10 of 13
10
Cognitive Computer Chips
Posted: 16 September 2011 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
Write4U - 16 September 2011 02:58 PM
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 11:11 AM

From the same source:

As to the question “Is your brain really necessary?“Lorber admits that it is only half serious.  “You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen,“concedes the tactician.  Bower’s answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: “Although Lorber’s work doesn’t demonstrate that we don’t need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible.”  Bower occasionally complains that Lorber’s style is less scientific than it might be.  He concedes, however, that “there are still many questions to be answered about the human brain, and it has to be admitted that Lorber’s provocative approach does make you think about them.”

The video shows someone with low IQ and “a couple of centimeters” of brain material, which appears to be the outer cortex where most higher brain functions reside.

Far as I can see, this is a simple oddity with clear elements of hype and junk science that is irrelevant to your main point.

Looking at it from the reverse, one could make a claim that the example shows that one does NOT need a complete or possibly even a human brain to have a mind and be able to think.

I don’t think that is the reverse of what I said. It’s incontrovertibly true that one doesn’t need a complete brain to have a mind. Many with severe brain damage survive mentally, with one or another deficit. And I doubt anyone here believes that one has to be human to have a mind.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
domokato - 16 September 2011 10:49 AM

Oh, have we ceased discussing already?

No. But we cannot proceed if you assert something based on false analogy.

Yes, you did:

Since humans and human brains are not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that they are not machines and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.

Your statement logically implies that all machines are designed/constructed by humans.

It seems you are not even making an effort to understand what I’m trying to say.

It means “Since humans and human brains are not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that they are not machines and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.” and nothing else.

It does not imply all machines are…............

Is it not conceivable that intelligent aliens who are non-human or a deity, could also design/construct machines? 

cheese

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 08:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 11:11 AM

The video shows someone with low IQ and “a couple of centimeters” of brain material, which appears to be the outer cortex where most higher brain functions reside.

Far as I can see, this is a simple oddity with clear elements of hype and junk science that is irrelevant to your main point.

The low IQ is not the point. Kim Peek also had a low IQ. IQ tests do not indicate intelligence in the broadest sense at all. Are you redefining the brain?

Simple oddity?

The video was a part of a lecture given by Professor Keith Kendrick

His credentials are: HERE

and HERE

Professor Keith Kendrick is Systems and Behavioural Neuroscientist and was Gresham Professor of Physic between 2002 and 2006. He has been a member of the Home Office’s animal procedures committee and has worked at the University of Cambridge undertaking research with regards to how neural networks are organised to control recognition and responses to social and emotional cues. He is a fellow of the Institute of Biology and a member of the British Neuroscience Association.

[ Edited: 16 September 2011 08:43 PM by kkwan ]
 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 08:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 07:16 PM
Write4U - 16 September 2011 02:58 PM
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 11:11 AM

From the same source:

As to the question “Is your brain really necessary?“Lorber admits that it is only half serious.  “You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen,“concedes the tactician.  Bower’s answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: “Although Lorber’s work doesn’t demonstrate that we don’t need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible.”  Bower occasionally complains that Lorber’s style is less scientific than it might be.  He concedes, however, that “there are still many questions to be answered about the human brain, and it has to be admitted that Lorber’s provocative approach does make you think about them.”

The video shows someone with low IQ and “a couple of centimeters” of brain material, which appears to be the outer cortex where most higher brain functions reside.

Far as I can see, this is a simple oddity with clear elements of hype and junk science that is irrelevant to your main point.

Looking at it from the reverse, one could make a claim that the example shows that one does NOT need a complete or possibly even a human brain to have a mind and be able to think.

I don’t think that is the reverse of what I said. It’s incontrovertibly true that one doesn’t need a complete brain to have a mind. Many with severe brain damage survive mentally, with one or another deficit. And I doubt anyone here believes that one has to be human to have a mind.

Thus the question if a computer can be sentient is still open?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 08:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
Write4U - 16 September 2011 02:58 PM

Looking at it from the reverse, one could make a claim that the example shows that one does NOT need a complete or possibly even a human brain to have a mind and be able to think.

Quite so. How about monkeys, whales, dolphins, elephants, cats, dogs, octopuses and aliens?

Why are humans so anthropomorphic?

smile

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 08:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
Write4U - 16 September 2011 05:51 PM

Does this prove anything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY&feature=fvwp&NR=1

I could swear that one of them is telling the tale of how he lost his sock.

Your guess is as good as mine.

It is real cute and their intonations of da da da, ek, deh, ee, eh, he, he he he, da da da da da da etc., their actions and facial expressions do suggest that they are somehow communicating in “baby talk”

From this website on the
philosphical baby

Alison Gopnik—a leading psychologist and philosopher, as well as a mother—explains the groundbreaking new psychological, neuroscientific, and philosophical developments in our understanding of very young children, transforming our understanding of how babies see the world, and in turn promoting a deeper appreciation for the role of parents.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 03:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
kkwan - 16 September 2011 08:22 PM
Write4U - 16 September 2011 02:58 PM

Looking at it from the reverse, one could make a claim that the example shows that one does NOT need a complete or possibly even a human brain to have a mind and be able to think.

