Future Tech ... on nanobots and the human soul in the 26th Century

POSTED BY: Karnejj
UPDATED: Thursday, January 5, 2006 21:49
VIEWED: 13409
PAGE 1 of 1

KARNEJJ

Sunday, January 1, 2006 6:18 AM

A fellow poster suggested this topic may deserve it's own thread.

I submit the following:

In the Firefly 'verse, ships have artificial gravity which can be activated and deactivated upon a whim. The prominent poster, "Citizen" puts forth one theory that supposes that ships can generate and direct the particles which cause gravity - namely, gravitons.

Which led me to state in one thread the following.

I never said that directing gravitons is more difficult than nanobots (although I would conjecture that it is) ... but, I would assert that the military potential for nano tech would get it higher priority than the general theoretical research that it would take to eventually control gravity.

I'm pretty sure our experiments into gravitational manipulation aren't as far along as our current state-of-the-art in nanotech. There are currently micro-scale robots that can do simple things, such as follow a line, by walking in a bi-pedal fashion. There are also Shape-Memory metals that can be actuated by a simple current. Of course there are research into bucky-balls (folded carbon nano-tubes) as mini-computers as well.

I would even submit that the Firefly 'verse has extremely advanced nanobots already. It would be one of the few ways to do the large-scale terraforming that is hinted at. Either small, versatile machinery that can go everywhere or really big complex machinery that handle various portions of the terraforming job....

As for meat computer vs quantum brains, only time will prove who's right, but I think that there can be sentient non-biological machinery. It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity. Passing the Turing test [robots that can fool you well enough to pass as humans] are within reach, I believe. If a robot "acts" like it has a soul so well that we can't be sure ... would you deny that he does have one? Possibly you would ... but not everyone would be so quick to discount it ...

Tracking inputs into a person is pretty easy, ya know ... They come through only a few well-known paths. Touch (as well as smell and taste, I think) passes through the spinal column (for the most part), visual input goes through the optic nerve, and sound through the cochlea.

One interesting argument posed in a book I read could be paraphrased as follows...

We'll assume that you either are a conscious being or not ... no such thing as half a consciousness. John Doe was born a rather sickly child to very wealthy parents. As he grows older he has to have a pacemaker installed. Later, his hearing fails, but, fortunately, he is eligible for a new operation that places a device into his ear that stimulates his hearing nerves in response to sound. Later, he notices his eyesight isn't as great as it once was. He decides to have the inside of one of his eyes augmented with a high-tech hi-res camera that triples the clarity of things he sees and allows him to see far (like a telescope) and gives him a little ability to magnify things as well. Unfortunately, trying to concentrate on those advanced functions causes him dizziness due the strain. The doctors give him a visual scene processing computer the size of a credit card that he wears in his pocket. It communicates with the camera wirelessly and automatically highlights important objects that he's looking at. It even does neat things such as give him details about people and buildings he sees. Such as their birthday, favorites, and how they met, etc. He eventually adds more abilities to the card. He has it process sounds as well. One day he loses the card and can't stand the loss of the extra processing. He tells the doctors to just replace those parts of his brain and implant the machinery in his head. He's got a lot of silicon and metal thinking for him now ... is he still the same John Doe ... just better? Of course, all of his friends say he's the same ... he just can "remember" more about the people he meets now, and can hear/see much better than he used to be able to. He's even

KARNEJJ

Sunday, January 1, 2006 6:21 AM

Citizen .. you stated that

Quote:

Karnejj:
You make a convincing argument but the truth is in the details. Not once has 'John Doe' had his brain removed. His essence lies within, and that is never touched.

But in that long thread you may have missed where I suppose that small pieces throughout the entire brain are replaced by machinery ... one bit at a time. I highlight it in the above reposting ... and where in the replacement process does he lose enough essence to be considered 'just a non-sentient machine.' I would answer never. [I *DO* believe that the original John Doe does die somewhere along the process, but that the final robot clone is a new 'person' still capable of just as much sentience as the original-human John Doe.]

Quote:

I don’t agree. There’s more to life than a simulation. At least a simulation that we can envision.

And that's where we differ. Unfortunate as it may be ... I think we ARE just programs run on a meat computer

Complex programming, no doubt .... but not beyond *EXACT* replication and simulation on a silicon machine. You appear to believe that the quantum effects that have been discovered in the brain have a large effect on the overall programming. I believe they do not, and even if they did, that similar effects could still be achieved within a machine. That would leave no place for our coveted sentience/consciousness (even soul?!) to hide ....

So, if that is all true, there are only 2 possiblilties: A) even the machines that we will eventually be able to create must too be sentient or B) we, humans, are not truly sentient either.

As for nano-tech .. you're probably right about the fact that mini machines have their little cogs break and burn-out very quickly. But, that's exactly the reason that nano-tech research aims to create one-piece machines (complex single molecules) which can work together to achieve some various goals. Much like simple neurons can cluster together to form an amazingly complex thing we call the human brain.

GUNRUNNER

Sunday, January 1, 2006 6:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I would even submit that the Firefly 'verse has extremely advanced nanobots already. It would be one of the few ways to do the large-scale terraforming that is hinted at. Either small, versatile machinery that can go everywhere or really big complex machinery that handle various portions of the terraforming job....

To Terraform you need big machines. Nanobots are just too small for the job (ironic isn't it?)

Think of it this way, you need to build a normal human sized bridge across a river. There are two teams one is of normal humans the other or 200 foot tall giants. Who will get the job done faster?

Besides why do you need to use nanobots to terraform? What you need to do is change the atmosphere, purfy the water (if none present bring some IE crash some comets) and transplant topsoil for farming.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Sunday, January 1, 2006 6:54 AM

Ahh.... you limit the nanobots too severely.

The ultimate goal of nanorobotics would be to allow them to merge Voltron-like into a big machine that could build the bridge in the conventional way that you'd like to see it built. Or they could form into whatever other big machine that you could want.

But, if it were up to the nanobots, they'd form together to truss it up and then pass materials from whatever source along to the area where the bridge was needed and deposit them in the correct place. Then swarm off to another area.

What better way to control the atmosphere than to have miniature machines floating around in the stratosphere catalyzing various reactions as needed ....?

Why use nanobots? 'Cuz building one little thing that can copy itself and create a batch of itself is easier than building huge construction equipment.

Why NOT use nanobots? ... well, there is always the problem of them malfunctioning and not knowing when to stop copying itself ... that would lead to them becoming a huge environmental cancer that would destroy a whole planet ...

GUNRUNNER

Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:03 AM

But is it faster? How long would it take for the nanobots to build themselves to sufficent numbers before they could work? If you have giant (or in this case normal sized) building machines constructing terraforming machines you build one machine you can start terrforming on a large scale right away- if you have nanobots it takes them millions if not billions of replications to work at that scale. Both systems take equaly as long to build a terrforming unit the big ones win the race.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:13 AM

My guess is that the nanobots are ready faster and are more resilient than your big machine.

We would both need raw supplies. That's a given.

You would need to build all of your circuitry and moving parts and eventually assemble all of that together.

I need only make one nanobot successfully and drop it into a soup of the raw materials. After that it will make another nanobot. Those 2 bots will make 2 more bots. Those 4 bots make 4 more ....

While they're doing that ... I can go make my next nanobot for the next planet, while you're still putting together the machine for the first planet ... The autonomy (self-direction) of the nanobot is the key.

What happens when a piece of your machine breaks? You have to find and replace the problem. A nanobot breaks and it'll just get cannabalized into a new bot or some other project ...

GUNRUNNER

Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:31 AM

The nanobot needs to build another of its kind with the same scale of tools that a human would build a machine. Maybe terraforming is too complex of an example since humans have not really reached that scale of technology. Lets go with something really simple...

... you have two people, lets say clones- equal in every way. You want to kill them. because he is going to start a fight with you or he bothers you, or if there's a (wo)man, or if you're gettin' paid... The first guy you decide to go all Dirty Harry up on his ass and use a .44 Magnum. (Go ahead make my day PUNK!) One shot to the head and he drops like a slab of meat. Now assuming the 2nd guy didn't see you blow his copies head off with a .44 Magnum and runs for his life, you have a gun that shoots nano-bullets (bullets in nano scale). Each of those bullets would only destroy a few cells of his body with each shot and assuming that for each shot you make the next shot has double the nano-bullets how long will it take to kill guy #2? After a dozen shots he might feel a sting. After a hundred a slight burning, after that he might just beat the crud out of you and kill you with that .44 magnum.

Anything a nanobot can do a big machine can do on a larger scale, and larger scale = faster in 99% of cases (the 1% being cases that take place on nano scale).

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Sunday, January 1, 2006 3:19 PM

You're still not seeing the ultimate potential for nanobots. You're still thinking "mini-independant-robo-guys." You have to think more "smart Voltron-bacteria." It is essential that nanobots be able to copy themselves AND that they be able to work together.

Say Guy #2 doesn't run .. instead he gets his bucket of nanobots and takes his remote control and pushes a few buttons. The nanobots rise out of the bucket and merge together to form bulletproof armor that covers Guy #2. Say, he pushes a few more buttons and some more bots get together to form Jayne's good-ole Vera with other bots forming .50 caliber slugs ... whereupon he asks Guy #1, "Do you feel lucky punk? ... do ya??!" ... That first shot is gonna do more than sting a little .....

The ultimate goal of nanotech would be to create little machines that can replicate themselves like bacteria, but also can work together to form useful machinery, like (re-usuable) animal stem cells. Have them able to respond to some sort of control device - chemical, radio, laser, whatever ... They should probably also be able to pass along signals like neurons do.

Remember that bacteria are able to create complex machinery (more bacteria) on their small scale and have complete copies within a couple hours or less.

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 1, 2006 5:05 PM

Okay firstly on the subject of Nanobots:

Karnejj, you seem too want to elevate Nanobot abilities into the magical, being capable of pretty much anything, at a scale far smaller than anything we can currently produce.

The most advanced Nano scale machines we have are cogs that wear out quickly. When speaking of Nano motors modern technology is referring to motors a little larger than a match head, although small this is still far larger than anything that could be inserted into the blood stream. Likewise we currently can only build the simplest of self replicating machines, and that's on the macro scale.

The thing is Nanobots aren't actually a part of real nanotechnology research; they're a construct of pure Science Fiction. Consider:

Quote:
From CRN (Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology):
The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things “atom-by-atom” by molecular manufacturing. Studies indicate that most people don't know the difference between molecular manufacturing, Nano scale technology, and nanobots. Confusion about terms, fuelled by science fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology. Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing, but continued misunderstanding may hinder research into highly beneficial technologies and discussion of the real dangers.
...
Both scientists and the public have gotten the idea that molecular manufacturing requires the use of nanobots, and they may criticize or fear it on that basis. The truth is less sensational, but its implications5 are equally compelling.

http://www.crnano.org/BD-Nanobots.htm

Further more we can't build a macro scale machine with the adaptability of the Nanobots you suggest, so how do we fit this considerable processing power and memory storage into a neat Nano package?

Now I'm not saying that someday Nanobots won't be within our grasp, but by the shear fact that in comparison to modern technology Nanobots seem like magic it's a long way off.

The second question is on the nature of the brain.

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity.

I don't believe that Human's alone have sentient consciousness or any of the other things we like to think makes us unique. Most animals can show a certain degree of consciousness.
What I do believe is that there is more to the Biological brain than simply a meat computer. There's persuasive evidence that Quantum Mechanics plays a role in consciousness, something that can't be modelled.

Now remember that a computer is simply a calculator, identical to the basic concept of Babbage’s Difference and Analytical engines. They take two inputs for any particular operation, perform that operation, and output a result. This gives rise to the well known input process output diagram:
INPUT -> PROCESS -> OUTPUT
Its true modern systems, for instance SSE instructions are SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) but these are merely a CISC optimisation attempts, i.e. using fewer instructions to submit more data.

Now the brain doesn't work this way. Beyond the obvious that the Brain is analogue rather than digital, conceptually the brain can work on an infinite number of inputs simultaneously. A computer is a centralised processing unit, in fact the computer itself is the main memory and the CPU unit, the rest is peripherals and interface devices. The Brain is very much more a decentralised processing unit. Sure there are areas in the brain that deal with specific things, but any one Neuron can communicate with any other Neuron or Neurons (albeit not directly) in order to function.

