create a being by manufacturing a genome that had the genes necessary for a human brain, and to inject this into a suitable host germ cell. Such a creature, when implanted and born from a suitable womb, would very possibly be conscious and artificial. But what properties of this organism would be responsible for its consciousness? Could such a being be made from non-biological components? Can the techniques used in the design of computers be adapted to create a conscious entity? Would it ever be ethical to do such a thing? Quote: In principle the carrier could be anything, even steel balls or onions, and the machine that implements the instructions need not be electronic, it could be mechanical or fluidic. Quote: The most serious problem is John Searle's Chinese room argument in which it is demonstrated that the contents of an information processor have no intrinsic meaning - at any moment they are just a set of electrons or steel balls etc. What do you think about this? I think that if the mind or AI is powerfull enough, it could be conscious. But it doesn't seem logical that a system of steel balls could have any sort of consciousness... System of Steel balls? that sounds like that guy in that show "s-CRY-ed". as for this, i think its possible to create Consciousness of a non biological entity. but the one question that is on everyone's mind is this: Would it be Considered a Human Being, or considered a Robotic Entity? this sounds like that movie with robin williams.... Bicentenial Man. |
|
| Author: | Dark Grapefruit [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't buy the Chinese room argument, because you could very well say that the human brain at any given time is just a collection of neurons. I believe consciousness does not require something "special" outside of the components of a system, as long as the system is powerful enough. I'll be one of the first lobbying for android rights when we get far enough advanced to make them humanlike. 
|
|
| Author: | Jello B. [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dark Grapefruit wrote: I don't buy the Chinese room argument, because you could very well say that the human brain at any given time is just a collection of neurons. I believe consciousness does not require something "special" outside of the components of a system, as long as the system is powerful enough. I'll be one of the first lobbying for android rights when we get far enough advanced to make them humanlike.
I agree with DG here. If you've ever read the book On Intelligence, you'd know that the Neo Cortex is just neurons. Nothing special there. But the system doesn't have to be powerful. A computer is already much more powerful than the human brain. It's just not set up correctly. EDIT: 480 Posts! EDIT by SR: The 480 thing is bad enough. Don't go putting down other users. |
|
| Author: | Gnomeknight [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well. I agree with the two posters before me, in that theres nothing that is exactly "special" that couldnt be "duplicated" In a man made form. But if your one to study AI, Unless something thats happend just recently proves me wrong. Computers cannot provide compleatly random output. It all draws from something you tell the computer to do. And although it may take hundreds of thousands of relays of information, A pattern will develop (spelling?) over time. If that hurdle can be over-bound, How exactly i have no idea, Then I will be second in line to lobby for android rights. -cheers |
|
| Author: | Jello B. [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gnomeknight wrote: Computers cannot provide compleatly random output.
Neither can we. Try and say 20 5 digit random numbers, and there will be a pattern to them. |
|
| Author: | Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
say, what if this happens, and we have several thousand of AI Beings that look, act, and feel just like us, but were made artificially, would they be considered Human? would they follow our laws? if one is killed, is it considered murder?? |
|
| Author: | Stu [ Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jello B. wrote: A computer is already much more powerful than the human brain. It's just not set up correctly.
More powerful doesn't always mean smarter. A human brain can do everything that a computer can and more. The major difference is speed. While a computer may be able to whip out a trillion computations without even "thinking" about it, when was the last time you gave a computer a newpaper article and asked it to point out what the "subject" of that article was. Another easy example is speech recognition (very, very similiar to text recognition). Now instead of having the article in text form (easy to input) it is now in speech form. Your human ears are fairly forgiving when it comes to mispronounced words and varying accents. A computer on the other hand isn't. Another similar example would be the annual DARPA race. Building a machine that can travel a couple hundred miles is pretty easy. Try getting it to figure out how to avoid the perils that exist between LA and Las Vegas. If it was easy, they wouldn't have such large prizes for events like this. The point I am making is... even though computers are good at certain things, they are miles away from us (the humans) on others. What's really funny about the whole deal is the way people thought when computers were first coming out. Everyone thought that they would have a robotic butler, capable of receiving commands and executing orders. No one considered the possibility of a computer processing billions of discrete points to predict the weather... Here we are today with computers predicting the weather (poorly, but that's another topic) and no useful robotic butlers. 
|
|
| Author: | Jello B. [ Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Stu wrote: Jello B. wrote: A computer is already much more powerful than the human brain. It's just not set up correctly. More powerful doesn't always mean smarter. Exactly. Stu wrote: when was the last time you gave a computer a newpaper article and asked it to point out what the "subject" of that article was.
Last week. It didn't work too well, though. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|