|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 22, 2006 0:58:11 GMT -5
If a brain did get grown in a dish and it did have a consciousness on it, I would agree that it should be treated as a human.
If you think that the table's color is blue (blue as in the color you see the sky is) from your perspective, then it would be lying to say it is brown. This is if blue for you equals brown for them. They wouldn't know you interpret the color differently since they would identify the color as "blue" also.
To build off of the organic idea though... What if we develop technology to download an organic consciouness from a brain into an electronic device. In this case, the computer isn't a robot, but a copy of another person's identity. Would this be considered a to have rights?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 22, 2006 2:45:33 GMT -5
If you think that the table's color is blue (blue as in the color you see the sky is) from your perspective, then it would be lying to say it is brown. This is if blue for you equals brown for them. They wouldn't know you interpret the color differently since they would identify the color as "blue" also. In this case I meant, if you had figured out that what you saw was different from everybody else. Ie, you saw the table as blue (but would call it brown), but knew that they would see it as brown. In that case would you be lying either way. As far as artificial conciesness goes jeff, I dont think there is any feasible way of getting somebodys memorys thought patterns etc from a brain into a computer. When you think about it it doesnt seem plausible at all. (it would require reading the persons thoughts, or the electric signals that ran through their brain and then somehow translating it into some program, not to mention you would need to build a whole new "computer brain" depending on how their own brain is layed out.) To address emulating human feelings etc. I know that pain can be emulated, but Im not sure if it can ever be "felt" by a computer short of making it organic like Alex said, that is building an actual brain up (with maybe some metal/mechanical parts). At this point though it also requires glands to produce the hormones, and at this level of technology we might as well give him a proper mouth voice box instead of speakers and, soon enough we have a human-made human being. To me it almost seems like a pointless direction. We might as well make cyborgs for half the cost. Also since both of you have kept on assuming that creating some version of this robotic brain is either within or almost within our technological grasp, let me dispel your illusions. The biggest fence at this point to creating a computer based brain is not so much our ability to write certain programs that emulate human behavior or creating the physical hardware for that (although god knows that thats hard enough; Even writing programs to carry on human-like conversations with people is a difficult task that has not yet been flawlessly accomplished) but it is understanding the brain. Our understanding of how the brain really works is so minescule that there is no way we will get anything close to a robotic brain in at least the next 50 years, more likely 100 without some kind of huge breakthrough. So maybe by the end of your lives you will begin to see robots, unless by that time they will have found ways to extend your lifespan too. SPAM
|
|
|
Post by Random on Mar 22, 2006 4:37:52 GMT -5
@alex
with the programming bit, i know you all grew up here (mostly anyways) but people don't seem to be getting what i mean. no matter how complex you make a program, i do not think it will ever be able to truely emulate a human at all, i mean sure, emotions are caused by hormones, but how the hell does the program know when to act like those hormones are being released? sometimes it just happens for no apparent reason, etc. . . etc. . . and when they are, does it take a set of possible reactions and randomly choose one? if thats the case its not anywhere NEAR human. fuck we don't even completely understand ourselves as we are, humanity shouldn't even be THINKING about perfect AI at this point
also, you MIGHT be able to make something that'd fool someone in an online chat or something, but to make an actual robot that would act like a human. . . no matter how realistic it looks, it will always be based on rules and functions, which i believe will clearly seperate whatever AI is developed from actually humans
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 22, 2006 12:06:47 GMT -5
Also since both of you have kept on assuming that creating some version of this robotic brain is either within or almost within our technological grasp, let me dispel your illusions. The biggest fence at this point to creating a computer based brain is not so much our ability to write certain programs that emulate human behavior or creating the physical hardware for that (although god knows that thats hard enough; Even writing programs to carry on human-like conversations with people is a difficult task that has not yet been flawlessly accomplished) but it is understanding the brain. Our understanding of how the brain really works is so minescule that there is no way we will get anything close to a robotic brain in at least the next 50 years, more likely 100 without some kind of huge breakthrough. So maybe by the end of your lives you will begin to see robots, unless by that time they will have found ways to extend your lifespan too. I never assumed that is it is close to our technological abilities. This was meant from the start as a hypothetical exercise, not as a place to discuss engineering of said robot. I don't believe we are anywhere near creating a robot brain either. In this situation, it would be impossible for you to know what you saw was different short of some deity telling you. Like my hypothetical situation above, this isn't possible. Also there has to be some reason why we would see things differently. I think everyone's eyes and brains work similarly so would see the same color.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 22, 2006 12:29:32 GMT -5
As far as the first point Jeff, I wasnt talking about you, I was talking about Alex and Bezzerker. And I realize that the second point is completely hypethetical, but I think that it raises some relevent (although tangent) issues about lying.
