ON the emergence of 'minds' and what materials might allow it

[JBeukema]

Brain....

Must it be a biological or fleshy brain?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/82276-a-i-through-a-brains.html

Must it be wholly so?

The Artificial Hippocampus | h+ Magazine

I posit that all evidence point to the mind* arising from physical states of matter, but that it would not be logical to conclude that it can only arise from a fleshy brain any more than it was reasonable to conclude that flight could only arise from a fleshy wing which flapped. If our understanding, while currently limited, is correct then the consciousness arises from the electrochemical interactions within the brain, Therefore, in theory, any system, regardless of composition, which gave rise to these same interactions (and any other functions or relationships between part of the whole which might be required) should give rise to consciousness.

Thus far, only fleshy brains have been observed giving rise to consciousness, but there is no reason to conclude that it is impossible for other forms of matter, or 'brains' of foreign composition to meet all necessary conditions for the birth of a conscious mind.

This, of course, raises the question of whether we might recognize any such foreign consciousness, which we can discuss in another thread.

*When I use 'mind', I refer to the conscious self which arises from the system, not the physical brain itself, which continues to exist after death, though the mind appears to have ceased to be.

I don't believe the substance is as important as the form. While I am aware, and find fascinating, the possibility of the emergence of "mind" in artificial "brains", both of the articles you linked express that the artificial brains mimic the form of the human brain.

Airplane's wing mimics a bird's wing. A hot air balloon does not. They both achieve the same thing if that thing is levitation and overcoming gravity to become airborne. There might well be more than ione process which gives rise to a similar result.

Take, for example, stringed musical instruments. They come in a variety of designs and materials. A piano strikes strings with keys. A guitar uses the musician's hand directly. A violin uses a bow. But all stringed instruments, to qualify as such, must at the most basic level involve various tension placed upon "strings" which are then made to vibrate at different frequencies producing sound.

Yet the passage of electrons through a speaker produces a near-exact replication of the same signal. Clearly, a vibrating string is not the only way the sound we associate with it can come into being. There might well be other forms of 'brains' or neural networks (in existence or in possibility) capable of achieving the same end result.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Its disapointing there isn't more to this conversation.

I've always thought that if we do build an AI, its far more likely it will accidentally arise as an entity that "lives" in the internet. Thanks to the net we have millions of networked computers running billions of routines with access to trillions of pieces of data.

I always thought that it was inevitable that the sheer level of complexity inherent in the internet would lead to an emergence if it were possible to artificially create intelligence.

 

[JBeukema]

The Internet certainly seems to possess the potential for forming an Adaptive Representation Network capable of giving rise (in theory, if fleshy brains are not needed) to consciousness and self-awareness. Have you read The Origin of MInds by La Cerra and Bingham?

 

[HUGGY]

Its disapointing there isn't more to this conversation.

I've always thought that if we do build an AI, its far more likely it will accidentally arise as an entity that "lives" in the internet. Thanks to the net we have millions of networked computers running billions of routines with access to trillions of pieces of data.

I always thought that it was inevitable that the sheer level of complexity inherent in the internet would lead to an emergence if it were possible to artificially create intelligence.

So what kinda bong you usin? Hey..This dude next to the machine shop I use makes these humungus huge steel bong frames working with with a glass blower in the same complex we work in. They get like $20,000 for these suckers. Maybe it just takes a bigger bong to get to the bottom of all knowledge.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The Internet certainly seems to possess the potential for forming an Adaptive Representation Network capable of giving rise (in theory, if fleshy brains are not needed) to consciousness and self-awareness. Have you read The Origin of MInds by La Cerra and Bingham?

No. I'll have to look it up. I was thinking more along the lines of some of the reasoning in Godell, Escher, Bach about how complex enough systems seem to give rise to very surprising results.

If a fleshy component isn't necessary (and it may well be), then the internet is arguably the biggest collection of data, computing power, and algorithms ever put together in the history of mankind. It seems like the ideal "primordial soup" for an electronic consciousness.

 

[Polaris]

No, I don't think that the functionalist thesis is correct when it comes to AI. The electro-physical dynamics of thought are more complex - by a few orders of magnitude - than those of flight, for example.

It seems to me that the manifestation of mind, requires a very particular set of circumstances to be in place: to wit, information must be processed at volumes, and at speeds, that can only be facilitated by a very specific material medium. This medium, it seems must be carbon-based, since it is only carbon-based physical systems which have the electrical reactivity that enable them to exist in the aquaeous environments that are necessary to process information to the necessary degree.

The physical constraints on this "membrane" of thought are so specific, that they extend not only to the materials with which the thought-processor is built , but also to the very means according to which, it is "built": that is, complexity on this scale cannot be manufactured, exactly - instead, it must be grown.

If every we develop AI in the lab, in other words, we will have to have developed synthentic material which facilitates information signalling better than carbon does; and we will have to have also developed something like an artificial womb.

Perhaps the more likely scenario for AI is that suggested by the futurist and entrepeneur Ray Kurzweil, who thinks that we will, in effect, replace ourselves as a species by merging with our technological prostheses, using them to do what we already do, just with such greater efficiency that it will revolutionize how we interact with our environment...

 

[Digibomber]

I think people are confusing consciousness (self-awareness) with intelligence. Intelligence can be programmed which consciousness emerges from complexity. e.g. a chess playing computer is intelligent but not conscious, while a rabbit is probably conscious but not intelligent.

The massive complexity of computer systems and possibly the internet might result in an organism (right word?) which could be conscious of it's existence and might try and survive.