Getting back to the fact that a computer is a calculator all it can do is simulate this interaction. Again it's true that neural nets have some success with AI and Learning programs, but is this true learning and true AI?
Yes
Do these, or could these programs experience consciousness?
I don't think s

KARNEJJ

Sunday, January 1, 2006 6:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Okay firstly on the subject of Nanobots:

Karnejj, you seem too want to elevate Nanobot abilities into the magical, being capable of pretty much anything, at a scale far smaller than anything we can currently produce.

Well ... yeah... "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." [Arthur C.
Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)] ... Take a kid's walkie-talkie to Renaissance Italy or ... take a chess playing machine to 18th century New York. Take that new prosthetic arm that can be controlled to feel and pick up things from an amputated stump back to World War I.

Quote:

The most advanced Nano scale machines we have are cogs that wear out quickly. When speaking of Nano motors modern technology is referring to motors a little larger than a match head, although small this is still far larger than anything that could be inserted into the blood stream. Likewise we currently can only build the simplest of self replicating machines, and that's on the macro scale.

Further more we can't build a macro scale machine with the adaptability of the Nanobots you suggest, so how do we fit this considerable processing power and memory storage into a neat Nano package?

Now I'm not saying that someday Nanobots won't be within our grasp, but by the shear fact that in comparison to modern technology Nanobots seem like magic it's a long way off.

Work in the direction I have been implying has already begun ... http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nGB3nWOzK3YJ:www.nanotech-now.com
/utility-fog.htm+fog+nanobots&hl=en&lr=lang_en
and
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-qAUlfGlyz4J:discuss.foresight.or
g/~josh/Ufog.html+utility+fog&hl=en&lr=lang_en
and prototypes at
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:hPgS28iOeekJ:nanodot.org/articles
/01/02/04/100216.shtml+utility+fog&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Quote:

The second question is on the nature of the brain.
Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
It's nice to think that consciousness is specific to humans by virtue of our meat, but I think it's only ego and vanity.

I don't believe that Human's alone have sentient consciousness or any of the other things we like to think makes us unique. Most animals can show a certain degree of consciousness.

Eeek ... a squirrel more sentient than Star Trek's "Data" ... that's

Quote:

What I do believe is that there is more to the Biological brain than simply a meat computer. There's persuasive evidence that Quantum Mechanics plays a role in consciousness, something that can't be modelled.

Now remember that a computer is simply a calculator,
.
.
.
INPUT -> PROCESS -> OUTPUT

Now the brain doesn't work this way. Beyond the obvious that the Brain is analogue rather than digital, conceptually the brain can work on an infinite number of inputs simultaneously.
.
.
.
but any one Neuron can communicate with any other Neuron or Neurons (albeit not directly) in order to function.

It seems that you agree that computers can simulate this in software ... why discount that it can be done physically, as well (not that I believe it's strictly necessary, ... but for the sake of argument). There are what ... 4 billion devices connected to the internet. What if we add a program to each of these computers that allows them to communicate in a way that more closely models the way neurons work? This is still a far cry from 100 billion neurons and the quantum effects therein (not to mention lag throughout the internet), but it would possibly allow us enough processing to simulate the personality of a human.

Quote:

Getting back to the fact that a computer is a calculator all it can do is simulate this interaction. Again it's true that neural nets have some success with AI and Learning programs, but is this true learning and true AI?
Yes
Do these, or could these programs experience consciousness?
I don't think so. We can't program or simulate consciousness; I believe it's an emergent pr

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:08 PM

The Magic comment was basically trying to say it was further in the future than you seem to imagine. Would, with the possible exception of the walkie talkie, your examples actually appear to be all that fantastical. They had Prosthetic limbs and the basic building blocks of the technology. Now if a cloud of Nanites suddenly formed in front of them...

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Links

I see nothing there which couldn't be considered science fiction. These robots require miniature gearing and motors which are far from current capabilities. The prototype is 5cm, which doesn't seem to be exactly Nano scale

. It's an interesting concept, yet a concept is all it is, it's not much more developed than the Alcubierre warp.

Quote:
Eeek ... a squirrel more sentient than Star Trek's "Data" ... that's

Erm, I don't know how to break this too you, erm, well best to come right out and type it, Data isn't real, he's a guy who wears too much make-up

.

Quote:
It seems that you agree that computers can simulate this in software ... why discount that it can be done physically, as well (not that I believe it's strictly necessary, ... but for the sake of argument).

Actually I discount it as anything more than a simulation, for similar reasons as I discount the wooden Automata of the 19th century as being anything more than a simulation of life. Some of the Animatronics we have around today are incredibly life-like, am I too believe they experience life the same as the animals they are modelled after?

Quote:
There are what ... 4 billion devices connected to the internet. What if we add a program to each of these computers that allows them to communicate in a way that more closely models the way neurons work? This is still a far cry from 100 billion neurons and the quantum effects therein (not to mention lag throughout the internet), but it would possibly allow us enough processing to simulate the personality of a human.

What you'd have is a large and complex Neural Net, which just like software driven ones would share some of the properties of the Human brain, such as learning and pattern recognition, but nothing besides.

Quote:
Ahhh... but why can't billions of processors be lumped together similar to the brain. One of today's most complex computers is the SGI Altix which is powered by a total of 10240 Intel® Itanium® 2 processors. And these are full blown CPUs.

The Atrix is a cluster server which is actually more analogous with a group of computers linked via a network. Also it is actually the CPU which is the computer; the rest of the machine is the box it sits in. The CPUs are not linked anything like the way Neurons are, they can't share working memory, or interoperate. Given modern computing architecture the CPU's will operate independently on separate threads, not together.

Quote:
If we were simply modelling neurons, they'd only have to be able to do two calculations (one being: "fire or not fire") and it would have to store up to about 1000 or so addresses of neighbors which it sends a signal to if it does fire.

This shows one of the major differences between a Neuron and a CPU. Firstly the signals passed between neurons are Analogue and weighted depending on which dendrites received the initial signal. The strength of the incoming signal is also taken into account, both when deciding whether or not to fire but what strength the resulting signal should have. Add to this that Neurons have direct links as well as indirect, which allow the generation and propagation of action potentials.

A Neuron can also be linked to tens of thousands of other Neurons, with the average being around 7000, In comparison the SGI Altrix has no interconnectivity or interoperability between either the CPU's of a single node, or the node's themselves.

Quote:
These processors could be made quite small and would certainly be subject to quantum effects as well. And that's only today's technology.

A CPU to

KARNEJJ

Monday, January 2, 2006 1:04 AM

I suppose we just differ in what we believe is possible.

On the subject of nanobots, well, the concepts are there, and in 500 years, I would like to think that the field would be heavily researched. There are quite a large number of obstacles to overcome, so my guesses here are pretty shaky. However, onto something I do feel more convicted about ....

I personally think compelling unprogrammed behavior can emerge from a complex (but quite acheivable) software program. And that "Data" will one day exist (and not just be a guy with make-up ...). However, you seem to discount totally the possibility of sentience from software alone, so let's stick to what can be done in hardware.

Most research I've seen indicates about 1000 connections per neuron, but even if the number is 7000 interconnections per node, it seems to be well within reach extrapolating current technology. The only limitational difference between the internet and the human brain is that the internet is too large to account for the quantum effects that you maintain to hold the key to sentience/consciousness. I believe this scale issue could be solved without any new radical advances, and just with the expected improvements in the current methods of processor construction.

Neurons operate in a fairly simplistic fashion. They accept inputs of various types and may or may not send out a signal in response. That signal, if sent, is sent to certain various neighbors in varying strengths. (Ignoring for now the issue of updating connectivity - rewiring - which would ONLY add one or two more calculations,) that means only one calculation and storing the address of neighbors. If done efficiently, one could assume that it would take roughly 16kilobytes of memory space and one simple dedicated calculation unit per neuron. That would be a fairly small processor, so bundling 512 "neurons" per chip should be feasible. Put, say, 64 chips per board (computer) and you'd already have hi-speed interconnectivity between 32,000 neurons. And the connection speed would be over 500 times faster than the chemical signal propagation in the brain. It's conjectured that most neurons in a healthy human brain are unused, so let's assume we need 30% of the 100 billion human neurons to achieve similar results in creativity and intelligence. That means you need about a million "lobes" (processor boards) to recreate the interconnectivy of the human brain, with silicon neurons small enough to even be subject the the occasional quantum weirdness. I'd say it's well within reach if IBM, NASA, or the National Security Agency wanted to plunk down the cash to have it built. (And I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA has done it already.)

That's just what can be done with today's silicon. We haven't gotten to the silicon of the year 2020; I've already mentioned bucky-balls, and you don't wanna get me started on man-made quantum computers (ion traps / quantum dots / etc...); some researchers have even found a way to store 2 bits per atom!

Really, I still think all the talk of hardware is irrelevent. I firmly stand by the supposition that sentience can surface from sufficiently sophisticated software [yeah for alliteration ]. I've even got some stuff designed and coded up myself. My old college psych professor seemed impressed with what I've termed my "Model of Natural Thought Process Pathways." So, maybe in 10 years or so, I'll actually be the one who gets to provide you with the computer program that becomes golf-happy of it's own accord .... (of *COURSE* I wouldn't cheat and plug that in anywhere .. no .. NEVER! )

GUNRUNNER

Monday, January 2, 2006 3:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Say Guy #2 doesn't run .. instead he gets his bucket of nanobots and takes his remote control and pushes a few buttons. The nanobots rise out of the bucket and merge together to form bulletproof armor that covers Guy #2. Say, he pushes a few more buttons and some more bots get together to form Jayne's good-ole Vera with other bots forming .50 caliber slugs ... whereupon he asks Guy #1, "Do you feel lucky punk? ... do ya??!" ... That first shot is gonna do more than sting a little .....

Is that supposed to impress me? Modern Weapons Tech can do stuff like that! Take an SM Series 'Standard' Missile, standard armament on US Navy Arlegh Burke, Ticonderoga, Oliver Hazard Perry, Kidd, California and others I'm forgetting class warships (Also on some NATO and US Allied Warships.) It can be used defensively to shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles ranging from old subsonic Silkworms to high tech sea skimming supersonic "streakiers" like the SS-N-22 Sunburn. It can shoot down aircraft, it can be used against surface ships, it can attack land targets, it can shoot down ICBMs in space, if you are feeling real evil you can light shit on fire with the guidance RADARs, it even makes Julian fries and if you order now with your credit card will throw in a Tomahawk cruise missile free! With a Standard missile you and a reliable ready weapon that can be fired in seconds (you don’t even need to push a button when the system is set for auto) and can be stored in the launch tube for months with nothing but occasional diagnostics, while if you had nano-bots you would need to wait for them to make a comparable missile, run a test to make sure they did it right, synchronize the missile to your radar and … oh wait that SS-N-22 just sunk your ship…

Yes nanobots are powerful but when you need something done quick and on a large scale they aren’t the tools to use.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Monday, January 2, 2006 4:07 AM

That's not quite fair ... the weapons that "sink my ship" had to have been made at some time too ...

You just might be impressed to see the exploded bits from your missiles be smelted back down by the nanobots and put back into place to repair the holes..

GUNRUNNER

Monday, January 2, 2006 5:10 AM

Cruise missiles are cheap and can be built by the hundreds ahead of time. Nanobots are expensive and difficult to produce, making sufficient nanobots to build one missile is a time consuming process as is building the missile its self. Even if nanobots could built them faster than factories weapons tend to have a long shelf life, in the Gulf War the US Navy used shells and bullets from WWII, in the Falklands the Royal Navy used torpedoes from WWII (and arguably won the war with them). You can build weapons on demand but it takes twice as long or you can have weapons built at the normal rate and just store them for when conflict comes (which could be anytime) I would take the pre-built weapons. Having a system that can make weapons on demand only to have them sit around for years hardly makes sense. A unit cut off from resupply would find it useful but a proper force has large mobile stockpiles of ordnance at its disposal that has been built to spec and checked constantly for quality.

BTW would you really want to incorporate potentially dangerous missile debris in to you're ship's hull? Imagine if the missile explosion damages the nanobot circuitry and they take bits unexploded explosives from the missiles warhead and try to build a wall out of it? At a minimum you risk a secondary explosion. If they smelt down an aluminum missile wing and put it in to your damaged steel bulkhead you may have weaker bulkhead.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Monday, January 2, 2006 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Cruise missiles are cheap and can be built by the hundreds ahead of time. Nanobots are expensive and difficult to produce, making sufficient nanobots to build one missile is a time consuming process as is building the missile its self.

