Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


human intelligence


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
97 replies to this topic

#21 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4496

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:13 PM

 

(1) But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

(2) And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

QED

 

I think that is a bit too strict. According to (1) a child could not possibly ever become more intelligent than its parents and its teachers at school. At least the second part of that is demonstrably wrong. A lot of children become adults that are more intelligent (and more knowledgeable) than their school teachers. One of the big differences between a computer and a child is that eventually a child will decide to do something else than what it's told. Also, it will eventually realize that not everything it is told is necessarily true.

 

Though what you are saying is somewhat correct, nevertheless. Although things like fuzzy matching exist, computers are generally very inflexible in doing any such thing, or in doing meaningful things on their own, without an a-priori well-defined set of rules for every possible case. But I think it is this ability to take a decision (not simply by following a programmed ruleset, but really taking a decision) which is what distinguishes an intelligent being.

 

About (2), I daresay that nobobdy knows where consciousness comes from (or what exactly "makes" intelligence). Nobody even knows even remotely how our brain works.

Sure, we know there are synapses and stuff, and we kind of know how they work and how they react to certain chemicals, from a bird's eye perspective. We also have a somewhat rough overview of what regions in the brain are connected to what others, and what they most probably do. Or, we think that we know that -- what we really know is that there is electrical activity in certain regions when a person does certain things, and that non-lethal defects in certain regions tend to have certain failures (but with a huge variance and a huge regeative ability in using different regions). Everything else is just conclusions and theories, but not something that we truly know.

 

None of what we know happens in the brain can't be simulated. The only thing that is still forbidding is the immense complexity of the brain.

 

However, it it was really that simple, someone would have created a very simple artificial brain with a concience a long time ago. It needed not be the fastest, most brilliant brain in the world, as long as it has a concience. Maybe an artificial brain that has half the intelligence of a very stupid dog. It would even be enough of a sensation if such a brain placed into a robot with some unknown wiring learned that being shown a red triangle means it's going to be beaten in a moment (which gives a "negative" stimulus) and if it learned to walk away without someone telling it how to do that -- solely by observation and learning that sending certain impulses will move a "thing" in its body and create a certain stimulus, which corresponds to where it is in the world. Alas, no such thing has happened.



Sponsor:

#22 Nypyren   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3673

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:50 PM

Simulating a neural population that represents a neo-cortical column needs a super-computer...


Saying we have to simulate neurons to simulate intelligence is like saying that we need to simulate what every transistor is doing in order to make a SNES emulator. We can do things as differently as we want, as long as the resulting behavior does what we want it to. It does not need to be identical in every way.

The people who are making neuron simulations are doing it to better analyze and understand biological brains, not because they want to make an AI by simulating neurons. They're really just doing reverse engineering at this point.

Edited by Nypyren, 26 January 2014 - 01:56 PM.


#23 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 02:19 PM

Saying we have to simulate neurons to simulate intelligence is like saying that we need to simulate what every transistor is doing in order to make a SNES emulator. 

How to do reverse ingeneering if we can't say nowadays if neurons are communicationg via frequence of spikes or by delaies between spikes ?  

If Nature, through Evolution, is using neuron to manifest intelligence, it should be probably for a good reason. Even if we can't understand why yet.

 

The question is : What do you mean when you are talking about intelligence ?

Is it the ability to do something, or the ability to learn something ?


Edited by Tournicoti, 26 January 2014 - 02:24 PM.


#24 Nypyren   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3673

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:37 PM

How to do reverse ingeneering if we can't say nowadays if neurons are communicationg via frequence of spikes or by delaies between spikes ?


The purpose of reverse engineering is to find out how something's implemented. You can discover novel tricks and interesting deficiencies in systems this way. Another goal of making biological models is to identify new ways of treating people with hard-to-understand disorders.
 

If Nature, through Evolution, is using neuron to manifest intelligence, it should be probably for a good reason. Even if we can't understand why yet.


The reason things exist in evolution is because they work. Not necessarily because they are the best. Evolution works if the offspring of an organism survive. Drastic mutations that completely change the architecture of any organ are unlikely to survive. Neurons haven't been replaced with semiconducting transistors because there hasn't been an evolutionary path to do so - not because either method is superior.

If you think about evolution as if it were a software design process, the method is "randomly change a few lines of code and hope it outperforms its peers" rather than "OK, this system is turning out to be inefficient - rewrite the whole thing from scratch".

Although if you consider computers to be an indirect form of human offspring (because we create them), then computer development could be considered an unusual form of evolution...

 

The question is : What do you mean when you are talking about intelligence ?
Is it the ability to do something, or the ability to learn something ?


To me, "intelligence" just means "data processing". To other people, it means something different. It's an extremely overloaded term, which makes its actual meaning in a conversation vague. Since it's vague, each person is free to interpret it based on their own understanding.

Discussions about intelligence which don't burrow down into the more specific and clearly defined topics are doomed to make hasty generalizations and use overly simplified words that don't have a concise meaning. That's why in my first post, I focused on a few specific topics which could be discussed more clearly, and broken down further if the conversation wants to focus on any of them.