Quite so. How about monkeys, whales, dolphins, elephants, cats, dogs, octopuses and aliens?

Why are humans so anthropomorphic? smile

IMO, they are the symbolic representations of human nature and behaviors. A picture is worth a thousand words…. cheese
This is what computers are beginning to learn, symbolic language and its generic meaning and fundamental message contained within.

Just saw a Nova program on monkeys. The entire presentation is excellent but starting @ 27:00 some remarkable language skills. And @ 30:20 it shows an ability to imagine and use a false warning to gain an advantage. A ruse…. cheese .

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/clever-monkeys/full-episode/7112/

[ Edited: 17 September 2011 05:15 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 03:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
Write4U - 16 September 2011 08:20 PM

Thus the question if a computer can be sentient is still open?

The computer is a non-thinking, non-living computing machine. How can it ever be sentient?

Some facts of Watson (the IBM supercomputer) who recently won against human competitors in the Jeopardy game show.

From the wiki on Watson (computer)

Watson had access to 200 million pages of structured and unstructured content consuming four terabytes of disk storage, including the full text of Wikipedia. Watson was not connected to the Internet during the game.

Hardware power:

Watson is made up of a cluster of ninety IBM Power 750 servers (plus additional I/O, network and cluster controller nodes in 10 racks) with a total of 2880 POWER7 processor cores and 16 Terabytes of RAM.

Implications for AI:

Philosopher John Searle argues that Watson—despite impressive capabilities—could not actually think. Drawing on his famous Chinese room thought experiment, Searle claims that Watson, like other computational machines, is only capable of manipulating symbols, but has no ability to understand the meaning of those symbols.

My youngest son, a software engineer, was amused and unimpressed. He suggested this:

How about a Go challenge? From the wiki on Go (game)

Go (“weiqi” in Chinese, “igo” in Japanese, “baduk” in Korean), is an ancient board game for two players that originated in China over 2,000 years ago. The game is noted for being rich in strategy despite its relatively simple rules.

Nature of the game

In combinatorial game theory terms, Go is a zero sum, perfect-information, partisan, deterministic strategy game, putting it in the same class as chess, checkers (draughts) and Reversi (Othello); however it differs from these in its game play. Although the rules are simple, the practical strategy is extremely complex.

More elements to mimic human thought:

Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to require more elements that mimic human thought than chess.

Calculation marathon:

Given an average of 200 available moves through most of the game, for a computer to calculate its next move by exhaustively anticipating the next four moves of each possible play (two of its own and two of its opponent’s), it would have to consider more than 320 billion (3.2×10^11) possible combinations. To exhaustively calculate the next eight moves, would require computing 512 quintillion (5.12×10^20) possible combinations. As of June 2008[update], the most powerful supercomputer in the world, IBM’s “Roadrunner” distributed cluster, can sustain 1.02 petaflops. At this rate, even given an exceedingly low estimate of 10 flops required to assess the value of one play of a stone, Roadrunner would require 138 hours, more than five days, to assess all possible combinations of the next eight moves in order to make a single play.

Most complex game in the world:

It has been claimed that Go is the most complex game in the world due to its vast number of variations in individual games. Its large board and lack of restrictions allow great scope in strategy and expression of players’ individuality. Decisions in one part of the board may be influenced by an apparently unrelated situation in a distant part of the board. Plays made early in the game can shape the nature of conflict a hundred moves later.

Game complexity:

The game complexity of Go is such that describing even elementary strategy fills many introductory books. In fact, numerical estimates show that the number of possible games of Go far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe.

So, how about it….... Go, go, go…...... IBM.  smile

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 05:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

But is that not similar to partitions of the brain? I say, link all of them together with a filtering process of what goes to what “part” of the AI which has been “trained” for that aspect of reality.
Transmit the “results” into other parts of the brain which assign other aspects, and eventually evaluate probability to make an informed decision, which can be communicated and give the “intellect” a certain autonomy.

When computers become “aware” of their environment in a multifaceted way, will they then be considered “sentient”?

[ Edited: 17 September 2011 05:36 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
kkwan - 16 September 2011 08:13 PM
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 11:11 AM

The video shows someone with low IQ and “a couple of centimeters” of brain material, which appears to be the outer cortex where most higher brain functions reside.

Far as I can see, this is a simple oddity with clear elements of hype and junk science that is irrelevant to your main point.

The low IQ is not the point. Kim Peek also had a low IQ. IQ tests do not indicate intelligence in the broadest sense at all. Are you redefining the brain?

Simple oddity?