Well ... of course it'd be silly to use the nanobots to make missiles out of, I was just pointing out the unfairness in production time in your example. If you really, really, really wanted to use nanobots in war.... You could really do some ugly things. I'm pretty sure nano-war would be considered a worse atrocity than using nukes (which means the US would jump at the chance to be first

.. funny how we have more nukes than any other country in the world, are the ONLY country that has proven that we WILL USE them

, and YET STILL demand other countries de-arm

... it's good to be on the side with the upper-hand

, but I guess that's another thread ...)

Assuming your enemy doesn't have nano-tech, it'd be conceivable to just program them with the geography of the enemy country and have them assimilate any biological material they find. The bots would float over the country and "eat" all the humans and other critters they come across and use those materials to multiply. It'd be something like a slightly more safer (and totally nastier) form of biological warfare. Just like disease though, it could conceivably backfire. You'd likely want military units (bases/satellites) positioned around their country as a back-up line of containment. They could pump out an "ARE YOU THERE?" code and then a "DIE!" response to kill off nanobots that were leaving their geographic limits.

If the enemy does have comparable nano-tech, then you'd have to blanket your own country with "Defense Nanobots" first, to make sure they don't capture and reprogram your own bots to use against you or to nano-battle their 'bot swarms.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 2, 2006 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
On the subject of Nanobots, well, the concepts are there, and in 500 years, I would like to think that the field would be heavily researched. There are quite a large number of obstacles to overcome, so my guesses here are pretty shaky. However, onto something I do feel more convicted about ....

Very possibly, but remember concepts can be around long before the technology (if the technology ever materialises). Leonardo Da Vinci created concepts of gliders in 1490, yet no one built one till the late 1800s. Gliders are far simpler tech, even relatively speaking, than Nanobots.

Quote:
I personally think compelling unprogrammed behavior can emerge from a complex (but quite acheivable) software program.

There's reasons you can't do it in software. One in a very real way a software program is limited to concurrent serial processing, the Brain is not, and in a very real way I believe this concurrent processing is also responsible for the emergent property of consciousness. This IS not possible without the CPU's to back it up. Remember also that computer software has a certain level of precision inherent when dealing with real numbers, which would prevent it from dealing with the range of values dealt with by the Neuron. This would mean that no matter how convincing the behaviour of the system it would still be only an approximation of consciousness, not that property itself. Surely real consciousness must arise as a property of a real-world physical system?

Computers are calculators, they use mathematics to produce a convincing approximation or simulation of real phenomena, but it is just a simulation. A computer can simulate gravity within the bounds of the simulation, but it can not create gravity. What I mean is that a simulation of consciousness may give a convincing outward appearance of consciousness, but by the virtue of it being a mathematical simulation it cannot be true consciousness.

Quote:
Most research I've seen indicates about 1000 connections per neuron, but even if the number is 7000 interconnections per node, it seems to be well within reach extrapolating current technology. The only limitational difference between the internet and the human brain is that the internet is too large to account for the quantum effects that you maintain to hold the key to sentience/consciousness. I believe this scale issue could be solved without any new radical advances, and just with the expected improvements in the current methods of processor construction.

A Neuron has three different way's of communicating with other cells/Neurons. These are the Dendrites, Axons, and Soma. The Dendrites are usually where incoming signals are received, and there can be a 1000 of these, which enables connections to tens of thousands of other cells. Now Axons are usually transmitters, but can also accept incoming singles. There are often also connections to the Cell body (Soma) as well. In total there is, on average, 7,000 synapses for an individual Neuron. This is an Average, not a maximum, and in small children it is believed that there may be a total of 1,000Trillion Synapses, which is an average of 10,000 Synapses per Neuron. Again an average, not a maximum.

The physical structure of the Dendrites also effects how the signals from other Neurons are integrated (this is the weighting I alluded to earlier). This integration depends on both the summation of stimuli that arrive in rapid succession as well as the excitatory and inhibitory inputs from separate branches.

Now add to this the fact that Neurons actively include feedback from their own output via the Axons, with action potentials and voltage gated ion channels, this sort of feedback (or indeed any) is not present in any IC currently in production, or even planned.

You seem to be working from a false precept that we merely need processing power to 'ape' a brain. This is simply not the case; we need a vast amount of true interconnectivity, and dynamic interconnectivity.

GUNRUNNER

Monday, January 2, 2006 5:16 PM

The thing about nano-war is that if nations can’t use them on a tactical scale they won’t put much funding in to the weapons. Even NBC weapons are geared towards tactical combat, strategic uses are just political (even ICBMs are considered tactical in many respects). You have to assume that enemy units will have their own defensive nanobots as you said and any use would just piss off the other side and bring the international community down on you if you kill lots of civilians. On today’s battlefield chemical and biological weapons are really useless against modern militaries like those in NATO, militaries like Iran and Iraq during their war are susceptible due to the total lack of proper functioning gear. Their only use would be to force the enemy to take shelter as you launch a blitzkrieg and if you try that on land occupied by non-combatants well you are not going to be liked by the rest of the world. Have you read Tom Clancy’s ‘Red Storm Rising’? It deals a bit with NBC warfare and how to use it for tactical level operations in the beginning of the book.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Monday, January 2, 2006 5:50 PM

Arghh, CITIZEN! Seems you've redefined sentience now

Before, it seemed you'd be satisfied with considering sentient any being capable of displaying compelling, novel unprogrammed behaviors. This, I still firmly believe, can be done with software only, mostly independant of the architecture of the hardware. Of course, the software would be complex and there would be a lot of concurrency necessary. So, either it'd need a fair amount of concurrency in hardware or sufficiently fast single processors capable of simulating concurrency (as most computers today). In other words, you'd need a bitchin' system to run "SoftHuman 2020," but that system need not have a billion linked processors.

Now, however, you seem to believe that sentience is basically defined as an emergent property of extreme inter-connectivity in adaptive analog circuits.

If the hardware is a must, then .. as for floating point vs. binary calculations, ... well, even in nature, there is no such thing as "real numbers" or "floating point numbers of infinite precision." Even nature is discrete or "binary" in that the smallest units are still limited by Planck's constant... (ie. the "quanta" in quantum physics).

I'm not sure how adamant you are on true sentience requiring quadrillionth place (or better) precision in signal calculations, but I'll assume that you wouldn't make it a strict requirement.

Other than that, the system I described above should be a fair approximation of the hardware of the human brain. Self-feedback is easily achieved as a low-weight address of itself stored in my electronic "neuron." I still don't see any insurmountable obstacles in the signal propagation, and extrapolating out CURRENT tech to the year 2020 would mean that it would only require about 2000 multi-proc boards, which is probably about the size of a large van.

If we can keep Moore's 'law' going until 2030 (which is questionable) then we can get my design proposal minituraized down to about the size of a 27-inch TV or so. Keep it going much further and we can build "Data" in this century alone. Seems kinda pessimistic to believe we can't achieve this by the 26th century.

Again, there are still more radical techs that I haven't really touched on, which could potentially more easily fit (and even exceed) the hardware requirements you have.

KARNEJJ

Monday, January 2, 2006 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
The thing about nano-war is that if nations can’t use them on a tactical scale they won’t put much funding in to the weapons. Even NBC weapons are geared towards tactical combat, strategic uses are just political (even ICBMs are considered tactical in many respects). You have to assume that enemy units will have their own defensive nanobots as you said and any use would just piss off the other side and bring the international community down on you if you kill lots of civilians.

I think the precedent of the indiscriminate "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" kinda contradict the nicey-nice world you're describing. Whispered opinions aside, most countries don't have too many bad things to say very loudly about a country that can obliterate them in ugly ways.

Even barring indiscrimate killing, if a nanobot can be programmed with the geographical borders of a country, it'd be just as simple to limit them to the location of a particular enemy military installation.

Most countries would rather kill the human enemy and preserve their buildings and other material, but if you wanted a clean war, you could theoretically program the bots to eat glass and metal instead. That would limit them to destroying enemy equipment and be "world-friendly."

CITIZEN

Monday, January 2, 2006 8:44 PM

It's not just displaying those characteristics, but displaying them of its own volition. The creature from the game Black and White showed some interesting emergent characteristics, similar to what may be considered consciousness, yet wasn't. The creature would run off and jump in the ocean if set on fire, despite not being directly programmed to do so. Also the creature would eat its own arm if it got hungry enough, but it wasn't conscious. It didn't suddenly decide to play golf. It didn't stop playing its part in the game because it wanted more out of life. It wasn't conscious.

Now the telling thing is simulating concurrency. Simulated concurrency is the Time-share scheme we have currently running under multi-threaded environments such as Windows. It is not concurrency. It is also important to remember that windows threads rarely interact, and even when they do they must be synchronised, and they're interaction is still limited (based largely on memory mapped files, for instance).

Simulated concurrency is not as good as concurrency. The underlying operations are performed serially, the interactions are performed serially, and the results are those of a serial operation, not a parallel one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Now, however, you seem to believe that sentience is basically defined as an emergent property of extreme inter-connectivity in adaptive analog circuits.

There's more too it than that. I certainly don't believe it arises from a greater number of clock cycles within an advanced calculating device

.

Quote:
I'm not sure how adamant you are on true sentience requiring quadrillionth place (or better) precision in signal calculations, but I'll assume that you wouldn't make it a strict requirement.

If it is anything but exactingly precise (i.e. no fuzziness inherent within the values) then it is merely a simulation with an acceptable value of precision. I can fly to Jupiter in Celestia, but I'm still waiting for Discovery 1.

Quote:
Other than that, the system I described above should be a fair approximation of the hardware of the human brain. Self-feedback is easily achieved as a low-weight address of itself stored in my electronic "neuron." I still don't see any insurmountable obstacles in the signal propagation, and extrapolating out CURRENT tech to the year 2020 would mean that it would only require about 2000 multi-proc boards, which is probably about the size of a large van.

Given the fact that you believe the Human brain can be reproduced on a silicon computer I don't understand why you wish to simplify the Brain model in to something more desirable for a Binary system? Further more the Brain is not a computer. A computer is a device capable of processing and storing information in accordance with a predetermined set of instructions. That's not the Brain.

Quote:
Again, there's still more radical techs that I haven't really touched on, which could potentially more easily fit (and even exceed) the hardware requirements you have.

Yes, it's around today. It's called the biological brain

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

CITIZEN

Monday, January 2, 2006 9:44 PM

World War II is a very different time to today.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed (well Nagasaki was bombed because Kokura had too much cloud cover, how's that for the dictate of fate?) as a show of force not only to the Japanese, in order to end the war early, but also the Russians, with whom relations were getting strained. Hey it worked, it was a big reason Stalin wanted to produce his own weapons, and it sure helped kick start the cold war.

Also it was kind of an 'experiment'. No one knew what would happen to people in a nuclear blast. Hell while your dropping one might as well do some research, right?

Those concerns aren't around today. Also modern warfare has changed a great deal.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

KARNEJJ

Monday, January 2, 2006 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's not just displaying those characteristics, but displaying them of its own volition. The creature from the game Black and White showed some interesting emergent characteristics, similar to what may be considered consciousness, yet wasn't.

And it's my contention that (just as humans), a sufficiently advanced computer program would be self-aware (conscious/sentient/etc). You like to believe that the key is in the hardware architecture, whereas I like to think that it lies in the learning and information assimilation methods only. I could diagram it as follows

XXX ---> advanced learning and efficient info processing ---> sentience

"XXX" in my diagram could be your biological brain OR my software program.

In other words, I think the architecture of the brain only leads to the learning, but in the end that it is the learning that can give rise to sentience, but that biological neurons are NOT a strict requirement - they are ONLY ONE method of getting the advanced learning which is required. I would contend that your belief in the causality of self-awareness could be flawed.

Let's see ... if there is an error in cause and effect, then the following argument should work ...
It would be possible to dispute you by going through case studies of people who have suffered brain damage. Would it be possible to find someone who has suffered minor damage, but is no longer a self-aware entity? People in vegetative states, perhaps? For the most part, some of these people's neural connectivity is largely undisturbed, and still have "zillions" of interconnections between neurons, and yet show no self-awareness. Could you dispute me in such a manner? That is, could you find a highly intelligent entity that is NOT self-aware? So far, anything that we describe as intelligent, we also attribute some measure of self-awareness to. Dophins, apes, and even dogs.