 

[Polaris]

I think people are confusing consciousness (self-awareness) with intelligence. Intelligence can be programmed which consciousness emerges from complexity. e.g. a chess playing computer is intelligent but not conscious, while a rabbit is probably conscious but not intelligent.

The massive complexity of computer systems and possibly the internet might result in an organism (right word?) which could be conscious of it's existence and might try and survive.

Well, consciousness is the "beetle in the box" - in the end, or at least for now, it is very difficult to see how to artificially create this essentially subjective phenomenon. Rather, I think it makes more sense to focus on intelligence, because a being that interacts with its environment in sufficiently intelligent way, is not distinguishable from a being who we typically regard as "conscious" (we are indebted to the great Alan Turing for this insight - the British government recently apologized to him for the government persecution that brought on his suicide back after WWII (even though the code-breaking efforts he led were crucial to Allied victory)).

And I would not introduce a cognitivist bias when talking about "intelligence." Intelligence, I would say, much comes down to how successfully an organism navigates in, negotiates with, its environment. The information processing required to inhabit a wild environment, with the constant threat of predators, is a hell of a lot more than it takes to sit in some nicely air-conditioned room, with no predators and only one task to focus on. I would say that there is a straight positive correlation between intelligence and consciousness - the more intelligent the being, the more high-gain its level of consciousness will be...

 

[JBeukema]

You said yo'd not induce biased, yet you are biased in favor of 'organisms' you recognize. Should that not be 'system'?

 

[Polaris]

You said yo'd not induce biased, yet you are biased in favor of 'organisms' you recognize. Should that not be 'system'?

Our archetype of the intelligent being, is of course ourselves. Until we encounter some other entity that qualifies as (to use Heidegger's term) dasein, we ourselves will be the benchmark for what an intelligent being is.

And we are not something manufactured, but are the products of evolutionary processes - the product of myriad forerunner-species navigating their natural habitats. If the onto-genesis of the peculiar high-gain form of cognition that we possess, involves more instinctual, more feeling-motivated ways of navigating an environment, it is reasonable to assume that, evolution being what it is, this will go for all dasein, wherever we might encounter it. Life, and mind, cannot be something that you can plug in or turn off; it can only be something that can grow, and that can die.

 

[HUGGY]

Must it be a biological or fleshy brain?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/82276-a-i-through-a-brains.html

Must it be wholly so?

The Artificial Hippocampus | h+ Magazine

I posit that all evidence point to the mind* arising from physical states of matter, but that it would not be logical to conclude that it can only arise from a fleshy brain any more than it was reasonable to conclude that flight could only arise from a fleshy wing which flapped. If our understanding, while currently limited, is correct then the consciousness arises from the electrochemical interactions within the brain, Therefore, in theory, any system, regardless of composition, which gave rise to these same interactions (and any other functions or relationships between part of the whole which might be required) should give rise to consciousness.

Thus far, only fleshy brains have been observed giving rise to consciousness, but there is no reason to conclude that it is impossible for other forms of matter, or 'brains' of foreign composition to meet all necessary conditions for the birth of a conscious mind.

This, of course, raises the question of whether we might recognize any such foreign consciousness, which we can discuss in another thread.

*When I use 'mind', I refer to the conscious self which arises from the system, not the physical brain itself, which continues to exist after death, though the mind appears to have ceased to be.

I don't believe the substance is as important as the form. While I am aware, and find fascinating, the possibility of the emergence of "mind" in artificial "brains", both of the articles you linked express that the artificial brains mimic the form of the human brain.

Airplane's wing mimics a bird's wing. A hot air balloon does not. They both achieve the same thing if that thing is levitation and overcoming gravity to become airborne. There might well be more than ione process which gives rise to a similar result.

Take, for example, stringed musical instruments. They come in a variety of designs and materials. A piano strikes strings with keys. A guitar uses the musician's hand directly. A violin uses a bow. But all stringed instruments, to qualify as such, must at the most basic level involve various tension placed upon "strings" which are then made to vibrate at different frequencies producing sound.

Yet the passage of electrons through a speaker produces a near-exact replication of the same signal. Clearly, a vibrating string is not the only way the sound we associate with it can come into being. There might well be other forms of 'brains' or neural networks (in existence or in possibility) capable of achieving the same end result.

OK..do you want me to invent a mechanical brain? Already done. I solved that problem about twenty five years ago. I can't tell you all of the details but the invention is basically a mirrored search engine which is how the brain works. The "knowledge" or "memory" has as much power to be on the front page or "consciousness" as the request for the knowledge. Or another way to look at is all knowledge and memory is allways trying to find a match so the connection happens much faster than a conscious one sided search of all memory for matches.

 

[blu]

I think people interested in this should watch serial experiments lain

 

[ABikerSailor]

Its disapointing there isn't more to this conversation.

I've always thought that if we do build an AI, its far more likely it will accidentally arise as an entity that "lives" in the internet. Thanks to the net we have millions of networked computers running billions of routines with access to trillions of pieces of data.

I always thought that it was inevitable that the sheer level of complexity inherent in the internet would lead to an emergence if it were possible to artificially create intelligence.

Ever hear of the "web bot" project?

If there is going to be spontaneous AI, it's probably going to come from there.

 

[garyd]

The fact of the matter is that to date everything has an on switch except animals which even in sleep are none the less on. If human beings ceased to be tommorrow the internet would cease to be with in a few years as well. Right now even the best AI's can only yield back the information they have been given.