Creation of a true artificial intelligence?

[Imadrongo]

Millions of neurons are used constantly. There are hundreds of billions, probably even trillions, of them. They are small and efficient. I doubt we will ever be able to match this a creation of our own, and I don't envy the person who assembles this computer.

Evolution was smart. It didn't bother assembling full systems from scratch, it just operated on ones that were already self-reproducing, making them better.

[Pincho Paxton]

Millions of neurons are used constantly. There are hundreds of billions, probably even trillions, of them. They are small and efficient. I doubt we will ever be able to match this a creation of our own, and I don't envy the person who assembles this computer.

Evolution was smart. It didn't bother assembling full systems from scratch, it just operated on ones that were already self-reproducing, making them better.

There are self learning computers that use Neural Networks to teach themselves similar to a baby learning. They can talk for example. Their talking starts off like a baby talking, and then improves as they learn. I watched a program about it. It had uncanny similar characteristics to humans learning to speak.

You know for the most part it is the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth that are missing from computers. These things allow input from the outside world without programming.

[jlj000jlj]

AI is the same problem as defining genius, or any non-thing else, for that spirit.

[Pincho Paxton]

AI is the same problem as defining genius, or any non-thing else, for that spirit.

Well Einstein's brain was a bit different to the average brain. So once you look at a brain you can prbably see genius. Now, if mankind can find sentience in a form of plasma or something, we can use this energy substance whatever it is in a computer, and we will know that the computer is then sentient.

[ChaoticMelody]

I define a true AI as something that can learn of it's own accord, One that can reason and prioritise.

[Pincho Paxton]

I define a true AI as something that can learn of it's own accord, One that can reason and prioritise.

Me too. But I think we can do even better than that.

[The Duke of Khal]

Whatever it is, it's not going to be based on binary code. We'll have to come up with something that is a physical analogy to neural tissue, not merely a bits-&-bytes imitation of perceived human behaviour.

A neuron either fires or doesn't fire, which is binary.

My guess is that the hardware we have at the moment is sufficient, but that we are lacking the algorithms.

Dear Kevin,

And, I shall either respond to your post, or, I shall not. Am I binary? Sol shall either rise on the morrow, or it shall explode. Is Sol binary?

Please read up more on the hoax of information theory in order to recognise your brainwashing in thinking that neurons are anything like digital computing machines. Intelligence is not a function of "information."

"I Don't Believe in Signs"

Nevertheless, "Artificial Intelligence" is a promising field, for the replacement of Wal Mart employees, prostitutes, and logical positivists. You may even be talking to a Turing Test-acing computer program at this very moment...

K

[Pincho Paxton]

Whatever it is, it's not going to be based on binary code. We'll have to come up with something that is a physical analogy to neural tissue, not merely a bits-&-bytes imitation of perceived human behaviour.

A neuron either fires or doesn't fire, which is binary.

My guess is that the hardware we have at the moment is sufficient, but that we are lacking the algorithms.

Dear Kevin,

And, I shall either respond to your post, or, I shall not. Am I binary? Sol shall either rise on the morrow, or it shall explode. Is Sol binary?

Please read up more on the hoax of information theory in order to recognise your brainwashing in thinking that neurons are anything like digital computing machines. Intelligence is not a function of "information."

"I Don't Believe in Signs"

Nevertheless, "Artificial Intelligence" is a promising field, for the replacement of Wal Mart employees, prostitutes, and logical positivists. You may even be talking to a Turing Test-acing computer program at this very moment...

K

The link has just missed one important thing, that a computer, and an animal both contain the same ingredients as man, but not all of the ingredients are running. Like you can take a human brain, and put it in a liquidizer, mix it up, and put it in a jelly mould shaped like a human brain. You still have the same ingredients, and it still looks like a human brain, but it no longer thinks. The computer has the right ingredients to think, but they are not connected to anything. The sentience is ignored. The animal just has a smaller amount of sentience, in a smaller brain.

[Exciplex]

There's a striking parallel between all phenomena: things occur in triplets. For example: yes, no, I don't know; true, false, maybe; inside, outside, on the border; light, darkness, detail. In all cases the first two things consist a dualism and the third thing can be said to be neither the former nor the latter *as* both the former and the latter.

The brain naturally must mimic that triunity. How could it be otherwise? If the brain used binary as the basis for thought, then we could not have unpredictable futures. We could never even contemplate that. For the brain to transcend thought, it must transcend "this" and "that" - arbitrary dualistic distinctions.

One way that the brain demonstrably uses three values is the neural impulse: forward impulse, no impulse, and backward impulse. The backward impulse is not much the subject of discussions, but it is supposed to exist. I admit that my reference for this is only one and I do not know exactly where it is from off the top my head.