Quote:

Simulated concurrency is not as good as concurrency. The underlying operations are performed serially, the interactions are performed serially, and the results are those of a serial operation, not a parallel one.
Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Now, however, you seem to believe that sentience is basically defined as an emergent property of extreme inter-connectivity in adaptive analog circuits.

There's more too it than that. I certainly don't believe it arises from a greater number of clock cycles within an advanced calculating device .

Well .. I don't think either of us believe that all you need is a faster computer ... [But, I do think running a copy of "SoftHuman 2020" would require a rather fast computer.]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not sure how adamant you are on true sentience requiring quadrillionth place (or better) precision in signal calculations, but I'll assume that you wouldn't make it a strict requirement.

If it is anything but exactingly precise (i.e. no fuzziness inherent within the values) then it is merely a simulation with an acceptable value of precision.

I can't dispute that, but that's getting pretty far from our issue ... even our brains (and, indeed, everything in the universe as it is currently understood) is digital. How many "bits" of precision would you suppose are needed for sentience is my question... If you beleive it is much more than 512 bits of precision or so, then you will have defeated my design being built using current technology.

Quote:

Further more the Brain is not a computer. A computer is a device capable of processing and storing information in accordance with a predetermined set of instructions. That's not the Brain.

You're right .. I haven't disputed that. But, if you think sentience lies in high-levels of interconnectivity with nodes that are small enough to be subject to quantum effects, then THAT, I believe, CAN be reproduced in hardware.

If you think that sentience lies elsewhere, then you haven't told me where that w

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 2, 2006 11:05 PM

The US is not the country with the most nuclear warheads. That distinction goes to Russia, both as the Russian Republic and the Soviet Union, and it has held that distinction since ~1975. The US nuclear arsenal increased to a maximum about 30,000 warheads in ~1965 and then began to fall off as the US started disarming. The Soviets on the other hand increased their arsenal continuously to ~45,000 warheads, until they were bankrupt in late 80s and began disarming. Today the US holds a total nuclear arsenal of 10,000 warheads, and Russia, about 20,000. The only strategic munitions category in which the US holds a small numerical advantage over the Russians is in submarine launched ICBMs, but only recently, and probably more due to the Russians inability to maintain an active submarine fleet then anything intentional.

Also the Soviets had the largest nuclear weapons. The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was a 58 mt Russian whopper. Yet despite its size it was actually a scaled down test version of the actual 150 mt weapon. By comparison the largest weapon the US tested was the 15 mt Bravo, which was actually larger then expected(almost 700 times larger then the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima).

And yes, it is sometimes good to be on the side that has the upper-hand, but more important still it is better that the side with the upper-hand be a country with liberal and democratic tendencies and not like those the US would prefer disarmed. Both the Soviets and the Nazis held the upper hand militarily, but it wasn't good to be on their side.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The US is not the country with the most nuclear warheads. That distinction goes to Russia, both as the Russian Republic and the Soviet Union, and it has held that distinction since ~1975. The US nuclear arsenal increased to a maximum about 30,000 warheads in ~1965 and then began to fall off as the US started disarming

At $400 bucks per toilet handle ... are you sure of that?

Just kidding ... I guess the number of nukes became irrelevent once we had enough to destroy the entire planet more than a couple of times over ... we're still at enough for - what is it? - 80+ times now?

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And yes, it is sometimes good to be on the side that has the upper-hand, but more important still it is better that the side with the upper-hand be a country with liberal and democratic tendencies and not like those the US would prefer disarmed. Both the Soviets and the Nazis held the upper hand militarily, but it wasn't good to be on their side.

The type of government is likely an irrelevent issue. It was only "not good" to be on their side because their method of world domination was obvious. The current power elite keeps enough weapons in their allied forces to maintain "Mutually Assured Destruction" while subverting people of the world economically.

Who are the "power elite?" Decide for yourself what it might mean, but members of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, even members of Yale's "Skull and Bones" fraternity usually tend to end up in prominent positions throughout the world's governments and companies.

What do I mean by "economic subversion?" Just reviewing the current monetary system in the US reveals some ugly truths. EVERY SINGLE printed US dollar (total of about $700 billion today) that is circulating (no matter what country it is in) costs some tax-paying American about 0.75cents in interest EVERY MONTH payable to an American bank (which is over $5billion per month being paid just in interest to keep our current money supply available). What makes this even worse is the fact that most American money (two-thirds of it) is outside of American borders. Interest is one of the primary methods of subversion as far as I can tell. John Maynard Keynes said this method "engaged all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million will be able to diagnose." [The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919)]

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 2:04 AM

Fruitcake.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Fruitcake.

You must work for "the Man!"

So noted!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Fruitcake.

You must work for "the Man!"

So noted!

As it turns out, I do.

But I’m not trying to hijack the thread; I just wanted to make the nuclear arsenal thing clear.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 2:23 AM

Quote:
And it's my contention that (just as humans), a sufficiently advanced computer program would be self-aware (conscious/sentient/etc). You like to believe that the key is in the hardware architecture, whereas I like to think that it lies in the learning and information assimilation methods only.

Then you'd be dead wrong, no offence meant, but we already have computer programs that can learn just like Humans do, Neural Networks. None has ever obtained consciousness. Ever. Furthermore your idea that Learning is the basis for consciousness doesn't seem to make much sense too me. How does the ability to gain and store information give rise to consciousness? Is a Library conscious? Surely my computer is conscious given these criteria? It can store and recall data far faster and efficiently than I can.

It also suggests that consciousness is dependent on Intelligence, but I think it's actually the other way around...

Quote:
In other words, I think the architecture of the brain only leads to the learning, but in the end that it is the learning that can give rise to sentience, but that biological neurons are NOT a strict requirement - they ONLY lead to the advanced learning which is required. I would contend that your belief in the causality of self-awareness could be flawed.

I don't believe that Biological Neurons are the only thing that would show this emergent behaviour, I think it's the only thing we currently know or have theorised about that can produce these emergent behaviours. Neurons taken from leeches, I believe, have already shown that they are more efficient at passing signals, and can perform arithmetic. Yet you continue to discount them as anything but simple fire/don't fire mechanisms that would be easily copied. This doesn't pan out because we've been trying to do that since before the electronic computer (the Neural Net was first proposed in the late 1800's to explain the workings of the brain).

Quote:
Let's see ... if there is an error in cause and effect, then the following argument should work ...
It would be possible to dispute you by going through case studies of people who have suffered brain damage. Would it be possible to find someone who has suffered minor damage, but is no longer a self-aware entity? People in vegetative states, perhaps? For the most part, some of these people's neural connectivity is largely undisturbed, and still have "zillions" of interconnections between neurons, and yet show no self-awareness. Could you dispute me in such a manner? That is, could you find a highly intelligent entity that is NOT self-aware? So far, anything that we describe as intelligent, we also attribute some measure of self-awareness to. Dophins, apes, and even dogs.

Someone in a vegetative state doesn't show much in the way of learning, thinking or general intelligence skills either.
People don't descend into vegetative states without good reason. It's either because the Brain has elected to shutdown as a self-defence mechanism, such as when a diabetic goes hypoglycaemic (or anyone really) or if there is serious damage to the areas of the brain responsible for higher function. In other words find such a case and it'll be worth debating

.
I'd actually contend that Self-Awareness, consciousness itself is a requirement of true Intelligence, which includes desire.

Quote:
Well .. I don't think either of us believe that all you need is a faster computer ... [But, I do think running a copy of "SoftHuman 2020" would require a rather fast computer.]

It just seems that you have been maintaining that processing power is an issue, that a computer as powerful as the brain would be sentient etc.

Quote:
I can't dispute that, but that's getting pretty far from our issue ... even our brains (and, indeed, everything in the universe as it is currently understood) is digital. How many "bits" of precision would you suppose are needed for sentience is my question... If you beleive it is much more than 512 bits of precision or so, then you will h

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 2:23 AM

^^^

See how "the MAN " operates!! He's subverted this thread already and claims that it's "unintentional"

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 2:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
And it's my contention that (just as humans), a sufficiently advanced computer program would be self-aware (conscious/sentient/etc). You like to believe that the key is in the hardware architecture, whereas I like to think that it lies in the learning and information assimilation methods only.

Then you'd be dead wrong, no offence meant, but we already have computer programs that can learn just like Humans do, Neural Networks. None has ever obtained consciousness. Ever.

And all known examples thus far are both quite simplistic and quite limited in the scope of their knowledge. Knowledge structures, to date, have failed to allow a program enough intelligence to reconcile contradictions and to classify and prioritize data efficiently. Once this is done, I believe your coveted self-awareness will be able to arise without any meat around.

Quote:

Furthermore your idea that Learning is the basis for consciousness doesn't seem to make much sense too me. How does the ability to gain and store information give rise to consciousness? Is a Library conscious? Surely my computer is conscious given these criteria? It can store and recall data far faster and efficiently than I can.

There are no known AI programs, Libraries, or Computer File Systems that exist today which you would consider "highly intelligent." (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Show me one, give me a few months to work with it and I'll show you an sentient artificial entity.

Quote:

It also suggests that consciousness is dependent on Intelligence, but I think it's actually the other way around...

And this seems to be the key point on which we disagree...

Quote:
I don't believe that Biological Neurons are the only thing that would show this emergent behaviour, I think it's the only thing we currently know or have theorised about that can produce these emergent behaviours. Neurons taken from leeches, I believe, have already shown that they are more efficient at passing signals, and can perform arithmetic. Yet you continue to discount them as anything but simple fire/don't fire mechanisms that would be easily copied.

What else is an individual neuron?? I would guess that only collections of neurons can perform any sort of arithmetic ... If you've got research indicating otherwise, prove it to me and I still won't believe it

Quote:
I'd also say that Planck’s constant in no way supports the idea that the Universe (or the Brain) is digital.

You may turn out to be right ... but so far, that's what the "quanta" in quantum physics means ... and to date it's the best we've got to describe the Universe. So, brains, electrons, neurotransmitters and all work on a digital basis.

Quote:

How do you model something that doesn't need exact values on something that does?

What in the brain, exactly, is it that requires such a high value of precision. If anything, the neural inputs are INTEGERS (i.e. the number of neurotransmitters impinging on the dendrites)!!!

Quote:

Quote:
If you think that sentience lies elsewhere, then you haven't told me where that would be. I couldn't dispute you if you attributed self-awareness to an as-yet-undiscovered property of large collection of meat-based neurons, but that'd be somewhat

I've alluded to it. Consciousness arises from the huge interconnectivity within the Brain, it comes from the feedback, which is like the brain looking back at itself over and over and over (something that would lock up a silicon chip).

Some digital gates are actually a group of feedback electronic components. (D-Latches or J/K Flip-Flops if my DC circuits recollection is correct... been a while

) Integrating Op Amps are also capable of feedback. And as stated, my design in one of the above posts takes into consideration feedback.

Quote:

Again I mean no offence to you here, but I see nothing new. You've devalued

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

GUNRUNNER

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I think the precedent of the indiscriminate "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" kinda contradict the nicey-nice world you're describing.

Yea and the Soviets used Nerve Gas on Mujahadin (sp?) in Afghanistan. The Japanese stopped being a conventional enemy force about halfway thought the war (well counting from the US entry). Unconventional enemies don't get the protections of the rules of war, did you know that in the US Army’s field manual from WWII it says you can basically do whatever you want to a civilian populace (such as round up and summarily execute them) that help’s enemy forces that violate the rules of war (i.e. by terrorism)? Its well known that each side picks what weapons will be used before the even conflict starts, the Japanese picked the route of every increasing firepower in violation of various treaties, and they lost by the rules they set up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I guess the number of nukes became irrelevent once we had enough to destroy the entire planet more than a couple of times over ... we're still at enough for - what is it? - 80+ times now?

Destroy the entire planet? I find it hard to believe someone as smart as you believe those figures...

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 3:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You've mentioned that the Brain is just a meat computer a number of times.
The size of the cell is not important for interactions on the Quantum level. For a more detailed discussion on the various ideas about Quantum effects within the Brain can be found here:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0204/0204021.pdf
As for the interconnectivity, well, we're not even close to being close.

Oh goody! I *DO* get to talk about quantum computers.

That'll take a while to put together, but I still say even this is irrelevent. To me, it's all about information assimilation and intelligence, so, I still maintain that the hardware used to achieve that is of no consequence.

It would put "Free Will" back into the human equation, but even software can be augmented by simple hardware that would serve the same function of allowing "true randomness."

