• Advertisement

Why A.I is impossible

Recommended Posts

Quote

The research points in a different direction.  They believe the subject experience and I'd assume the extension from it being coherent intelligence, are more the result of the chemical exchanges between the neurotransmitters as opposed to the electrical signals.  If my interpretation is correct, the electrical signals act to synchronise the chemical activity of the brain. 

I wanted to add an interesting point. What is intelligence in relation to the brain? After my experiences (also with neural networks),  it's the ability to represent the outside world in miniature form inside the brain. That sounds strange, but once you think about it, many conclusions come up. The better the brain can "image" the outside world, the better it can predict future events. And this was the evolutionary advantage of human intelligence brought forth. You could respond to a "danger" in the outside world before it took place. Of course, a brain can never accurately map the outside world, but it does not necessarily have to. It only has to map the outside world so far that reliable predictions can be made. If one determines that our brain is an image of the outside world, all we have to do now is clarify how the brain manages to produce reliable predictions from this image and how is this image created.

Edited by zer0force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
11 hours ago, Hodgman said:

Any sufficiently advanced simulation would have to incorporate models of both in order to function. That's also not an impossible task.

 

10 hours ago, slayemin said:

The activation of particular neurons and the subsequent downstream activation of other neurons (happening tens of thousands of times simultaneously) is what creates a "thought".

O.k, I'll try to tackle both of these together.  the both of you will have to bare with me because it'll require some science and a thought experiment.  But we're getting so close to the point where I differ from most others.

On the science, I'll start off with what I know, then what I suspect and I'll make the distinction between the two. 
What I know: They've done experiments exposing participants to new stimuli and measuring the strength of the connections between neurons as the connections are being formed.  Later they'll expose the participants to the same stimuli and the connections are further strengthened.  What they wanted to know was how strong the sensation of the correlated stimuli felt, so how strong was the subjective experience for the participants.  They found that as the signal and connection got stronger, the correlated sensations were diminished.  Meaning, the stronger the connection, the less you felt it.  This is why when you experience something for the first time, or something new, the sensation seems more intense.
The next point is a little fringe and may raise some eyebrows but there is something important to take away from it: Some neural scientists have been interested in the reported experiences of people who have died, NOW LET ME SAY... they clearly didn't die, because they were able to talk about their experiences afterwards.  The type of death they're talking about is medical death, which is when the heart stops beating.  There is even research done one those whose electrical brain activity was so low as to be considered vegetative.  What they found though was that there was a small portion of the population, ~8% that reported having very intense experiences during that time they were under.  What the neural scientists figured was that the brain, in death, dumps all neural transmitters, like the muscles of the body relaxing on death, and that this could be source for some of the reported intense experiences people had.  NOW BY NO MEANS am I suggesting the afterlife, this is all explainable in the realm of brain death.
Now on what I suspect: more than one type of neural transmitter, dopamine, serotonin, cortisol, dmt, can trigger an active potential for a given nerve cell; however, each transmitter has its own signature for how we experience it.

The thought experiment and why any sufficiently all inclusive simulation will not do:  When I look at my screen I see colors, and to me there is a strong distinction between seeing the color red and the color blue, just as hearing a dog bark and have a itch on my leg are all subjectively different experiences.  Yes my brain responds to the color blue by creating an impression of it for me to visually experience.  If we create a robot to visually respond to the color blue, we are not also creating a robot to experience the visual impression of said color, or for it to experience anything at all, all we are doing is getting the robot to respond to the a particular wave length and then execute some code.  Big distinction must be made between these two points, if to you, you see no difference between the two, then this is where you and I diverge.  Now the reason why I think any sufficiently advanced simulation won't do is because I suspect the underlying mechanism that is responsible for the sensations to arise in the first place, are intrinsic to the nature of ever allowed it to arise in the first place, there is no creator after all and we are all emergent. 

3 hours ago, zer0force said:

 If one determines that our brain is an image of the outside world, all we have to do now is clarify how the brain manages to produce reliable predictions from this image and how is this image created.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're saying, can you explain a little further?

Edited by Awoken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you take the religion out of it, the concept of a "soul" still remains.  Is the universe itself alive, as many past sci-fi stories have postulated?   Is there a share conscientiousness?  Is all life linked together in some way that we are many other discoveries away from even being able to contemplate?

This is all really related to the concept of a "soul", even after you take the religion out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

Even if you take the religion out of it, the concept of a "soul" still remains.  Is the universe itself alive, as many past sci-fi stories have postulated?   Is there a share conscientiousness?  Is all life linked together in some way that we are many other discoveries away from even being able to contemplate?