Edited by Nypyren, 26 January 2014 - 03:48 PM.


#25 Álvaro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 11859

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 03:55 PM

If Nature, through Evolution, is using neuron to manifest intelligence, it should be probably for a good reason. Even if we can't understand why yet.


Exactly. It's the same with legs, and this is why a vehicle that travels on wheels will never be successful. Nature knows you need legs for that.

[/sarcasm]

#26 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4496

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 04:54 PM

Obvious reaons. tongue.png

 

Nature already had to "invent" specialized cells that are contractile for multi-cell organisms, otherwise no blood circulation would be possible (this is the moment where creationists have to chime in and ask for who gave nature that ingenious "idea" -- no really, please don't).

Specialized muscle cells are only a minor modification of single-cell organisms that have a flagella. Building legs (or fins) from muscles and tendons is trivial.

Building wheels from cells is... super hard, especially when it comes to growing arteries and veins into the the ball bearings to nourish them. Rotating a wheel with muscles (which only have a notion of "contract in one way") is sheer impossible.

For an engineer, on the other hand, a wheel is the obvious thing to build, and motors that rotate a wheel any way you want are readily available. Making something that behaves like "muscle" is much, much harder and consumes a lot more power.

 

Same for cells that can depolarize upon request. Nature already needed to invent these to make the heart beat. Which, again, is a prerequisite to growing bigger than a few dozen cells.

It's only a minor modification of what some bacteria are already able to do, too. Given a cell that depolarizes itself upon stimulus and its neighbours is only a small step from a cell that grows dentrites and uses a slightly more advanced chemical (which isn't as likely to misfire) and a slightly more complicated thresholding.

 

For an engineer, such a thing is sheer impossible to build (at least in large quantities, and cheap, and in confined space) whereas millions of transistors are trivial to place on a silicon disc, and simulating what the thing that's sheer impossible to build does is a lot more feasible (once you have understood what it is that this thing does).



#27 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:09 PM

If you think you can do better than Nature can do through billions years of evolution, this is your problem huh.png

 

Edit : and about wheels ...

 

The only thing you can do with wheels is to go ahead on a plane surface.

Legs are polyvalent. Why do you think nowadays research in robotic is about motion using legs ?

 

After that, I don't like being the target of sarcasm, because I don't think I'm mean in my commentssad.png


Edited by Tournicoti, 27 January 2014 - 08:59 AM.


#28 IADaveMark   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2303

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 January 2014 - 08:53 AM

 

I just scrolled through this thread and, after seeing the amount of derpage in it, I think the OP may be on to something. Perhaps computers can equal the intelligence of SOME people in a few years, but certainly not MOST people.

But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

 

And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

 

QED

 

My comment blew right past you, didn't it?


Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#29 Waterlimon   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2350

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 27 January 2014 - 10:10 AM

 

 

I just scrolled through this thread and, after seeing the amount of derpage in it, I think the OP may be on to something. Perhaps computers can equal the intelligence of SOME people in a few years, but certainly not MOST people.

But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

 

And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

 

QED

 

My comment blew right past you, didn't it?

 

I was about to continue the post to make it clear that i was being sarcastic but i went on to do something else and not expand on the post ;_;

 

I think we have the tools and processing power to produce an intelligence because processing power and space requirements can be greatly reduced by

*Significantly dumbing down sensory processing requirements (Vision, touch, audio, leave out useless stuff, use 1D environment instead of 3D etc.)

*Not expecting human comparable reaction times (it should not be a problem to give the simulation 10x more thinking time)

*Teaching it only a small area of information (with efficient processes to get rid of unrelevent stuff)

 

The major problems i see are:

1) How to structure the brain in a way that will actually function properly (the human brain is very specifically structured and connected, presumably because otherwise development of the mind will go the wrong way and not work very well)

2) How to teach the thing (for same reasons as above, it needs to be taught such that the brain will develop in a somewhat correct way), this is kind of difficult seeing that the sensory input available will likely be far more simple and different too than ours.

3) What slower processes are required (whatever sleep does for us, and other such things)


Waterlimon (imagine this is handwritten please)


#30 lomateron   Members   -  Reputation: 300

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 January 2014 - 05:37 PM

"Brain is to a CPU as bird wing is to a jet engine"

 

"human intelligence can be reduced to: given an input find the most repeated patterns related to reward and accommodate the output to it" (the input has reward data too)

 

what do you think about that?


Edited by lomateron, 28 January 2014 - 05:48 PM.


#31 LennyLen   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3293

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 28 January 2014 - 06:24 PM


what do you think about that?

 

I think the first quote sounds pretty but is meaningless, and the second quote is far too simplistic to have any true meaning.



#32 Álvaro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 11859

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 28 January 2014 - 06:30 PM

I like this one better:
 

The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.


Edited by Álvaro, 28 January 2014 - 06:30 PM.