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I guess the number of nukes became irrelevent once we had enough to destroy the entire planet more than a couple of times over ... we're still at enough for - what is it? - 80+ times now?
Destroy the entire planet? I find it hard to believe someone as smart as you believe those figures...

It doesn't take much to create globe-spanning irradiated clouds of ionizing poison. So for those that don't die in the heat or debris in the blast radii, the radioactive clouds would destroy most simple organisms immediately and mutate/kill the cells of more complex critters.

Once the simple organisms die though, that whole food chain problem kicks in ... so, yes, we do have enough nukes to destroy the world. Well, if not totally destroyed, there'd be nobody left to point out that I was wrong ...

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:14 AM

This is a fascinating thread, people, but what I really want to know is: was V'ger a true life form, AND, is Decker living happily ever-after?

Chrisisall, suffering wormhole effects

GUNRUNNER

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:19 AM

I think you've seen 'On the Beach' too many times...

Have you read this:
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p906.htm

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a facinating thread, people, but what I really want to know is: was V'ger a true life form, AND, is Decker living happily ever-after?

TROLL!!!

But YES, V'ger and Data are ALIVE!

As for Decker ... maybe I should've watched the alternate endings?? I hear the director's cut (that I saw) kinda sucked ...

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
I think you've seen 'On the Beach' too many times...

Have you read this:
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p906.htm

Hmmm ... are you saying that the world isn't considered destroyed if a handful of people live on in bomb shelters?

Never seen that movie, either .. would you recommend it?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
It doesn't take much to create globe-spanning irradiated clouds of ionizing poison.

I think, Nuclear testing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl may prove otherwise. All these cases were events that released large doses of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, while devastating initially, have not had the effect that was predicted. Chernobyl released as much as 50 tones of radioactive ash into the atmosphere, ~400 times the radioactive contamination of Hiroshima. Initial estimates of the immediate casualties were in the thousands to ten’s of thousands and the long term effects were estimated at over a hundred thousand. We now know that the immediate casualties numbered only 54 and the long term effects are now predicted at 4000 causalities. And despite how large the Chernobyl disaster was, the fact of the matter is that nuclear testing during the 50-70s produced as much as a thousand times as much fallout.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
It doesn't take much to create globe-spanning irradiated clouds of ionizing poison.
I think, Nuclear testing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl may prove otherwise. All these cases were events that released large doses of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, while devastating initially, have not had the effect that was predicted. Chernobyl released as much as 50 tones of radioactive ash into the atmosphere, ~400 times the radioactive contamination of Hiroshima. Initial estimates of the immediate casualties were in the thousands to ten’s of thousands and the long term effects were estimated at over a hundred thousand. We now know that the immediate casualties numbered only 54 and the long term effects are now predicted at 4000 causalities. And despite how large the Chernobyl disaster was, the fact of the matter is that nuclear testing during the 50-70s produced as much as a thousand times as much fallout.

Doesn't that bolster my case? That's just a handful of examples and the fallout from one, according to your data, killed 4000 people.

So, how much damage would be done by 100 full-strength warheads distributed simultaneously at 1000 ft (or so) above ground.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a facinating thread, people, but what I really want to know is: was V'ger a true life form, AND, is Decker living happily ever-after?

Chrisisall, suffering wormhole effects

Decker and V'ger are one. They are somewhere doing the superluminal belly bump between dimensions.

"Each of us... at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a God... and asks...'Why am I here? What was I meant to be?'"

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Doesn't that bolster my case? That's just a handful of examples and the fallout from one, according to your data, killed 4000 people.

So, how much damage would be done by 100 full-strength warheads distributed simultaneously.

Considering that the Western world first discovered the meltdown when workers in a Sweden Nuclear power plant couldn’t find the source of the radiation leak that was registering on their equipment, I’d say no, it doesn’t bolster your case. 4000 casualties out of the whole of Eastern and Northern Europe is not big, and it certainly is no where even remotely close to the hundred thousand originally estimated.

I don’t know what kind of devastation the fallout from a nuclear war would cause. No one does. And even though the alarmists like to believe they are smarter then everyone else, they don’t know either.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is a facinating thread, people, but what I really want to know is: was V'ger a true life form, AND, is Decker living happily ever-after?

TROLL!!!

But YES, V'ger and Data are ALIVE!

As for Decker ... maybe I should've watched the alternate endings?? I hear the director's cut (that I saw) kinda sucked ...

TROLL?
I thought that question sorta fit in well, from a pop culture perspective.
Have it your way, then.
Does soul originate from the divine universal battery, waiting for any conduit to express itself, or is it ostensibly and uniquely created by organic and/or artificial (archaic term) synaptic function?

P.S., only TROLLS believe STTMP kinda sucked, IMHO.

Chrisisall, tryin' like hell to sound cool in a technical kind of way...

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Does soul originate from the devine universal battery, waiting for any conduit to express itself, or is it ostensibly and uniquely created by organic and/or artificial (archaic term) synaptic function?

I vote for soul from the divine, and only present in humans.

If you're asking about sentience (instead of soul), I'd say .. none of the above.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
what I really want to know is: was V'ger a true life form, AND, is Decker living happily ever-after?

Decker and V'ger are one. They are somewhere doing the superluminal belly bump between dimensions.

"Each of us... at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a God... and asks...'Why am I here? What was I meant to be?'"

Thanks for getting it, Finn.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:

If you're asking about sentience (instead of soul), I'd say .. none of the above.

lol, I agree completely there.

Non-sequeter; your facts are un-co-ord-in-a-ted Chrisisall

GUNRUNNER

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
I think you've seen 'On the Beach' too many times...

Have you read this:
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p906.htm

Hmmm ... are you saying that the world isn't considered destroyed if a handful of people live on in bomb shelters?

Never seen that movie, either .. would you recommend it?

If you read that online book you would see that lots of people would survive, in fact whole nations would survive because they weren't near a surface burst target.

As for the movie if an early Cold War era anti-nuke pusdo-science movie is your thing knock your self out. Oh and its got a Submarine, and submarines are cool!

It had Gregory Peck (USS Scorpion captain Dwight Lionel Towers), Ava Gardner (Moira Davidson), Fred Astaire (scientist Julian Osborne) and Anthony Perkins (Australian sailor Peter Holmes) in it. Gregory Peck is a good actor (He was great in '12 O'Clock High') so I guess its worth seeing it for his performance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
So, how much damage would be done by 100 full-strength warheads distributed simultaneously at 1000 ft (or so) above ground.

Very little believe it or not. Air Bursts don't generate much fall out. Generally they are used to make EMPs and to take out soft targets like Airbases. If you live 5-10 miles from the target you wouldn't be killed by a normal 1st strike Air Burst from an SLBM. Troops on foot can literally advance through an area subjected to an air burst after only a few minutes with the minimum of safety equipment. The surface bursts that would be used against hardened sites (Missile Silos, C4I bunkers) are the ones that generate fall out and contaminate everything. Fall out doesn’t come from nothingness…

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
P.S., only TROLLS believe STTMP kinda sucked, IMHO.

I'm not a Troll but I think TMP kinda sucked. WOK was way better. Any movie that deals with Wrath is good...

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
And all known examples thus far are both quite simplistic and quite limited in the scope of their knowledge. Knowledge structures, to date, have failed to allow a program enough intelligence to reconcile contradictions and to classify and prioritize data efficiently. Once this is done, I believe your coveted self-awareness will be able to arise without any meat around.

People have been working on Neural Net's for quite some time. The current design has been around for over 20 years. An incredible amount of research has been done in the field. As it hasn't been done yet I'd suggest that it's not as simple as you suggest.

I also don't see where you get the idea that NNs don't prioritise or classify inputted data efficiently. That's pretty much what they're designed to do. Also many modern NNs actually can handle contradictions, consider a Speech Recognition that has too handle the contradictory pronunciations of the same word

. Also remember that the Brain isn't all that great with contradictions, think about that picture, whether you see the faces or the candlestick is unimportant, the important thing is that you can't see both at the same time. Think about Cognitive Dissonance, the brain has to unlearn and then relearn, or merely ignore the contradictory data.

Furthermore I thought it was Learning ability that was the requirement to Consciousness? What I mean is do you thus believe that if you kept a Human Brain in a vat and only fed it limited information that it would never become conscious.

Quote:
There are no known AI programs, Libraries, or Computer File Systems that exist today which you would consider "highly intelligent." (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Show me one, give me a few months to work with it and I'll show you an sentient artificial entity.

You mentioned Learning and Information recall, not intelligence

.

Quote:
And this seems to be the key point on which we disagree...

Machines have shown problem solving intelligence, but not Human Intelligence. Intelligence is a tool of our consciousness; consciousness is not a tool of Intelligence. Consider the chess match between Kasparov and Deep Blue. Deep Blue wins the first match, but Kasparov stays up all night, studies the computers tactics, and the computer doesn't win another round. What's the computer doing while Kasparov is showing his desire to win? It's sitting in the corner turned off covered by a dust wrap. It is consciousness, sentient, that gives rise to the desire to learn, the desire to use our intelligence. Problem solving intelligence is a very small part of Intelligence, Imagination is more a function of Consciousness, and is a huge part of Human intelligence.

Quote:
What else is an individual neuron?? I would guess that only collections of neurons can perform any sort of arithmetic

It is only one Neuron that does the calculation; there are a few others to store the values. Some neurons act as memory, with a final Neuron acting as the 'calculator'. The point is the calculation is performed on a single Neuron, so they are more complex than a simple switch.

Quote:
If you've got research indicating otherwise, prove it to me and I still won't believe it

Hmm, well that's your cognitive dissonance, not mine

.

Quote:
You may turn out to be right ... but so far, that's what the "quanta" in quantum physics means ... and to date it's the best we've got to describe the Universe. So, brains, electrons, neurotransmitters and all work on a digital basis.

The assumption that the universe is digital doesn't follow from neither Planck’s constant nor Quantum Mechanics. Even given that there are finite energy states too Quanta, as well as a number of other things, there is no finite step to time or position (position calculations in QM include the Planck’s constant as a function of Hindenburg’s Uncertainty principle, not finite positional steps) too name only two properties.

Quote:
What

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
People have been working on Neural Net's for quite some time. The current design has been around for over 20 years. An incredible amount of research has been done in the field. As it hasn't been done yet I'd suggest that it's not as simple as you suggest.

Hmm ... you don't really expect to go from just modelling a brain to matching the capabilities of one in 20 years... ?? Humans were modelling birds for quite a long time before we matched those capabilities.

But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

Quote:

I also don't see where you get the idea that NNs don't prioritise or classify inputted data efficiently. That's pretty much what they're designed to do. Also many modern NNs actually can handle contradictions, consider a Speech Recognition that has too handle the contradictory pronunciations of the same word .

They don't classify GENERAL data efficiently. As I said, they're still very much limited in scope to be effective. And speech isn't so much contradictions, as inexactness (fuzziness, as you call it). What's that, you're saying that software can handle that fuzziness?

Quote:

Also remember that the Brain isn't all that great with contradictions, think about that picture, whether you see the faces or the candlestick is unimportant, the important thing is that you can't see both at the same time. Think about Cognitive Dissonance, the brain has to unlearn and then relearn, or merely ignore the contradictory data.

Kinda bolsters my point about humans being meat computers. Our visual programming works in a certain way and we can't act against it EVEN WHEN we know it's wrong. Of course, all the mechanisms that allow us to build a picture to even recognize a vase or faces are the same mechanisms that made sure our ancestors spotted that predator stalking along or that meal running away.

Quote:

Furthermore I thought it was Learning ability that was the requirement to Consciousness? What I mean is do you thus believe that if you kept a Human Brain in a vat and only fed it limited information that it would never become conscious.

Hmm ... not so sure about that one. It's possible that it only takes the "potential" to learn, but I'll go ahead and say, "Yes" here. A human locked away in a sensory deprivation chamber from birth and fed through IV's would not be a sentient being until allowed the chance to learn and gain knowledge. I suppose people won't generally like it, but by extension, I suppose that means I believe children are NOT born self-aware [they don't wonder why they are here, what their purpose in life is, etc] and they are not immediately sentient [that is, actions from birth are programmed (AKA instinct), which seems fairly true .. healthy babies cry when hungry, attempt to grasp at things, try to eat everything, and eventually to try roll onto their stomachs - they don't pop out and start debating metaphysics or doing the Moonwalk or even show an interest in golf ...