SPAM
|
|
Max
Member
Eat rocket, dirty pic stealer
Posts: 177
|
Post by Max on Mar 28, 2006 21:50:45 GMT -5
@alex you MIGHT be able to make something that'd fool someone in an online chat or something, but to make an actual robot that would act like a human. . . no matter how realistic it looks, it will always be based on rules and functions, which i believe will clearly seperate whatever AI is developed from actually humans what is the brain if its not based on rules and functions. the brain is not beyond the laws of physics and chemistry. It would be *incredibly* difficult to find where all the chemicals that make up the brain are at one time (impossible with our current technology), but if we could do that, we could make a virtual clone of the brain without actually understanding how it works. Even things that you described as happening for "no apparent reason" would be caught with this and the computer emulation. Now would this emulation, even if it had no organic portion be human read a bit of Arthur C Clarke's short stories, they have a lot of wierd stuff like this, highly reccommend them
|
|
|
Post by Random on Mar 28, 2006 22:19:55 GMT -5
i sincerely doubt you could actually do that
memory and experience plays too much of a role, and sure, you can make a program do that but not the way people do
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 29, 2006 12:19:25 GMT -5
There are a couple of things. First of all, you are assuming that science can accurately describe everything. Im not religious or anything, but remember that science, as a human creation, can only ever understand what humans can measure and understand. There is a possibility that there may be more to the human brain than what humans can ever understand. Also once we hypothetically know exactly what makes up the brain, recreating it would be no easy task in itself (can you just sort of paste together neurons and cells and hormones? Chances are you would have to grow the brain out, in that case are you really "making a brain" or are you just cultivating a brain, getting stem cells and processes you dont understand do the work for you.) If you think that there are ways to emulate the brains processes using different functions, like replacing neurons with electronics etc, Im not sure thats the case, but with our current knowledge, its difficult to tell. Just to go with your argument though, assuming that is the case, and we end up making a fullly functional electronic replica of the brain based on our limited (and possibly flawed) understanding of the brain, you still have to take into the account that our brain develops and changes to learn and that it changes to think, that the process isnt just electric pusles running through the brain. Will the electronic version create new pathways, will it be fed metal so that it can create new chips in order for it to learn. And will it need the 20 years or so that a person takes to learn everything?
I think that even in the very small chance that we eventually create an electronic replica of the brain, it wont perform close to what the human brain does until we actually fully comprehend how the brain works. Trying to imitate the human brain wont work without understanding it. I also believe that understanding the human brain is like understanding the big bang, we can get close and make educated guesses, but I dont think its possible to ever fully understand it.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 30, 2006 1:30:02 GMT -5
Well, we must be careful. Perhaps our current knowledge does not make for the possibility, but it might be possible in the future. People 2000 years ago could not have imagined machines that could calculate equations or pictures that can move in a television or information moved through invisible waves in the air that go through solid objects. But they are indeed possible.
I'm not saying that I personanlly know how to make an electronic brain. I don't think anyone at this moment knows how to even start it. But I feel that we are all jumping to conclusions to rule it out entirely simply because we cannot imagine it ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Mar 30, 2006 1:38:17 GMT -5
i'm not ruling it out just because i can't imagine it, i'm ruling it out because with computers no matter how much you program, you cannot get it to do anything that you didn't tell it to do really
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 7, 2006 0:28:19 GMT -5
I wasn't speaking for the creation of programmed brains. Just I see many statements here which come close to "that thing can never be fully understood" which I think is too hasty.
Also keep in mind that when we are talking of robotic brains, we are speaking with our current model for computing which rules out any sort of free will for robots. We do not know what may be created in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Apr 7, 2006 14:45:08 GMT -5
The problem with our current model for computing is that there is no way for hormones and "emotions" to conflict with the computer (one of the reasons a computer can never have free will as well). Without the emotions how do you expect a computer to learn like us or even function like us?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 7, 2006 15:27:46 GMT -5
That's the thing. For any real brain, we cannot use our current model. But it seems that in the past posts, everyone is assuming that we do which of course leads to it not being possible.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Apr 7, 2006 21:56:29 GMT -5
Wait... Also keep in mind that when we are talking of robotic brains, we are speaking with our current model for computing which rules out any sort of free will for robots. That's the thing. For any real brain, we cannot use our current model. But it seems that in the past posts, everyone is assuming that we do which of course leads to it not being possible. You seem to be conflicting yourself.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Apr 7, 2006 22:43:02 GMT -5
How? I'm saying in both it isn't possible with our current model?
In the first, I'm saying that our current model rules out free will. In the second, I'm saying that we are using the current model which leads to no free will.
I don't see any contradiction.
|
|