This is all really related to the concept of a "soul", even after you take the religion out of it.

You realize you just said 'Science Fiction' don't you?

Edited by lonewolff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ Read this in Morgan Freeman's voice ] 

Since I started this thread, let me put an end to this . . . for now  . . . 

1. A.I is not the right term. It should be A.A. Advanced Algorithms. It's more accurate. 

2. Let us put our resources into the Science and Math behind meditation. It is here where all the next frontiers lie.

Humanity's next big evolution isn't attached to some external source, it is within all of us.

Best part, it's something each one of us can access anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lonewolff said:

You realize you just said 'Science Fiction' don't you?

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that we know very little about how the universe functions or what it actually is.  The universe could be a single living entity.  We could just be many discoveries, maybe even a million years worth of discoveries, away from being able to see that.  What is the source of gravity?  We don't know.  Gravity is almost a complete mystery within our understanding of the universe.  If we can't answer such a simple question about the basic nature of the universe, that is an indication that we are missing a big part of the big picture.  And gravity is just one example.

I am not saying that the universe is alive, only that it could be.  And if it were, if all living things in the universe that we perceive were actually a part of a single living universe, then a "universal consciousnesses" would make sense on a scientific level.  And something indistinguishable from a "soul" within that framework would also make sense.

I've always liked the Babylon 5 example.  If you shine a light on a wall you see the light on the wall.  But the wall is not the source of the light.  The concept of a "soul" is not necessarily tied to religion, that same concept can exist even if "magical Gods" do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 1:45 AM, szecs said:

Maybe I misunderstood your reply but:

If I write a program that prints "I have consciousness" if you press enter (or make some other simple claims), does it make it have consciousness? Also if I can't discuss about consciousness with somebody because that person can't effectively reason about anything (like me) or simply that person is blind and deaf, does it mean no consciousness?

What I'm trying to say that it's pretty arrogant for anyone to tell that some other entity doesn't have consciousness (especially just because one "feels" ones consciousness, or whatever.) I'm not saying it's not magic. I'm only saying that (I think) manking is not special.

Plus, just because something doesn't exist, we can talk about it. Hell, I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing... So much for "can refer to it, therefore it exists"

 

Edit: I think I "sense" what most of you try to imply by the "knowledge of consciousness affects the physical world, since we are talking about it, therefore somehow consciousness must be out of this world" thing, but the "therefore somehow consciousness must be out of this world" part is something beyond my linguistic abilities to reason about. I "feel" that this part is the mistake in our thinking (and leeds to the classic dilemma/contradiction of predestination).

I don't think I was actually disagreeing with you, in that I'm definitely not saying that being able to refer to consciousness is necessary for having it. I'm also not claiming that consciousness as a metaphysical thing does (or does not) actually exist.

If I do disagree, it's only partially with the statement that "it's only an assumption of me that other people than me have consciousnesses." Of course it is impossible by definition to (directly) verify someone else's subjective experience, so you can't be sure that other people experience consciousness the same way that you do. But if consciousness is some metaphysical thing, it'd at least be weird (or coincidental) for lots of other people to talk about "consciousness" when you're the only one who actually has it.

That is, if other people than you do have consciousness, then we can plausibly all talk about it, and everything is good. If other people than you don't have consciousness, then you can potentially talk about it, but all of the other people who talk about their own "consciousness" must actually be talking about something else, even though we all seem to be talking about roughly the same thing.

You're absolutely right that a program that just prints "I have consciousness" also appears to be talking about consciousness, but since other people were presumably not programmed (at least not by you) to do this, it seems at least difficult to explain why they'd make such a statement in the absence of a conscious entity external to you.

This again assumes that consciousness isn't an illusion -- if it's an illusion, then of course we all could be (falsely) claiming to have it for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 11:10 AM, Eric LeClair said:

I like how everybody and their mom is trying to solve the A.I dilemma. You got scientists, mathematicians and all the smarty pants of the world trying to create A.I.

Here is the common sense reason why A.I can't be created.

1. The only difference between a human being and a machine is 'consciousness'. Some people call it a soul or spirit or whatever. Basically, it's energy that's beyond the 5 'human' senses.

2. We are using our 5 senses to create something that is literally 'out of this world'. 

Good luck!

Ok, lets break this down.

"The only difference between a human being and a machine is 'consciousness'."

So in your opinion an unconscious human being is a machine? Say if in the future we were able startrek level technology to scan you on a subatomic level and then create a physically identical copy of you, you would think it's impossible for that copy to be awakened?