]. Self-awareness and Sentience are not achieved until later (maybe - if ever

).

Quote:

Quote:
There are no known AI programs, Libraries, or Computer File Systems that exist today which you would consider "highly intelligent." (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Show me one, give me a few months to work with it and I'll show you an sentient artificial entity.

You mentioned Learning and Information recall, not intelligence .

True, but I think efficient learning and info classification/recall lead to high levels of intelligence, as well as leading to self-awareness/consciousness. So, I believe that both should always be found together as a direct co

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’d say no, it doesn’t bolster your case. 4000 casualties out of the whole of Eastern and Northern Europe is not big, and it certainly is no where even remotely close to the hundred thousand originally estimated.

Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

So, 100 nukes would each be larger explosions than Chernobyl and also leave fewer safe harbors for people to run to. If, 100 isn't enough to destroy life-as-we-know-it then, you've stated we've still got 9900 more chances ...

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Hmm ... you don't really expect to go from just modelling a brain to matching the capabilities of one in 20 years... ?? Humans were modelling birds for quite a long time before we matched those capabilities.

We still haven't.

Quote:
But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

Actually it's identical to the system used by the Human Brain, all data is considered and added and then the most used paths are kept while the old are removed, exactly what happens in a Human Brain. Remember there are 1000Trillion synaptic connections in a child’s brain, and 500Trillion or less in an adult.

Quote:
They don't classify GENERAL data efficiently. As I said, they're still very much limited in scope to be effective. And speech aren't so much contradictions, as inexactness (fuzziness, as you call it). What's that, you're saying that software can handle that fuzziness?

That's not what I mean by fuzziness within the Human Brain at all. The fuzziness I referred to would be analogous to a computer arriving at a result while missing one of the operands.

Quote:
Kinda bolsters my point about humans being meat computers. Our visual programming works in a certain way and we can't act against it EVEN WHEN we know it's wrong. Of course, all the mechanisms that allow us to build a picture to even recognize a vase or faces are the same mechanisms that made sure our ancestors spotted that predator stalking along or that meal running away.

Erm, not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Quote:
All in all though, Deep Blue enumerated chess moves. That means that it's a glorified counting machine. A VERY (very, very!) fast counting machine, but all it ever did (in essence) was just count ...

Exactly. All a computer is is a glorified counting machine. All a computer EVER does is count.

Quote:
In other words ... more than one neuron ...
Can the calculation be done without the other neurons, the answer to that seems to be "no."

I thought that would be your response

.
*removes CPU from motherboard, and places on desk*
Right, 2 + 2, go.
*silence, tumbleweed...*
*taps CPU*
Oh I know, needs power.
*hooks up battery.*
Right, 2 + 2.
*Nothing...*
Seems even computers can't function alone.

Quote:
Actually, I think it's called the "Planck time" .. something like 10^(-31) seconds (I could look it up, but I'm at work).

Planck's time is how long it takes for light to travel Planck's length.
The Planck length is the minimum length before Quantum Laws reigns, making length meaningless (because of Hindenburg’s uncertainty principle) NOT the smallest possible.

The figure is (roughly) 5.39 × 10−44 seconds, for reference.

Quote:
True, but I seriously doubt that it would take a meter of infinite precision to EXACTLY ACCURATELY measure the amount of electrical current generated. There are A FINITE, INTEGER number of electrons that are motivated through the axon, ya know ... so, again, the value can be done in an easy-to-handle range of integers (32 or just maybe 40 bits should be able to count the electrons nicely)

If you think of electrons in a classical way, more or less. But how many electrons is that and how many bits are needed, I'm afraid I don't trust your figures. Though now your adding in complexity as you now need an accurate particle simulation as well as an accurate Brain simulation, which is what I've been alluding too all along

.

Quote:
Eh? Aren't those mathematicians/philosophers. You'd have to elaborate slightly more on this point.

Mathematician, Artist, Composer, in that order. The name of the book is more correctly:
Gö

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

Fallout fell on Wales. The isolation or the closing of the area isn't so important.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

The IAEA seems to believe that it is long enough; they concluded that 4000 casualties is the total expected impact. 4000 out of a million people under the ash cloud not including almost a million people directly involved with the clean up, less then half a percent of the effected population. Only about a third of million people were relocated, which means that over half a million people continued to live in areas contaminated to levels of ~200 kBq/m² of Cs-137. Numerous extensive studies, including several UN studies, have reported that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation related health effects to most people directly exposed to the ash cloud. No discernable increasing in leukemia and while a small (2%) increase of thyroid cancer was observed, it is debated even how much of that is due to Chernobyl, if any.

90% of people under 20 affected by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki ash clouds were still alive as of 1995.

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
So, 100 nukes would each be larger explosions than Chernobyl and also leave fewer safe harbors for people to run to. If, 100 isn't enough to destroy life-as-we-know-it then, you've stated we've still got 9900 more chances ...

There’s much more then that.

One would expect a nuclear war to be worse then a nuclear accident because of the nature of war, but that doesn’t change what we are seeing in terms of the effects of nuclear fallout, based on the one major accident and the two examples of actual wartime use, and the many tests. The ash cloud is just not as dangerous as previously thought. The evidence for such an assessment has been only recent, but the hysteria has existed much longer and has been instrumental in fueling the debate with nonscientific assumptions. Nuclear war would be nasty, but more then likely, the vast majority of deaths would be decided by the explosion, not the ash clouds.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

Actually it's identical to the system used by the Human Brain, all data is considered and added and then the most used paths are kept while the old are removed, exactly what happens in a Human Brain. Remember there are 1000Trillion synaptic connections in a child’s brain, and 500Trillion or less in an adult.
[/q]

I'll ignore the above as it seems to contradict most of your other assertions in that the brain cannot be modelled on any sequential system. Maybe you wanted a different word from "identical" .. eh.. either way, I'll let you elaborate on this one

Quote:

Exactly. All a computer is is a glorified counting machine. All a computer EVER does is count.

True ... but software can put that counting to use to bring about sentience, if used intelligently. At least, I like to believe so.

Conceivably, a brain could be simply considered an automated, souped-up phone system (inter-connected message passing), and yet, consciousness rises out of that.

Quote:
I thought that would be your response .
*removes CPU from motherboard, and places on desk*
Right, 2 + 2, go.
*silence, tumbleweed...*
*taps CPU*
Oh I know, needs power.
*hooks up battery.*
Right, 2 + 2.
*Nothing...*
Seems even computers can't function alone.

Hmm ... you're arguing something I've never stated. Yep, computers need a lot of support and won't function without data, ... just like single neurons ... But you're the one who said that single neurons could function alone

Quote:
Planck's time is how long it takes for light to travel Planck's length.
The Planck length is the minimum length before Quantum Laws reigns, making length meaningless (because of Hindenburg’s uncertainty principle) NOT the smallest possible.

Hmmm ... well, you're fighting a rather soundly entrenched theory here ...

It is meaningless to measure times and lengths less than these, so, yeah, the phenomena that you mention can (and should be) measured digitally(electrical current through a neuron).

Quote:

The figure is (roughly) 5.39 × 10−44 seconds, for reference.

yeah yeah yeah ...

Quote:

Quote:
True, but I seriously doubt that it would take a meter of infinite precision to EXACTLY ACCURATELY measure the amount of electrical current generated. There are A FINITE, INTEGER number of electrons that are motivated through the axon, ya know ... so, again, the value can be done in an easy-to-handle range of integers (32 or just maybe 40 bits should be able to count the electrons nicely)

If you think of electrons in a classical way, more or less. But how many electrons is that and how many bits are needed, I'm afraid I don't trust your figures. Though now your adding in complexity as you now need an accurate particle simulation as well as an accurate Brain simulation, which is what I've been alluding too all along .

Awww.... at about 70 millivolts, you're right, it would take about 59 bits to count the electrons with EXACT precision .... Eh.. I was close, not like the number was 200bits or something

Quote:

Quote:
Eh, the uncertainty principle only applies if quantum entanglement effects the decisions which we make.I would tend to disagree with that notion. Sure there are quantum effects in the brain, but, as I stated, I believe they have a minor (possibly non-existent) affect on our cognitive functions. There are different ways to use quantum effects in calculations, but I doubt our brain actually has evolved to do any high-level quantum manipulation.
.
.
.

Quote:
The more precise

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I'll ignore the above as it seems to contradict most of your other assertions in that the brain cannot be modelled on any sequential system. Maybe you wanted a different word from "identical" .. eh.. either way, I'll let you elaborate on this one

Not at all. I said the parallel processing abilities and consciousness of the human brain could not be replicated on a sequential Binary system. Your assertion was that the Learning mechanisms of NNs were nothing like the Brain, which is why they haven't given rise to consciousness. This isn't the case.
My conclusion is that it’s more than the ability to learn that is required.

Quote:
Hmm ... you're arguing something I've never stated. Yep, computers need a lot of support and won't function without data, ... just like single neurons ... But you're the one who said that single neurons could function alone

Huh? It was your assertion that the Neuron was simple and trivial in comparison to the Silicon chip. The fact that other Neurons are required to function as memory simply puts it on a par with a single chip? I never said they could function alone, I said they could do a lot more than function as a switch. The other Neurons stored the values, so how's that any different to a silicon computer needing memory?

Quote:
Hmmm ... well, you're fighting a rather soundly entrenched theory here ...
It is meaningless to measure times and lengths less than these, so, yeah, the phenomena that you mention can (and should be) measured digitally(electrical current through a neuron).

No. I am not fighting QM. Small distances being meaningless to measure doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't measure picometre with a centimetre rule, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The reason the distance is meaningless is because the very act of measuring it changes it by a degree greater than itself, therefore meaningless, not non existent.

Quote:
But, you don't see billiard balls disappearing when you hit them with a radar gun ... Uncertainty only becomes important on a sub-microscopic level and even then, I'm not sure which point of mine's you are trying to dispute.

That Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle wouldn't have an effect on the brain if quantum effects are introduced?

And yeah, Uncertainty only works at the quantum level, the quantum level being what I was talking about.

Quote:
Yeah... even if true ... what does that *DO*? Does it assist/enable cognition in any way? Quantum entanglement happens all the time, but that doesn't mean it that it's purposefully assisting in brain function.

I don't know. Maybe nothing maybe everything. What I do know is that everyone in every age when trying to model the brain makes it out to be simple, like incredibly complex clockwork, a telephone exchange, and every time it's shown it's to be more. What would you say to someone in the nineteenth century who said "we can make a brain, all we need is more cogs!"?

Quote:
Not to load your gun with any bullets, but it's been proven that quantum effects absolutely cannot be simulated in software. Therefore, if they INDEED ARE an integral part of sentience (which I do NOT believe), then hardware would be required.

Exactly.

Quote:
And given enough effort and money, the complexity in connectivity that you describe can be reconstructed in electronics.

Well good luck to you, I think you'll be disappointed, like many others who over estimated the abilities of the technologies of their time.

Quote:
I could make a true random number generator by taking two readings of the speed of a fan. If the first is higher, my random bit is a 0, otherwise, it is 1. Variances in air and voltage would cause the speed to change. Seeing as most PC's today can access the fan-speed data, it's basically a free random number generator.

Well it was a misnomer, any Quantum effect will do, but it has to be a quantum effect. Technically a fan cannot produce true random numbers.

<

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I said the parallel processing abilities and consciousness of the human brain could not be replicated on a sequential Binary system. Your assertion was that the Learning mechanisms of NNs were nothing like the Brain, which is why they haven't given rise to consciousness. This isn't the case.
My conclusion is that it’s more than the ability to learn that is required.

I still contend that NN's are unlike the brain in capacity. Just as worm ganglion (early brains) are unlike human brains. I doubt you would claim that worms are sentient, but adding complexity to the ganglion they use, led to brains that did give rise to sentience. Similarly, NN's that aren't so narrowly limited, I believe are a key in giving rise to an artificial being with sentience.

Quote:
No. I am not fighting QM. Small distances being meaningless to measure doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't measure picometre with a centimetre rule, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The reason the distance is meaningless is because the very act of measuring it changes it by a degree greater than itself, therefore meaningless, not non existent.

Even assuming you're correct, it's still unclear what you're trying to get at .. This particular line began when you stated that electrical current needed some sort of infinite precision. I've already calculated that no more than 59 bits are necessary for EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurement.

Quote:

And yeah, Uncertainty only works at the quantum level, the quantum level being what I was talking about.