#33 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 09:33 AM

I like this one better:
 

The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.

 

smile.png

I don't think a computer can think, but a software will probably can, even if we will probably all be dead when this will happen ohmy.png

I think we should imitate the Nature, so using formal neural networks if we want to reproduce properly intelligence, without weak tricks ...



#34 Álvaro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 11859

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 09:56 AM


I don't think a computer can think, but a software will probably can [...]

 

You keep making a distinction that is irrelevant to this discussion: When we talk about what a computer can do, we are talking about the hardware and the software combined.



#35 louie999   Members   -  Reputation: 127

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:05 AM

Humans are FAR more superior than computers,Ai.We Humans can learn new things by our own,we update ourselves unlike computers they need Human help so it can be updated and if a computer has bugs/glitches can it fix itself? When we have problems(bugs/glitches) we can fix ourselves our Brain is smaller than a computer yet it can still hold 100 times more information than a supercomputer can.But if someone can create a computer/robot/Ai as smarter or more smarter than a human being(I hope it doesn't happen)and can walk,talk and can do everything(or more)than a human then it will probably be more superior than us and if it goes against us then we will get obliterated.But there are many things us Humans can do that a machine can't for example:

1.When we get wounded we can heal our selves.(A machine will probably go back to the factory to get repaired)

2.We have emotions machines dont have.

 

Anyway in this time Humans are more superior than machines/computers.



#36 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
-2Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:13 AM

 


I don't think a computer can think, but a software will probably can [...]

 

You keep making a distinction that is irrelevant to this discussion: When we talk about what a computer can do, we are talking about the hardware and the software combined.

 

Why are you so arrogant ?

A computer executes a software. A software is built by humans. These are completely different things. So I don't think it is irrelevant to this discussion

So my point is that, even a computer definitely can't think, a software that is executed on it could.


Edited by Tournicoti, 29 January 2014 - 10:23 AM.


#37 Álvaro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 11859

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:24 AM

I really should stop posting on this thread, because I am not getting many coherent arguments from the other side. But I have a hard time letting bad arguments and misinformation unchallenged.

 


When we have problems(bugs/glitches) we can fix ourselves

 

No, we can't. If our brain is not working well we can go to a psychiatrist, but there are many mental diseases for which we can do very little.

 


our Brain is smaller than a computer yet it can still hold 100 times more information than a supercomputer can.

 

That is just completely wrong. Please, propose a test of memory prowess where you think you can beat a laptop.

 


But if someone can create a computer/robot/Ai as smarter or more smarter than a human being(I hope it doesn't happen)and can walk,talk and can do everything(or more)than a human then it will probably be more superior than us and if it goes against us then we will get obliterated.

You keep saying things like "more starter" and "more superior", which really doesn't help your case that humans are particularly good at language. Putting that aside (as hard as that is), what does walking have to do with anything? Even talking is a bit of a strange test. Talking is something humans do to communicate. It is unclear to me that we should judge computer ability based on ways humans interact. Computers communicate using TCP/IP, but I don't judge humans to be inferior because they suck at TCP/IP communication.

 


But there are many things us Humans can do that a machine can't for example:

1.When we get wounded we can heal our selves.(A machine will probably go back to the factory to get repaired)

Which is why starfish are superior to humans.

 


2.We have emotions machines dont have.

 

Which has nothing to do with anything.

 


Anyway in this time Humans are more superior than machines/computers.

 

You haven't defined what you mean by "more superior", but going by the rest of the post, you seem to be saying that humans are better than computers at being human (walking, talking, having emotions). That is likely to stay for a long time.



#38 Tournicoti   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 682

Like
-3Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 10:27 AM

"I really should stop posting on this thread, because I am not getting many coherent arguments from the other side"

 

Maybe because you treat the "other side" as shit ?? 



#39 lomateron   Members   -  Reputation: 300

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 03:06 PM

Tournicoti what matters here are arguments and his arguments are good.

Intelligence is this: receives input data(zeros and ones), and it predicts what the next input will be given a part of the input data or nothing.

What is wron with this?


Edited by lomateron, 29 January 2014 - 07:07 PM.


#40 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4496

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 January 2014 - 05:57 PM

Slightly off-topic in the computers vs humans debate, but I'd like to mention that some animals with brains the size of hazelnuts have fucking awesome intelligence, too.

 

Ravens, for example. Not only do they do all the normal bird tricks such as flapping wings and dropping their excrements on your car, but they also have a fully functional language with several hundreds words (it only sounds like croaks to me, but if you can trust ornitologists, they do). Also they don't struggle at distinguishing similarly shaped items (like a gun barrel and a broomstick) and can differentiate human faces. They also pass abstract information such as who is an enemy and when food is available to their siblings and hatchlings. They're working in groups to drive away predators (such as eagles) that are several times their size, too.

 

Don't ask me how nature puts all that into such a small brain... but of course it isn't so much intent, but it boils down to how nature always works: the less stupid bird doesn't get killed so easily (well, most of the time), so it's going to pass on its genes.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS