When will an AI achieve the same intelligence as a human being?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what I find imposible to create with a computer are feelings, pain and joy.

absurd of course a computer can have sensors to register stimuli just like a human.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only possibility I could see is perhaps linking a computer with an actual human brain. Could that be possible?

they already do it of course to control limbs and some Parkinsons etc. and we're just 65 years into it. Imagine in 100 or 200 years?

 

[CultureCitizen]

what I find imposible to create with a computer are feelings, pain and joy.

absurd of course a computer can have sensors to register stimuli just like a human.

Well, I have a lego robotics kit with preassure, light and movement sensors. That doesn't make the brick shout in pain or give any distress signal other than "an input has been received", in fact the response is the same regardless of the sensor I plug into the brick.
Now, the reaction could be simulated and be quite convincent , but it would not be real.

 

[dblack]

Now, the reaction could be simulated and be quite convincent , but it would not be real.

What if it were indistinguishable? What if a sophisticated computer was programmed to register undesirable stimuli as pain and react accordingly? Would that be 'real'?

 

[Boss]

What if it were indistinguishable?

You keep saying this but it doesn't make sense. What if REALITY is indistinguishable? What if everything we perceive as reality is just an illusion in our heads? A figment of our imagination? What if matter and energy really don't exist? It's basically the same argument you're making, just applied to the universe.

 

[dblack]

What if it were indistinguishable?

You keep saying this but it doesn't make sense. What if REALITY is indistinguishable? What if everything we perceive as reality is just an illusion in our heads? A figment of our imagination? What if matter and energy really don't exist? It's basically the same argument you're making, just applied to the universe.

What I'm saying is that a 'simulation' that is utterly indistinguishable from the real thing IS the real thing. I'm coming at it from the point of view that thinking and consciousness are what the human brain does, not as special quality that it has. If a computer can be programmed to think in all the ways a human brain thinks, it will be doing what a human brain does. It will be conscious.

 

[Boss]

But simulations are NOT the real thing, even when they are indistinguishable.

Consciousness can be defined subjectively... your computer OS is conscious or you wouldn't be seeing this post. Computers not only can do things the human mind can do, they can do them millions of times faster and more efficiently. The question as to how smart computers or robots (AI) will become is a matter of how smart we program them to be. What they will never have is spiritual awareness.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now, the reaction could be simulated and be quite convincent , but it would not be real.

What if it were indistinguishable? What if a sophisticated computer was programmed to register undesirable stimuli as pain and react accordingly? Would that be 'real'?

To an extent, but it would require very sofisticated servos.
A person in pain ( e.g. under torture) , for example, has a very hard time concentrating and thinking.
To achieve the same with a robot we would have to hardwire the sensors so that damage in its body picked by the sensors causes some temporal distress in its thought processes and that pain would then be registred as part of a learning process, then the robot would learn the hard way (like most humans) that a flame burns.
And yet, that would not make it real.

The damage in the brains of boxers and football players is not temporal it is permanent, as is the damage caused in the body by long periods of stress.

We would actually have to find a way to make the damage permanent, to some extent, ah , then it would be real .
But why bother?
We humans are striving to go into the oposite direction : avoid pain and suffering ( hence the painkilers and drugs) , why bother with all that circuitry and servos used to create damage into a robot.

And that is just pain, which is a rather simple response, feelings would be a lot harder to mimmick , that part of the brain-body interaction would require a whole new level of sofistication, way beyond creating a thinking and sentient machine.

 

[dblack]

Now, the reaction could be simulated and be quite convincent , but it would not be real.

What if it were indistinguishable? What if a sophisticated computer was programmed to register undesirable stimuli as pain and react accordingly? Would that be 'real'?

To an extent, but it would require very sofisticated servos.
A person in pain ( e.g. under torture) , for example, has a very hard time concentrating and thinking.
To achieve the same with a robot we would have to hardwire the sensors so that damage in its body picked by the sensors causes some temporal distress in its thought processes and that pain would then be registred as part of a learning process, then the robot would learn the hard way (like most humans) that a flame burns.
And yet, that would not make it real.

The damage in the brains of boxers and football players is not temporal it is permanent, as is the damage caused in the body by long periods of stress.

We would actually have to find a way to make the damage permanent, to some extent, ah , then it would be real .
But why bother?
We humans are striving to go into the oposite direction : avoid pain and suffering ( hence the painkilers and drugs) , why bother with all that circuitry and servos used to create damage into a robot.

And that is just pain, which is a rather simple response, feelings would be a lot harder to mimmick , that part of the brain-body interaction would require a whole new level of sofistication, way beyond creating a thinking and sentient machine.

I'm not addressing the technical details of how such a feat might be accomplished. I'm not even saying it's a practical possibility. At the very least it would require hardware and software radically different than anything we've yet developed.

I'm considering the theoretical objection raised by Boss, and others, that, even if a computer were programmed to do everything a human brain does, it wouldn't truly be intelligent - but merely a programmed simulation of intelligence. I think such a distinction is meaningless.

 

[Boss]

I'm considering the theoretical objection raised by Boss, and others, that, even if a computer were programmed to do everything a human brain does, it wouldn't truly be intelligent - but merely a programmed simulation of intelligence. I think such a distinction is meaningless.

It depends on how you define intelligence. Computers can already do everything a human brain does. What a computer can't ever do is be spiritually aware. That involves connection with spirit and isn't something physical. I don't even know there is a way computers could simulate this.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now, the reaction could be simulated and be quite convincent , but it would not be real.

What if it were indistinguishable? What if a sophisticated computer was programmed to register undesirable stimuli as pain and react accordingly? Would that be 'real'?

To an extent, but it would require very sofisticated servos.
A person in pain ( e.g. under torture) , for example, has a very hard time concentrating and thinking.
To achieve the same with a robot we would have to hardwire the sensors so that damage in its body picked by the sensors causes some temporal distress in its thought processes and that pain would then be registred as part of a learning process, then the robot would learn the hard way (like most humans) that a flame burns.
And yet, that would not make it real.

The damage in the brains of boxers and football players is not temporal it is permanent, as is the damage caused in the body by long periods of stress.

We would actually have to find a way to make the damage permanent, to some extent, ah , then it would be real .
But why bother?
We humans are striving to go into the oposite direction : avoid pain and suffering ( hence the painkilers and drugs) , why bother with all that circuitry and servos used to create damage into a robot.

And that is just pain, which is a rather simple response, feelings would be a lot harder to mimmick , that part of the brain-body interaction would require a whole new level of sofistication, way beyond creating a thinking and sentient machine.

I'm not addressing the technical details of how such a feat might be accomplished. I'm not even saying it's a practical possibility. At the very least it would require hardware and software radically different than anything we've yet developed.

I'm considering the theoretical objection raised by Boss, and others, that, even if a computer were programmed to do everything a human brain does, it wouldn't truly be intelligent - but merely a programmed simulation of intelligence. I think such a distinction is meaningless.

Indeed. It woud be intelligent. But mostly it woud be intelligent in its own unique way.
While our brains have a hard time dealing with math, it is built in into a computer.
On the other hand, while we have natural capacity for pattern recognition and inference, computers requiere very complex constructs to perform tasks we take for granted such as object recognition.

We are only self aware at the highest functional level , our awareness doesn't reach neurons or even cortical columns. AI awareness might be constructed in a similar manner.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Consciousness is attained in the human brain by billions of individual cells being active and interconnected. Likely all that is needed is a critical mass of individual memory 'cells' and the proper interconnections, with some smaller part of the whole directing the connections. It will also have to have a purpose. For living things it is survival via input from it's senses. Give a computer billions of cells, proper connected-ness, a focusing mass, and sensory input from the outside world and a desire to not die, or be 'damaged', and I think consciousness will actually come about rather quickly.

Human consciousness took millions of years because the correct critical mass of brain cells and the network took that long to mutate into form.

We can create that, once we know the correct parameters, very quickly.

 

[dblack]

Consciousness is attained in the human brain by billions of individual cells being active and interconnected. Likely all that is needed is a critical mass of individual memory 'cells' and the proper interconnections, with some smaller part of the whole directing the connections. It will also have to have a purpose. For living things it is survival via input from it's senses. Give a computer billions of cells, proper connected-ness, a focusing mass, and sensory input from the outside world and a desire to not die, or be 'damaged', and I think consciousness will actually come about rather quickly.

Human consciousness took millions of years because the correct critical mass of brain cells and the network took that long to mutate into form.

We can create that, once we know the correct parameters, very quickly.

That's more or less the way I'm seeing it. The conviction that there is something supernatural about consciousness is intuitively appealing, but isn't supported by what we're learning.

I see it as similar to the historical debates about the nature of biological life. Before we developed an understanding of the physical processes at work, it was assumed that there must be some supernatural force ("anima") that distinguished a living being from inanimate matter. Over time, we came to understand that life was the result of specially structured physical systems and not magic. I suspect we'll find that consciousness is, likewise, a case of specially organized representational systems, and not dependent on supernatural forces.

 

[Boss]

Consciousness is attained in the human brain by billions of individual cells being active and interconnected. Likely all that is needed is a critical mass of individual memory 'cells' and the proper interconnections, with some smaller part of the whole directing the connections. It will also have to have a purpose. For living things it is survival via input from it's senses. Give a computer billions of cells, proper connected-ness, a focusing mass, and sensory input from the outside world and a desire to not die, or be 'damaged', and I think consciousness will actually come about rather quickly.

Human consciousness took millions of years because the correct critical mass of brain cells and the network took that long to mutate into form.

We can create that, once we know the correct parameters, very quickly.

That's more or less the way I'm seeing it. The conviction that there is something supernatural about consciousness is intuitively appealing, but isn't supported by what we're learning.

I see it as similar to the historical debates about the nature of biological life. Before we developed an understanding of the physical processes at work, it was assumed that there must be some supernatural force ("anima") that distinguished a living being from inanimate matter. Over time, we came to understand that life was the result of specially structured physical systems and not magic. I suspect we'll find that consciousness is, likewise, a case of specially organized representational systems, and not dependent on supernatural forces.

What I see you both doing is letting your anti-religious bias interfere with a scientific mind. Science is about exploring what we don't know... you're using it to draw conclusions. You say, "it was assumed there must be something supernatural" ....by whom? Why would a rational mind automatically assume such a thing? People often believed what their religions taught but that was why we invented Science. So we didn't assume there must be something supernatural, we invented Science to explore physical answers. No rational minds have ever believed life came about through "magic" but that's what you're saying, and then we discovered it was through physics. The fact is, before we invented physics, we largely assumed what our religions taught us was true.

Now you assume that because you've answered a few physical questions of how things might have happened that you've also answered the question of why they happened. So you've basically adopted your own faith-based beliefs in your own "supernatural magic" and you reject any other view... that's not Science... that's why Science was invented. It's funny to me that you keep referring to "spiritual" as "supernatural forces" ....just as I am sure a devoutly religious person might have thought geosynchronous orbits of planets and moons would have been "supernatural forces" back in the 5th century. Science sets aside your beliefs, my beliefs and all beliefs... it explores the unanswered. The moment you've drawn a conclusion, science stops it's work and you adopt a faith. If you then deny science from exploring further, you're no different than religious people in the dark ages.

Sorry, I didn't intend to drag the thread off topic into a spiritual debate but I think spiritual nature is part of nature, not supernatural. This is more than my faith-based belief. When science unlocks the mysteries of our universe it's often amazing how it diverges from our conventional wisdom. Can you explain the double slit experiment or the observer effect? What's happening there, is it something "supernatural" or something that simply defies physical understanding? How about disappearing electrons and quantum-entangled particles? Is that "magic" or things that defy physics as we know it? You see, SCIENCE keeps on exploring and looking for answers... it doesn't CONCLUDE.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Consciousness is attained in the human brain by billions of individual cells being active and interconnected. Likely all that is needed is a critical mass of individual memory 'cells' and the proper interconnections, with some smaller part of the whole directing the connections. It will also have to have a purpose. For living things it is survival via input from it's senses. Give a computer billions of cells, proper connected-ness, a focusing mass, and sensory input from the outside world and a desire to not die, or be 'damaged', and I think consciousness will actually come about rather quickly.

Human consciousness took millions of years because the correct critical mass of brain cells and the network took that long to mutate into form.

We can create that, once we know the correct parameters, very quickly.

That's more or less the way I'm seeing it. The conviction that there is something supernatural about consciousness is intuitively appealing, but isn't supported by what we're learning.

I see it as similar to the historical debates about the nature of biological life. Before we developed an understanding of the physical processes at work, it was assumed that there must be some supernatural force ("anima") that distinguished a living being from inanimate matter. Over time, we came to understand that life was the result of specially structured physical systems and not magic. I suspect we'll find that consciousness is, likewise, a case of specially organized representational systems, and not dependent on supernatural forces.