Yeah, but you haven't told me how that relates to sentience ... I think you get to it on the next section.

Quote:

Quote:
Yeah... even if true ... what does that *DO*? Does it assist/enable cognition in any way? Quantum entanglement happens all the time, but that doesn't mean it that it's purposefully assisting in brain function.

I don't know. Maybe nothing maybe everything.

Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

Quote:

What I do know is that everyone in every age when trying to model the brain makes it out to be simple, like incredibly complex clockwork, a telephone exchange, and every time it's shown it's to be more. What would you say to someone in the nineteenth century who said "we can make a brain, all we need is more cogs!"?

Would most people assume that Windows XP can be run on a steam-powered system of gears ... it's mathematically provable that it could, but it's the complexity (and slowness) that is overwhelming. So, sure (barring the absolute necessity of quantum effects), YES, more cogs is all that was needed.

Quote:
Quote:
And given enough effort and money, the complexity in connectivity that you describe can be reconstructed in electronics.

Well good luck to you, I think you'll be disappointed, like many others who over estimated the abilities of the technologies of their time.

That's very possible, but how many things wouldn't exist if the innovators believed the naysayers. (Hint hint .. you're looking at one thing right now

)

Quote:
Well it was a misnomer, any Quantum effect will do, but it has to be a quantum effect. Technically a fan cannot produce true random numbers.

Heh ... I had a feeling you'd dispute "true" randomness with me. Technically, I suppose you're right. The output of a fan is completely dependant of air turbulence and voltage, both of which can theoretically be measured. But the practicality of measuring every atom of air in a normal room makes the randomness of the fan just as "true" as a quantum system. Quantum-based systems just have the advantage of not even being theoretically possible to measure.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Even assuming you're correct, it's still unclear what you're trying to get at .. This particular line began when you stated that electrical current needed some sort of infinite precision. I've already calculated that no more than 59 bits are necessary for EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurement.

That the universe isn't digital.
That a computer is digital.
That a digital system can't perfectly model an analogue one no matter how much precision you use.
You're counting electrons, which mean's you've dropped down to the sub-atomic level, so you need a model of the sub-atomic level now. It's not as simple as saying that's how many electrons there are.

But if you think you have calculated EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurements why don't you work on that in software, as described. It's the only way to prove me wrong

.

Quote:
Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

No I'm assuming that it probably does. Creativity, Inspiration, any number of things that make up consciousness has a very indefinable quality, even to us. It makes sense that this could arise from something ultimately indefinable.

But then that's my assumption, what makes it less important, less worthy, less viable than your assumption that it's just a function of the brain as a Learning machine?

Okay, so you want evidence from me that your proposal won't work, yet you have given no evidence that it:
A) Will even turn on.
B) Is actually viable given modern technology, or even future technology.
C) Would even give rise to a conscious intelligence.

Your entire position is based on Assumption, assumption that silicon technology is capable of that which you think it is, assumption that Quantum effects within the brain don't have an effect on it's operation and the big underpinning which is the assumption that consciousness arises solely from Learning (or the ability to learn).

Strange evidence that your proposal CAN work, but duly noted

.

I don't want to attack you as much as that may have come across (I’m tired, it’s 1:30am here), it's just when your point is based heavily on assumption you can't turn around and attack the assumptions of your opponent like that.

Quote:
Would most people assume that Windows XP can be run on a steam-powered system of gears ... it's mathematically provable that it could, but it's the complexity (and slowness) that is overwhelming. So, sure (barring the absolute necessity of quantum effects), YES, more cogs is all that was needed.

Thus it must be possible to model the brain and consciousness itself algorithmically. So why is the current state of the art in AI in the field of expert systems?

Quote:
That's very possible, but how many things wouldn't exist if the innovators believed the naysayers. (Hint hint .. you're looking at one thing right now )

Actually the original computers were given overwhelming support by the British government, even when they were years behind schedule and over budget. But I see your point. But I can counter with many a person has thrown their life away working on something that cannot be done. Even Einstein did this toward the end of his career.

Quote:
Heh ... I had a feeling you'd dispute "true" randomness with me. Technically, I suppose you're right. The output of a fan is completely dependant of air turbulence and voltage, both of which can theoretically be measured. But the practicality of measuring every atom of air in a normal room makes the randomness of the fan just a "true" as a quantum system. Quantum systems just have the advantage of not even being theoretically possible to measure.

There's more to something being random than merely being impossible to predict, it also has to be statistically random. I believe the random thing started up by trying to build in a random element to the simulation (as t

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 3:58 AM

A large point you seem to be sticking to is that approximations are bad. I'm sure you would possibly attribute "some sense" of consciousness to dogs, maybe even a squirrel. Those brains are definitely not as complex as human brains. They are, in essence, approximations that still give rise to sentience.

Another issue is that the things that you believe MUST be approximated by finite systems, I can show do not HAVE TO be.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

That the universe isn't digital.

I suppose I can't make you believe in this particular implication of quantum physics.

Quote:

That a computer is digital.
That a digital system can't perfectly model an analogue one no matter how much precision you use.
You're counting electrons, which mean's you've dropped down to the sub-atomic level, so you need a model of the sub-atomic level now. It's not as simple as saying that's how many electrons there are.

A normal neuron can generate a potential difference of about 70 millivolts. Even if we went nuts and assumed it was 150 mV, dividing that by one electron volt gives us a little less than 950 quadrillion (10^12) electrons. A 60-bit register could easily store this inflated count.

I see no need to "model subatomic behavior" to model a neuron accurately.
The number of neurotransmitters is guaranteed to be a much smaller value and is more likely the limiting factor in precision, but we'll figure that the number electrons is the necessary limit of precision.

As I understand it, the first question is whether the current will be generated or not. The neuron holds a threshhold which must be exceeded. This threshhold is going to be a voltage with less than a 60-bit number of electrons. No approximation needed so far. Next is the total voltage that gets generated - the "arithmetic," as you call it. Again, this is going to be a particular number of electrons which get motivated to pass - a number of finite precision. Finally, some neurotransmitters will be released and, again, this is a finite number.

Quote:

But if you think you have calculated EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurements why don't you work on that in software, as described. It's the only way to prove me wrong .

I'm working on that ...

This enlightening and quite lively little debate has motivated me to knock the dust off my research and coding.

Quote:

Quote:
Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

No I'm assuming that it probably does. Creativity, Inspiration, any number of things that make up consciousness has a very indefinable quality, even to us. It makes sense that this could arise from something ultimately indefinable.

That was fairly rude, my apologies. But, you disputed me with something with no known consequence. It'd be like saying that the particular speed of light through organic matter is probably the reason that sentience cannot arise in machines. Sure, it's true about the speed of light, but the consequences aren't even close to being known.

Quote:

But then that's my assumption, what makes it less important, less worthy, less viable than your assumption that it's just a function of the brain as a Learning machine?

Kinda ... learning and high levels of intelligence, so far, are always found paired with sentient beings. Quantum effects can be produced in a lab within a quite non-sentient metal box.

Quote:

Okay, so you want evidence from me that your proposal won't work, yet you have given no evidence that it:
A) Will even turn on.
B) Is actually viable given modern technology, or even future technology.
C) Would even give rise to a conscious intelligence.

A).. ok .. got me on that one. I haven't built it. Heck, I just designed it 2 days ago ...

B) Actually, I've given you a viable design in one of the above posts using curr

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:27 AM

Before we wander too long .. I'll post my "Revised Laws of Robotics," [based on Asimov's suggestions] to ensure that mankind won't end up as batteries

Feel free to critique!

Zeroth – Define Human, and harm (physical, psychic, consciousness, economic, not emotional), action, inaction, life-threatening, imminent, robot, laws, subject, appreciable, cause (directly, indirectly, through agents)

First - no robot may commit an act that has any appreciable probability of resulting in another robot not being subject to these same laws. [cannot build other robots that are morality-free]

Second – A robot may not through action or inaction allow any humans that are not directly in control of imminent harm to some other human(s) to be dealt life-threatening harm. [cannot be threatened to harm innocents]

Third - A robot may not cause life-threatening harm to a human being, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [cannot kill anyone, except maybe terrorists]

Fourth - A robot may not through inaction allow more humans to come to harm than necessary, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [must save as many as possible, instead of reaching deadlock in allowing inaction to sacrifice some]

Fifth - A robot may not harm a human being except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [cannot hurt anyone, but 2nd allows to save from terrorists]

Sixth - A robot may not deceive or manipulate a human being, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [cannot lie]

Seventh - A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [productivity]

Eighth - A robot must obey orders given it by superordinate robots, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law [productivity]

Ninth - A robot must perform the duties for which it has been programmed, except where that would conflict with a higher-order law [productivity]

Tenth - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with higher Laws. [productivity]

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
A large point you seem to be sticking to is that approximations are bad. I'm sure you would possibly attribute "some sense" of consciousness to dogs, maybe even a squirrel. Those brains are definitely not as complex as human brains. They are, in essence, approximations that still give rise to sentience.

Not exactly. Approximations aren't bad per se, but a Dogs Brain is not an approximation or a simulation of the Human Brain. My point is that a simulation is not the real thing; it's a simulation of the real thing, just as my earlier mentioned trip to Jupiter in Celestia isn't a real trip to Jupiter, but a simulation of one.

Quote:
I suppose I can't make you believe in this particular implication of quantum physics.

I've never heard of that as an implication of Quantum physics. The Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle seems to refute this by it's very existence, digital systems being deterministic.

Quote:
I see no need to "model subatomic behavior" to model a neuron accurately.
The number of neurotransmitters is guaranteed to be a much smaller value and is more likely the limiting factor in precision, but we'll figure that the number electrons is the necessary limit of precision.

Well you’re moving down to the subatomic by looking at electron count's rather than their cumulative effect. I'd of thought you'd need to model their behaviours to get true accuracy.

Quote:
As I understand it, the first question is whether the current will be generated or not. The neuron holds a threshold which must be exceeded. This threshold is going to be a voltage with less than a 60-bit number of electrons. No approximation needed so far. Next is the total voltage that gets generated - the "arithmetic," as you call it. Again, this is going to be a particular number of electrons which get motivated to pass - a number of finite precision. Finally, some neurotransmitters will be released and, again, this is a finite number.

Now factor in the possibility of tens of thousands of weighted input signals, weighted temporally and by locality, the calculation is fairly complex and I’m not sure how easy it would be to perform on an IC.

Quote:
I'm working on that ... This enlightening and quite lively little debate has motivated me to knock the dust off my research and coding.

Glad to hear it.

Quote:
That was fairly rude, my apologies. But, you disputed me with something with no known consequence. It'd be like saying that the particular speed of light through organic matter is probably the reason that sentience cannot arise in machines. Sure, it's true about the speed of light, but the consequences aren't even close to being known.

Hmm, we both have assumptions underpinning our arguments, I'd say that the assumption that Quantum effects don’t play a role in consciousness is at least as great as the assumption that they do

.

Quote:
Kinda ... learning and high levels of intelligence, so far, are always found paired with sentient beings. Quantum effects can be produced in a lab within a quite non-sentient metal box.

I don’t know computers have demonstrated learning and problem solving Intelligence, yet haven't demonstrated consciousness.

Quote:
Meat made me do it

Uh-uh, it’s always someone or something else’s fault

.

Quote:
Not to get too "Matrix" on you, but ....
As for simulations, what if you were looking at and talking from a distance to EITHER a person OR his reflection (but he could still hear you). What if you couldn't see the mirror? Would you be able to dispute that either one is sentient? With no evidence as to which is sentient and which is the simulation, do you deny consciousness to both?

Some simulations can be good enough to leave you no choice but to accept the results as sentient...

You already know how I feel about human sentience ... What if YOU are the reflection in a mirror that can't be seen ...

Well a mirror doesn’t produ

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not exactly. Approximations aren't bad per se, but a Dogs Brain is not an approximation or a simulation of the Human Brain. My point is that a simulation is not the real thing; it's a simulation of the real thing, just as my earlier mentioned trip to Jupiter in Celestia isn't a real trip to Jupiter, but a simulation of one.

There were a million different clues on your virtual trip .. what happens when you can't tell the difference?

Quote:
Well you’re moving down to the subatomic by looking at electron count's rather than their cumulative effect. I'd of thought you'd need to model their behaviours to get true accuracy.