That neurons "fire" is a bad analogy - it is more like sinusoidal spike with a depressed tail. http://www.coolschool.ca/lor/BI12/unit1 ... Pgraph.gif for a good representation.

The picture represents two aspects to the impulse - an increasing energy, and a decreasing energy. That, to me, sounds like a phenomenon classifiable according to the "both" clause mentioned above - the phenonmenon is a semblance to a transcendental phenomenon through its combining two opposites - rising energy and falling energy.

It turns out that there is no strange surprise that humans use third values. Quantum mechanics, upon which human consciousness is physically based, has a few instances where a phenomenon exists both as neither something and/nor something else. In other words a energy can be both a particle and a wave as neither a particle nor a wave. Also, what is similar: quantum superposition - that a particle can be both here and elsewhere. Also, again what is similar: the Shrodinger's cat - the cat is both dead and alive as neither dead nor alive. All of that is what allows for both quantum and macroscopic indeterminacy alike.

[Jamesh]

That's an excellent first post. You're welcome here by my reckoning. Hope you get some decent responses. On first read there is nothing I felt compelled to argue with.

[Pincho Paxton]

There's a striking parallel between all phenomena: things occur in triplets. For example: yes, no, I don't know; true, false, maybe; inside, outside, on the border; light, darkness, detail. In all cases the first two things consist a dualism and the third thing can be said to be neither the former nor the latter *as* both the former and the latter.

The brain naturally must mimic that triunity. How could it be otherwise? If the brain used binary as the basis for thought, then we could not have unpredictable futures. We could never even contemplate that. For the brain to transcend thought, it must transcend "this" and "that" - arbitrary dualistic distinctions.

One way that the brain demonstrably uses three values is the neural impulse: forward impulse, no impulse, and backward impulse. The backward impulse is not much the subject of discussions, but it is supposed to exist. I admit that my reference for this is only one and I do not know exactly where it is from off the top my head.

That neurons "fire" is a bad analogy - it is more like sinusoidal spike with a depressed tail. http://www.coolschool.ca/lor/BI12/unit1 ... Pgraph.gif for a good representation.

The picture represents two aspects to the impulse - an increasing energy, and a decreasing energy. That, to me, sounds like a phenomenon classifiable according to the "both" clause mentioned above - the phenonmenon is a semblance to a transcendental phenomenon through its combining two opposites - rising energy and falling energy.

It turns out that there is no strange surprise that humans use third values. Quantum mechanics, upon which human consciousness is physically based, has a few instances where a phenomenon exists both as neither something and/nor something else. In other words a energy can be both a particle and a wave as neither a particle nor a wave. Also, what is similar: quantum superposition - that a particle can be both here and elsewhere. Also, again what is similar: the Shrodinger's cat - the cat is both dead and alive as neither dead nor alive. All of that is what allows for both quantum and macroscopic indeterminacy alike.

That's about how I see it too. You have to remember that binary works with the wave shape as well. Magnetism, and electric charge will also produce a wave, and binary is just stored magnetically. Apart from that it is accurate. I would just replace wave/particle duality with two state duality.

[tek0]

BBC video here on the subject at hand.

All in all not too bad for BBC.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=9

[kartkid]

I'm new to this forum, and have yet attained no idea if I can contrubute anything, but here it goes:

First, I think we have to look at the human figure in a way that honestly disturbs me. I belive that logically, all I am is a massive, imensely complex arrangement of ellements that have gathered in such a way as to express actions that we would say represent "life".

I need to get that out of the way to describe that we are a machine, all "life" as we know it was started by a comlpletely random, and immensely inprobable chain of events that started these molecular reactions that we consist of.

In knowing this, I have come to know Artificial Inteligence as completely plausible, But the computer power that would be needed to replicate the bianary output of the incomprehensible number of neurons in a brain. Probably not possible with todays computer technology.

I hope I have, and can continue to contribute to this forum,

[Jamesh]

I hope I have, and can continue to contribute to this forum,

Contribution is less important than you clarifying reality to yourself.

comlpletely random, and immensely inprobable chain of events

Be careful in the manner in which you use these concepts. In the way you have expressed them, they relate to the manner in which a normal human relates to reality - "its all a mystery". Nothing is random, and as such what exists is not improbable. It is the fact that all things are determined that removes the possibility of improbability.

Why is everything determined (and I don't mean determined by some entity, the entity is everything else) is because of cause and effect. I would point you to Davids Wisdom of the Infinite

"First, I think we have to look at the human figure in a way that honestly disturbs me."

What is really real, is disturbing, initially, but like everything else, with habit such emotional unrest dies away.