Btw, synthetic life was achieved 8 years ago already if your definition of "artifical intelligence" isn't limited to computers. 

 

 

"Some people call it a soul or spirit or whatever. Basically, it's energy that's beyond the 5 'human' senses."

If you don't know what it is, you can't conclude it's beyond the senses or not. We especially wouldn't conclude it's beyond the realm of science considering how we've invented instruments to see, manipulate and create many forms of energy that are beyond the senses, radiowaves, microwaves and all sorts of radiation are on the same spectrum as light for instance, can't see any of them, that doesn't stop us from learning how to use and create them.

main-qimg-c1f9b1f431e413a792fe02e4baa425

"We are using our 5 senses to create something that is literally 'out of this world'." 

Creating something with our senses? What? Nvm... just consider that If something can interact with matter then matter can interact with it back. If it can't, perhaps what you're experiencing is in your imagination. Feeling real is not the same thing as being real.

Edited by Old Soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kavik Kang said:

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that we know very little about how the universe functions or what it actually is.  The universe could be a single living entity.  We could just be many discoveries, maybe even a million years worth of discoveries, away from being able to see that.  What is the source of gravity?  We don't know.  Gravity is almost a complete mystery within our understanding of the universe.  If we can't answer such a simple question about the basic nature of the universe, that is an indication that we are missing a big part of the big picture.  And gravity is just one example.

I am not saying that the universe is alive, only that it could be.  And if it were, if all living things in the universe that we perceive were actually a part of a single living universe, then a "universal consciousnesses" would make sense on a scientific level.  And something indistinguishable from a "soul" within that framework would also make sense.

I've always liked the Babylon 5 example.  If you shine a light on a wall you see the light on the wall.  But the wall is not the source of the light.  The concept of a "soul" is not necessarily tied to religion, that same concept can exist even if "magical Gods" do not.

Gravity is created by a body's mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body.

 

Mystery solved :)

Edited by lonewolff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Soul said:

So in your opinion an unconscious human being is a machine? Say if in the future we were able startrek level technology to scan you on a subatomic level and then create a physically identical copy of you, you would think it's impossible for that copy to be awakened?

Btw, synthetic life was achieved 8 years ago already if your definition of "artifical intelligence" isn't limited to computers. 

No. An unconscious human being is an unconscious human being.

Also it's not my opinion. It's just is. 

Synthetic life? Wavelength? Sorry I just don't know how it applies here . . .

2 hours ago, Old Soul said:

Creating something with our senses? What? Nvm... just consider that If something can interact with matter then matter can interact with it back. If it can't, perhaps what you're experiencing is in your imagination. Feeling real is not the same thing as being real.

You don't 'imagine' when you meditate. Mediation stops thoughts. That's the entire point . . .

"Feeling real is not the same thing as being real? "

Actually feeling is a pre-cursor to 'being'. 

DaVinci "felt" something so he painted the Mona Lisa

The Wright Brothers "felt" that they could fly so the plane came into being. 

You "FELT" that there is something here that clashes with your current perception of life,
hence this post came into 'being'. 

Everything is 'FELT' before it comes into existence.

I "FELT" your struggle for clarity, so I provided an answer.

In "I FELT", that "FELT" was my "consciousness". We're all part of the same material, that's why I felt it.

The "I" is just a placeholder. There is no "I".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lonewolff said:

Gravity is created by a body's mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body.

 

Mystery solved

If you look into it you will find that science has no idea where gravity comes from.  All things with mass have gravity, but science has no idea what the source of gravity is.  You might assume that mass is the source of the gravity, but science does not know that this is the case.  The actual source of gravity, and what it actually is, is a complete mystery to science.

You have gravity.  A rock has gravity.  A bottle of wine has gravity.  All things with mass have gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that mass is the source of gravity and science can think of no mechanism that would cause mass to "magically create" gravity.

"A quantum leap forward in time and space, the universe learned to expand.  The mess and the magic, triumphant and tragic, a mechanized world out of hand.  Computerized clinic for superior cynics, who dance to a synthetic band.  In their own image their world is fashioned, no wonder they don't understand." - Professor Pratt

Edited by Kavik Kang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be in a different parallel universe to the rest of us. There is plenty of scientific explanations out there as to what causes gravity.

Anyway this is leagues away from what the OP is trying to discuss.

Edited by lonewolff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there aren't.  Gravity is probably the greatest mystery of what little we know of how the universe functions.  What gravity is, and what the source of gravity is, is a complete mystery to science.  About all that is known of gravity is that it exists, its strength, and that it is always associated with mass.  What gravity is, and specifically what the source of gravity is, are not known.  Gravity appears to be "magic", we can conceive of no mechanism by which mass would create gravity and there is no reason that it should.