No, the low IQ is not the point. The point is the “couple of centimeters” of brain material. A “couple of centimeters” lining the inside of the skull is not the same as “no brain”.

Honestly, at this point I can’t see what it is you are arguing for. Before you wanted to argue that one could have a mind without a brain—something that is nonsensical, and something not established by this example. If what you want to show is that someone can have a mind without a complete brain, that’s something that (as I’ve said) is completely uncontroversial.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

musings,

Question, in these discussions “memory” always crops up.
Why is the human brain able to cram a constant stream of information in such a relatively small space?  Are the data bits smaller than the bits in a computer?  Are the neurons in the brain smaller than in a computer?

What if a computer could be made to functionally think in fractals and translating them to human symbols?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 05:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
Write4U - 16 September 2011 08:20 PM

I don’t think that is the reverse of what I said. It’s incontrovertibly true that one doesn’t need a complete brain to have a mind. Many with severe brain damage survive mentally, with one or another deficit. And I doubt anyone here believes that one has to be human to have a mind.

Thus the question if a computer can be sentient is still open?

I’d say it’s clearly true that a computer can be sentient: the brain is a type of computer. It just happens to be made of synapses (etc.) rather than silicon (etc.).

Though we’re not very close to designing a sentient computer now, who knows what the next century will bring?

[ Edited: 17 September 2011 06:37 AM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5176
Joined  2010-06-16

Quite true.  I’d guess that if you wrote a science fiction story about machines with the current capabilities of computers and space vehicles, and the use of DNA in 1911, the editors would reject your manuscript on the basis of it being too fantastic to be decent science fiction.

(Yeah, yeah, I know about Jules Verne, but even so. . . )

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 04:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
kkwan - 16 September 2011 08:06 PM
domokato - 16 September 2011 10:49 AM

Oh, have we ceased discussing already?

No. But we cannot proceed if you assert something based on false analogy.

Whether or not it is a false analogy is the topic of this discussion. I am not asserting it based on a false analogy. I am telling you from my education in computer science that the brain has the same computational abilities as a computer, no more, no less. There is something called “turing completeness”. The brain is turing complete. Same with a computer. This means they are “turing equivalent”. This means given enough time and memory, a computer can compute anything a brain can.

Let me go ahead and trace the thread of argument here:

So your argument appears to be that the brain cannot be called a machine because it needs to be viewed wrt its environment as a whole? This makes no sense.

The living human brain is connected to the living human body and through it, interacts with its environment.

So does a robot.

The robot is a machine. It is false analogy to compare a machine to a human.

Notice, i am nowhere making a false analogy. I restated your argument. You agreed to it and elaborated on it. I rejected your argument as insufficient because it in no way distinguishes humans from robots, because “a <robot’s computer> is also connected to a <robot’s> body and through it, interacts with its environment.” That’s not an analogy. That’s looking at what you said about humans and saying that a robot is the same way. Literally.

Yes, you did:

Since humans and human brains are not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that they are not machines and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.

Your statement logically implies that all machines are designed/constructed by humans.

It seems you are not even making an effort to understand what I’m trying to say.

It means “Since humans and human brains are not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that they are not machines and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.” and nothing else.

It does not imply all machines are…............

Is it not conceivable that intelligent aliens who are non-human or a deity, could also design/construct machines? 

cheese

Sure it is conceivable, but your statement does not allow that possibility. Let me pick apart your statement for you…

Since humans and human brains are not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that they are not machines and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.
=> Since X is not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that X is not a machine and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.
=> Since <this alien machine> is not designed/constructed by humans, it follows that <this alien machine> is not a machine and cannot be conceived/characterized as such.

The state of the art in AI advances every year. We now have reliable speech-to-text systems, improving computer vision systems, improving natural language processing, improving machine learning algorithms, etc., and Japanese robotics is even trying to recreate emotion in robots, with impressive results. I wonder, if a day comes when a robot will be able to converse with you, sympathize with you, and claim it is conscious, will you still deny it?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2011 09:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1823
Joined  2007-10-28
dougsmith - 17 September 2011 05:54 AM

The point is the “couple of centimeters” of brain material. A “couple of centimeters” lining the inside of the skull is not the same as “no brain”.

The term used was “no discernible brain”, not no brain. Obviously, someone with no brain will have no mind or be dead.

Honestly, at this point I can’t see what it is you are arguing for. Before you wanted to argue that one could have a mind without a brain—something that is nonsensical, and something not established by this example. If what you want to show is that someone can have a mind without a complete brain, that’s something that (as I’ve said) is completely uncontroversial.

I did not argue that “one could have a mind without a brain” at all. I brought up the example of my relative with half a brain and others with “no discernible brains” who were conscious, had minds and lived normal lives with minimal deficits.

The intriguing question is that how much of the brain must be present for normal brain functions?

Tragically, there is a disorder whereby infants are born with virtually no skulls and no brain.

From the wiki on anencephaly

Anencephaly is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 13
10