Consciousness only came about in living things once the mutation that gave us 46 chromosomes rather than 48 took place and the human brain developed to what I think of as 'goldilocks size' and orgainization. Living systems, or organisms, operate on a basic level, pain or pleasure. Fire is painful, avoid fire. Sex is pleasurable, gravitate towards sex. This is the interface between the brain and the outside world. Even the most rudimentary organisms, with nothing more than a little neurologic tissue and a 'brain-like' structure, recognize pain or pleasure, light and dark, acidic or basic, hot or cold. Again the leap from that to using a tool to get termites out of a branch with a stick only required the proper critical mass of cells that were arranged in a required form. Going from that to smelting metal and making computers took ten thousand years of dedicated thought and trial and error by the human race en masse.

But we already have all these answers now so once we build a 'brain' similar to ours out of silicon and electricity we will in essence bypass all the evolution needed to make that mass conscious. I think at some point in the near future, maybe 50-100 years, people will accept conscious computers as normal. All brain processes are chemical or electrical, there is no magic. Spirituality is of another discussion.

 

[Boss]

But we already have all these answers now so...

So we can abandon science and adopt a faith-based belief in what we know as truth.

That's the real danger in your thought process.

 

[IsaacNewton]

But we already have all these answers now so...

So we can abandon science and adopt a faith-based belief in what we know as truth.

That's the real danger in your thought process.

You're looking for the religion and myth forum.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm considering the theoretical objection raised by Boss, and others, that, even if a computer were programmed to do everything a human brain does, it wouldn't truly be intelligent - but merely a programmed simulation of intelligence. I think such a distinction is meaningless.

It depends on how you define intelligence. Computers can already do everything a human brain does. What a computer can't ever do is be spiritually aware. That involves connection with spirit and isn't something physical. I don't even know there is a way computers could simulate this.

Boss,
I'll have to admit that the number of "spiritually aware" humans is very very small. Else the world would not be in its current state.
Other than tibetan monks, some saints and profets I do not know many people whom I would catalog as spiritually aware.

 

[Boss]

I'm considering the theoretical objection raised by Boss, and others, that, even if a computer were programmed to do everything a human brain does, it wouldn't truly be intelligent - but merely a programmed simulation of intelligence. I think such a distinction is meaningless.

It depends on how you define intelligence. Computers can already do everything a human brain does. What a computer can't ever do is be spiritually aware. That involves connection with spirit and isn't something physical. I don't even know there is a way computers could simulate this.

Boss,
I'll have to admit that the number of "spiritually aware" humans is very very small. Else the world would not be in its current state.
Other than tibetan monks, some saints and profets I do not know many people whom I would catalog as spiritually aware.

No no no... You are assuming that "spiritually aware" also means "spiritually obedient" and it doesn't. Quite the contrary. Man has grappled with his spiritual awareness since the beginning... evidence: Religions. The simple fact that you cannot reject spirituality if you don't understand what it is, means that even those who vehemently reject it still comprehend it and understand it. This is understandable as we are intrinsically tied to it as a species.

We are intrinsically aware of something inside of us all that is greater than the sum total of our physical parts. If physics and science cannot disprove it, then it cannot state it doesn't exist or there is no evidence for it... all information is never known. There was no evidence for Jupiter until evidence was discovered. BEFORE it was discovered, you could certainly argue that Science "has no evidence" for Jupiter... it's a myth, folklore, magic, supernatural belief... nothing in science supports it. But that would have been a faith-based belief and not Science.... Science continues to ask questions and explore possibilities, it doesn't conclude.

 

[Boss]

But we already have all these answers now so...

So we can abandon science and adopt a faith-based belief in what we know as truth.

That's the real danger in your thought process.

You're looking for the religion and myth forum.

I am actually kicking open the door of Science to people who have adopted a belief in their faith. If you can't disprove spiritual nature with physics then you should shut your pie hole and stop pontificating your beliefs. It's not up to me to prove everything Science has not discovered yet. I can't possibly do that and I will never be able to do that. Neither will you... so we have to leave this question about "supernatural Gods" open with regard to Science. It's not disproved, it never can be... so stop assuming it is and get back to practicing SCIENCE!