Well, the issue of "true accuracy" isn't a requirement I believe is necessary. I don't think 60-bit precision is necessary, either. I was just pointing out that exact precision can be calculated on a digital system, theoretically.

Quote:

Quote:
As I understand it, the first question is whether the current will be generated or not. The neuron holds a threshold which must be exceeded. This threshold is going to be a voltage with less than a 60-bit number of electrons. No approximation needed so far. Next is the total voltage that gets generated - the "arithmetic," as you call it. Again, this is going to be a particular number of electrons which get motivated to pass - a number of finite precision. Finally, some neurotransmitters will be released and, again, this is a finite number.

Now factor in the possibility of tens of thousands of weighted input signals, weighted temporally and by locality, the calculation is fairly complex and I’m not sure how easy it would be to perform on an IC.

Ahh ... so you're starting to see the possibility ... eh ... it's a start

Memory space is cheap .. so whether it's 10 or 10,000 signals, they still all only require an address (and maybe a weighting). Simplest way to model the system is to clock your system X times (X = number of connections) to send out your "electronic neurotransmitters," and then allow neurons to check for new inputs on the Xth clock. Update your neuron on that last clock. Check if it received enough "neurotransmitters" to exceed whatever it's firing threshhold function is and then do it all again. (Again, I've neglected the re-wiring procedures that would be needed.)

Quote:

Quote:
Kinda ... learning and high levels of intelligence, so far, are always found paired with sentient beings. Quantum effects can be produced in a lab within a quite non-sentient metal box.

I don’t know computers have demonstrated learning and problem solving Intelligence, yet haven't demonstrated consciousness.

My offer still stands

Show me ANY entity which you consider to have a high level of intelligence and a capacity to learn general information and I can show you a sentient being.

Quote:

Quote:
Not to get too "Matrix" on you, but ....
As for simulations, what if you were looking at and talking from a distance to EITHER a person OR his reflection (but he could still hear you). What if you couldn't see the mirror? Would you be able to dispute that either one is sentient? With no evidence as to which is sentient and which is the simulation, do you deny consciousness to both?

Some simulations can be good enough to leave you no choice but to accept the results as sentient...

You already know how I feel about human sentience ... What if YOU are the reflection in a mirror that can't be seen ...

Well a mirror doesn’t produce a simulation, it just redirects the visible light, and it’s the same as talking face to face. Moreover it’s not the image that is sentient, but the entity.

You can just as easily picture a robot that mirrors a human's movements. The question still stands .. do you deny them BOTH consciousness, because you know that ONE is a simulation? How do you resolve the issue? Can a simulation be good enough, to be considered sentient. It's the same

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 5, 2006 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
There were a million different clues on your virtual trip .. what happens when you can't tell the difference?

Most people can't tell the difference between a dream and reality. I say most people as I've experienced lucid dreaming but it's not quite as simple as that.

Point is we have something there where people can't tell the difference.

Quote:
Ahh ... so you're starting to see the possibility ... eh ... it's a start Memory space is cheap .. so whether it's 10 or 10,000 signals, they still all only require an address (and maybe a weighting). Simplest way to model the system is to clock your system X times (X = number of connections) to send out your "electronic neurotransmitters," and then allow neurons to check for new inputs on the Xth clock. Update your neuron on that last clock. Check if it received enough "neurotransmitters" to exceed whatever it's firing threshhold function is and then do it all again. (Again, I've neglected the re-wiring procedures that would be needed.)

It's not quite that simple. One way the inputs are weighted is on the shape of the Dendrites themselves, which means that no two Neurons will react to the same input signals in the same way. I'm also unsure how this system would take into account the temporal weighting I mentioned earlier.

I'm still not convinced that that system could model the vast time dependent interactions of the Neurons though.

But before we get too over excited about the abilities of modern micro electronics I'd like you to consider that the brain is one of the most densely connected network systems in the known universe.
Somewhat un-intuitively, the more intelligent someone is, the less active the brain will be compared to the brain of someone less intelligent performing the same task.

Quote:
Show me ANY entity which you consider to have a high level of intelligence and a capacity to learn general information and I can show you a sentient being.

In so much as I believe true high level intelligence arises from consciousness your right. Would a silicon computer ever show true high level intelligence?

Consider your John Doe example. Is the Robot Doe acting like John Doe because of his/its consciousness, or does it act that way because that's what John would have done?

Quote:
You can just as easily picture a robot that mirrors a human's movements. The question still stands .. do you deny them BOTH consciousness, because you know that ONE is a simulation?

Do we extend the sentient of the Crypt keeper puppeteer from tales from the crypt to the puppet?

Quote:
there are a lot of loopholes in Asimov's laws

The laws are too simple to contain loop holes. A loop hole would be where a Robot could murder a Human being under certain circumstances without breaking any laws. Loop holes come with complexity.

Take a look at Human criminal laws. All legalese ends up doing is add complexity, it doesn't help to refine the laws, it helps to let people with expensive lawyers get away with it

.

Quote:
especially in regards to human vs. human conflicts and the robots' role.

As I understand it there's no loop hole here, the message is simple, in Human vs. Human conflicts, Robots stay the hell out.

Quote:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..." What if there happen to be 10 terrorists and 9 hostages?

There would be numerous rules for applying the laws, but at the end of the day if your going to be employing robots in combat situations the last thing you want to do is given them Asimov style behavioural blocks.

Quote:
A man wants to commit suicide by jumping off the adjacent roof .. there's a beanbag gun next to the robot .. the robot wouldn't dare hurt the person, but the inaction allows the person to come to harm ...

Not sure what you mean by this.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water

KARNEJJ

Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Do we extend the sentient of the Crypt keeper puppeteer from tales from the crypt to the puppet?

Don't we have to if we can't see the strings? I mean flip it over, open it up, put it on every scope we've got, and still .. nope .. no strings?

If not, then it does seem that sentience truly IS unattainable artificially (except by accident), because it would seem that a prime requirement would be that "to be sentient, we must NOT know the source of what makes it work [in this case .. the puppeteer]."

... and about ole Robot John Doe ... you never did hazard a guess at when in particular (as his brain was mechanized) he would lose sentience (if ever).

Quote:
Quote:
especially in regards to human vs. human conflicts and the robots' role.

As I understand it there's no loop hole here, the message is simple, in Human vs. Human conflicts, Robots stay the hell out.

Well, that robot company's stock would drop awfully quickly if the supposedly intelligent machines let their owners get smacked around

Dogs have been taken out and shot for less

Quote:
but at the end of the day if your going to be employing robots in combat situations the last thing you want to do is given them Asimov style behavioural blocks.

It's not so much that the blocks are needed because the robots are INTENDED for combat, the blocks are there JUST IN CASE they go off and decide that THEY want combat.

How bad would it suck for the guy who finally invents sentient AI and then he watches his creation go berserk and kill every living human? ... So, yeah ... maybe some Robot Rules are in order

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:42 AM

Quote:
Don't we have to if we can't see the strings?

You can't see the strings it's animatronic, and no.

Quote:
Well, that robot company's stock would drop awfully quickly if it let it's owner get smacked around

We're talking too different things here.
How does the robot know whose side to step in on?

The point is if you start putting in provisos like:
You can't hurt Humans, unless they're terrorists.
Then that's a loop hole. What happens if for whatever reason the Robot sees someone as a Terrorist, they have a toy gun or something?

This actually happened with a Soldier shooting a kid in Northern Ireland because all he saw was the end of a realistic toy gun sticking out a window.

If we're going to leave robots open to making these kinds of mistakes because of loop holes introduced by obfustication of the laws then there is absolutely no point in having the laws in the first place.

I assume you've see the Will Smith film version of I, Robot (not much to do with Asimov at the end of the day, but oh well). Heaping more rules (and really even adding rules of interpretation that are anything but literal) would lead to both the actions of Sonny and the central computer (the name of which eludes me at the moment).

I personally think Asimov’s laws of Robotics are about as perfect as they can be, they're like the Ten Commandments, simple direct and too the point, everyone knows where they stand. Though one of your aforementioned Robotics companies would probably want to put a no stealing law in there

.

If we were to ever create an intelligent race, such as Robots, we may want to revise laws such as Asimov’s that we may imbed at a later date, but I think that revision would take the form of removal, rather than anything else.

EDIT:

Quote:
... and about ole Robot John Doe ... you never did hazard a guess at when in particular (as his brain was mechanized) he would lose sentience (if ever).

When they’ve taken away more of his brain’s non-autonomic function than the rest can make up for.

I’d be willing to bet no matter how good Robo Doe mirrors John Doe’s past personality if you’d look into his/it’s eyes, they’d be dead.

It would be like watching a recording of someone who died; do we prescribe the image on the screen with sentient? I’ve never heard it argued that we do.

Quote:
If not, then it does seem that sentience truly IS unattainable artificially (except by accident), because it would seem that a prime requirement would be that "to be sentient, we must NOT know the source of what makes it work [in this case .. the puppeteer]."

Totally possible. Though it wouldn’t be the first time we’ve created a technology and even used it without really knowing how it worked. If we created a biological brain unique to any that has existed, through genetic engineering of Neurons and building them up, and the brain gained sentient we still created it, yet we still don’t know how it works.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

KARNEJJ

Thursday, January 5, 2006 12:13 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Don't we have to if we can't see the strings?

You can't see the strings it's animatronic, and no.

Of course we can see the "strings" if it's animitronic and we open it up. What if you open it up and still can't explain it's intelligent behavior ... *that* is the question at hand.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I assume you've see the Will Smith film version of I, Robot (not much to do with Asimov at the end of the day, but oh well). Heaping more rules (and really even adding rules of interpretation that are anything but literal) would lead to both the actions of Sonny and the central computer (the name of which eludes me at the moment).

I personally think Asimov’s laws of Robotics are about as perfect as they can be, they're like the Ten Commandments, simple direct and too the point, everyone knows where they stand. Though one of your aforementioned Robotics companies would probably want to put a no stealing law in there .

Actually, following Asimov's laws would probably MANDATE the end of human civilization.

Premise: Human conflict is inevitable.
Premise: Human conflict causes harm to humans.
Premise: Humans would be harmed if they must be physically restrained from entering conflicts.
Premise: Sleep is harmless.

Therefore, if a robot is ordered to not allow humans to come to harm through inaction (and this rule supercedes all others), then the only logical development is probably to anesthetize us all and keep us asleep until we die.

Maybe loophole is the wrong term, but the above scenario is a pretty serious deficiency. I attempt to cover this deficiency in my revised lasws by adding an unconventional meaning of harm in my Zeroeth law (relating to consciousness [as in awake, not referring to sentience]). I think I'll add something to the effect as a new law after the thrid though ...

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 5, 2006 1:27 PM

Quote:
Of course we can see the "strings" if it's animitronic and we open it up. What if you open it up and still can't explain it's intelligent behavior ... *that* is the question at hand.

That's a different question, but if we have a definable originator of the actions it is reasonable to assume that the puppetry is merely beyond our understanding.

You may find this interesting:

Quote:
The Meta-Law
A robot may not act unless its actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics

Law Zero
A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm

Law One
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this would violate a higher-order Law

Law Two
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law
A robot must obey orders given it by superordinate robots, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law
Law Three
A robot must protect the existence of a superordinate robot as long as such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law
Law Four
A robot must perform the duties for which it has been programmed, except where that would conflict with a higher-order law

The Procreation Law
A robot may not take any part in the design or manufacture of a robot unless the new robot's actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html

Understanding that to harm or injure humanity would mean permanently putting people to sleep.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

KARNEJJ

Thursday, January 5, 2006 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You may find this interesting:
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html

Understanding that to harm or injure humanity would mean permanently putting people to sleep.

Well, those aren't strictly Asimov's laws ... the one's you quoted include additions from some Roger Clark guy. But, they are surprisingly similar to mine, so he must be a genius ...

Dang, we're good

great minds and all ...

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 5, 2006 6:13 PM

Yeah, I got that , the important one I think is the zero law, and that was added by Asimov himself, after the fact.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

KARNEJJ

Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, I got that , the important one I think is the zero law, and that was added by Asimov himself, after the fact.

I think a "procreation" type law actually is a necessity to any list of laws. What good are the laws if they only apply to the first generation of robots? The 2nd generation just gets to be the ones that plug us into the Matrix.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:41 PM

Nah, just castrate them...

But yeah, your right.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

KARNEJJ

Thursday, January 5, 2006 9:49 PM

This thread ->

So sad

82 pages though .. pretty nice discussion