And this is a part of the discussion, I didn't introduce it out of nowhere.  I was replying to someone who was dismissing the idea of a "soul" because they believed that it was related to religion, when it really isn't.  If the universe is a living entity, and we are just components of it, than it would make scientific sense that there is a shared conscientiousness between all life.  Gravity could be related too this.

We really know very little about how the universe functions.  So little, that almost anything is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eric LeClair said:

No. An unconscious human being is an unconscious human being.

Also it's not my opinion. It's just is. 

Synthetic life? Wavelength? Sorry I just don't know how it applies here . . .

You don't 'imagine' when you meditate. Mediation stops thoughts. That's the entire point . . .

"Feeling real is not the same thing as being real? "

Actually feeling is a pre-cursor to 'being'. 

DaVinci "felt" something so he painted the Mona Lisa

The Wright Brothers "felt" that they could fly so the plane came into being. 

You "FELT" that there is something here that clashes with your current perception of life,
hence this post came into 'being'. 

Everything is 'FELT' before it comes into existence.

I "FELT" your struggle for clarity, so I provided an answer.

In "I FELT", that "FELT" was my "consciousness". We're all part of the same material, that's why I felt it.

The "I" is just a placeholder. There is no "I".

I get what you're trying to say, but I FEEL that you are wrong. By your line of reasoning, if all feelings are real, then it's most likely the case that your feeling and my feeling contradict each other. Since contradictions cannot exist, at least one of us is wrong (which doesn't mean the other is right, we could both be wrong).

I also feel that you place too much value on meditation and use it as a replacement for intellectual rigor, and you end up with wishy washy spiritual mumbo jumbo like "Feeling is a pre-cursor to 'being'". You then look for confirming evidence to support your hypothesis instead of looking for counter examples (which are extremely easy to find). Here's a few:
-If feeling is a precursor to being, does something not exist if it doesn't feel?
-If all it took for the wright brothers to fly was to "feel" a calling for it, how do you explain the hundreds of other inventors and their failed attempts at flight? How do you account for people feeling something strongly, and despite that, being failures?
-I feel a strong calling for a billion dollars in my bank account. Why doesn't that come into being?
-How do you explain hallucinations brought on by drugs such as LSD? What's the connection between the mind and feeling and the outside world?

Really though, this line of thinking reeks of the spiritualistic nonsense in the book "The Secret".  I encourage you to dig into "Meditations" by Rene Descartes. This was an infamous philosophical piece from the 17th century and effectively established the foundations for meta-physical philosophy. It's a wonderful work on skepticism and doubting sensory input. Here's a link to a free version:
http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/DescartesMeditations.pdf

I think this would interest you and work as a good counter-balance to your existing belief set, or at least, give you additional breadth to complement your existing belief set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

if you look into it you will find that science has no idea where gravity comes from.  All things with mass have gravity, but science has no idea what the source of gravity is.  You might assume that mass is the source of the gravity, but science does not know that this is the case.  The actual source of gravity, and what it actually is, is a complete mystery to science.

Gravitation seems to be a force between two entities or bodies, but that is a fallacy. Gravitation is the effect of the topology of the "space". Gravitation is determined by the topology of the 4-dimensional (or more dimensional) space . Masses bend the 4dimensional space around them and indirectly create the effect of gravity. Gravity is thus only an indirect side effect of the topology of 4dimensional space. The even more interesting question is, what is mass, or what is matter, because matter (or moving matter) bends the space. A partial answer to this is. matter is energy, relating to e=mc2, but that does not explain the structure of matter. Even today's subatomic particle model explains the structure of matter only insufficient (see quantum physics).

Edited by zer0force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

If the universe is a living entity, and we are just components of it, than it would make scientific sense that there is a shared conscientiousness between all life.  Gravity could be related too this.

No one ever said the universe was a living entity. It was yourself that stated this based on your experience with Sci-Fi movies, as you admitted earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that the universe was a living entity, either.  I said that it could be.  And now I'll add that is every bit as likely to be the case as the conventional way of interpreting the universe.  Of course, I also have a functioning model of an artificial universe and it looks a lot more like a living entity than a frozen sea of rock.  Rube says that if the universe is a living entity then time is the cardio-vascular system of the universe.  But Rube doesn't prove that the universe is alive, either, it just actually functions which makes what Rube has to say interesting too me.

The point is that we know so little of what the universe is and how it functions that either point of view is equally likely.  And the fact that gravity appears to be "magic" too us is a strong indication that we don't understand a lot of very "simple" and basic aspects of what the universe is and how it functions.  The "sci-fi" I am actually getting this from is my own PDU lore where this is the basis of both the science and religion of my universe. 

Your cell phone began as Star Trek's communicator.  My uncle worked on lasers and particle beams for the US military.  Or how about Alcubierre's Warp Drive...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive  Just because an idea originates in sci-fi does not mean it isn't correct, or potentially possible within the real world.  I'm not saying that Rube is correct and the universe is a living entity, only that it could be.

"And the stars look down..." ;-)

 

Edited by Kavik Kang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed not a possibility to make an A.I, i agree.

My points are:

Scientists have not yet discovered how human brain works and whats inside of it

How can they make insides of the brain work in code?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, a "human like" AI... I agree.  But 1 million years is a very, very long time.  A million years from now our technology will appear too be "magic" to us "primitive apes" of the 21st century.

 

 

Edited by Kavik Kang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11. 1. 2018 at 8:45 PM, zer0force said:

What is intelligence in relation to the brain? After my experiences (also with neural networks),  it's the ability to represent the outside world in miniature form inside the brain. 

Thanks for saying that, I was jammed on terms like extrapolation, simulation or applied data for that. 

 

Btw: if we can  this world miniature aka simulation call a dynamic inteligence, there is also static property

which is basically memory, ability to sort, put data in relation.

I think that very origin of this relationing can well be ourselfs. Would be interesting to build up a computer with all the operating data being a chain leading to it's existence or "life quality" and provide it world miniature model etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/01/2018 at 11:48 PM, Awoken said:

If we create a robot to visually respond to the color blue, we are not also creating a robot to experience the visual impression of said color, or for it to experience anything at all, all we are doing is getting the robot to respond to the a particular wave length and then execute some code.  Big distinction must be made between these two points, if to you, you see no difference between the two, then this is where you and I diverge.

This is actually what is at the center of the recent A.I. or "Deep Learning" revolution. You are not longer triggering code from specific events.

Rather: A modern neural network is something that is not programmed (in the traditional sense). You supply it with some inputs, and you give it a goal. It then goes on to develop (or program) all the skills that it needs by itself. You are not in control for how it achieves it's goal.

An example (that has not really happened yet): You give a swarm of neural network robots a useful goal like:  "Clean the streets".

This is a very simple goal...

Their inputs are: A camera, and some form of radio communication to coordinate with eachother.

You don't tell them what dirt looks like, and you don't supply a communications protocol.

You do grade them by how clean the streets are in the morning and how much fuel they've wasted.

Years pass, and the robots gradually get better.

The thing to be expected, is that they learned what dirty things look like .

However, you find that the communications protocol they are using is very similar to a spoken language. These robots actually learned to speak, and further more invented their own language.

Now it's true, intelligence of such magnitude out of reach of today's neural networks. However the principle is the same: Machines are responding to stimuli in ways which they were never programmed to do.

This is why "Alpha Go" and "Alpha Zero" are so special: Unlike deep blue, and previous A.I: Nobody ever taught them how to play "chess" or "go".

One could claim that this is the start of "creativity" in machines. And putting "consciousness" aside for a minute. This is the big deal with the latest developments. We have machines which can be "creative".

As a side note what I find even more threatening is: Unlike "Alpha Go" which was playing a human, "Alpha Zero" was playing the best computer program that many humans have studied and researched. I don't think there exists a game that is more studied than chess. And the shear amount of computer science skill directed at building chess engines dwarfs any other gaming AI research. And alpha zero beat all of that human effort, without building on top of it. (It learned how to play chess from nothing). Basically it means: There will soon come a time when computers will be able to write better computer programs than humans. Even worse, these programs will be so complex that they will be beyond human understanding (you will not even be able to help debug them...). I don't know about you, but as a "traditional" software dev, this makes me nervous about my job security.

Edited by SillyCow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm pretty sure that sofware development and design (even GUI, game and websites) will be one of the first professions taken by AI (some areas may still remain in human hands). And it can be in some 10 years. We will all (almost) became mere hobbyists.

My English failed me again...

Edited by szecs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the long term that happens with every job when a real AI is introduced into the mix.

 

In the next decade (Maybe 2-3 with adoption rates) I'm curious to see how our government handles the loss of trucking/taxi/delivery/manufacturing jobs. One thing would have to be taxing productivity instead of labor, but then won't every company relocate offshore?

 

Crazy import tariffs?

 

Universal basic income is way too expensive, retraining would be pointless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Advertisement