Apart from that your ideas are fine, from my viewpoint at least.
Still, I get the impression, you are little young-in-experience to be here. Personally I prefer young people to experience many of the trevails of normal human life and then decide to look for something better. IMO, one has to feel emotions as an adult before they decide to reject them. Emotions teach judgement, which is a reason why those who suffer most seek truths of reality. Imo, if truth is given to early, before one has experienced the wide range of standard human emotions, then when they experience emotions new to them, things can go astray.

On the other hand, I cannot know how much above average intelligence causes suffering in young people, so it may be fine that you are here.

[ataxas]

The input into a neuron is not binary, and its output, although binary in nature, is not in effect binary. That is to say, one neuron's output is not always enough by itself to make another neuron fire.

Kevin, have you studied connectionist models?

Pancho Paxton: Although we can emulate human hardware on Boolean machines, this does not mean that the human brain is by nature Boolean.

[Pincho Paxton]

The input into a neuron is not binary, and its output, although binary in nature, is not in effect binary. That is to say, one neuron's output is not always enough by itself to make another neuron fire.

Kevin, have you studied connectionist models?

Pancho Paxton: Although we can emulate human hardware on Boolean machines, this does not mean that the human brain is by nature Boolean.

I was thinking more like energy levels like compare one energy level with another, and get a result. That's how electrons, and photons work. Photon = 500, Electron = -250, result = 250, colour = Grey...etc. Because Electrons are negative energy. This used as thoughts would mean that there are 500 possible results for each neuron, and this multiplies over the period of a single thought. I think I was too hasty to say that this was Binary.

[ataxas]

Although electricity is involved in the "communication" between neurons, it is not what is transferred. Each neuron detects the presence or absence of several neurotransmitters emitted by a neuron that it is connected to. It is an incredibly complex exchange, even at the most basic level.

[jlj000jlj]

Why restrict intelligence to the brain?

The brain is a nexus of connections for the whole body,
it is not separate. Intelligence is not located anywhere.

Neurons have dendritic connections and microtubules that decidedly
do not imply a digital nature.

The problem with analogies to our knowledge of neuronal systems
is that the neuronal systems are approximations. Aprroximations
of approximations multiplies error.

The problem is much larger than any reductionist approximation.
A non-thing cannot be captured in a thing. The non-objective
cannot be expressed objectively, but it can be approximated
to such a degree to be useful for some purpose.

Machines are not containers that can be filled to infinity.
Machines are extensions of our own consciousness into other
realms. If a machine has any intelligence, it is our intelligence,
and not the machine's.

There is no artificial intelligence, only intelligence.
There is no creation other than the one happening now.
Intelligence has no end, how can it be captured?
It would be easier to capture sunlight in a jar.

[Pincho Paxton]

Why restrict intelligence to the brain?

The brain is a nexus of connections for the whole body,
it is not separate. Intelligence is not located anywhere.

Neurons have dendritic connections and microtubules that decidedly
do not imply a digital nature.

The problem with analogies to our knowledge of neuronal systems
is that the neuronal systems are approximations. Aprroximations
of approximations multiplies error.

The problem is much larger than any reductionist approximation.
A non-thing cannot be captured in a thing. The non-objective
cannot be expressed objectively, but it can be approximated
to such a degree to be useful for some purpose.

Machines are not containers that can be filled to infinity.
Machines are extensions of our own consciousness into other
realms. If a machine has any intelligence, it is our intelligence,
and not the machine's.

There is no artificial intelligence, only intelligence.
There is no creation other than the one happening now.
Intelligence has no end, how can it be captured?
It would be easier to capture sunlight in a jar.

Very true, but True Artificial Intelligence has this symbollic meaning for Sentience which most people just accept.

[brad walker]

When do you all believe we will have the world's first truly intelligent AI?

And when do you believe we will have an AI that matches a human's ability?

Please give a reason for your choice.

Unpredictable. I think all it will take is for a genius-type person to sit down and do it - possibly when some experience they have had gives them a clue on how to do it.

Unfortunately, more likely it'll play out like this: "Having created a biologically accurate computer model of a neocortical column scientists are now planning to model the entire human brain within just 10 years."

[ataxas]

That's about how I see it too. You have to remember that binary works with the wave shape as well. Magnetism, and electric charge will also produce a wave, and binary is just stored magnetically. Apart from that it is accurate. I would just replace wave/particle duality with two state duality.

Boolean values are exactly what he is not suggesting. In all examples, he speaks of three states.

[Pincho Paxton]

That's about how I see it too. You have to remember that binary works with the wave shape as well. Magnetism, and electric charge will also produce a wave, and binary is just stored magnetically. Apart from that it is accurate. I would just replace wave/particle duality with two state duality.

Boolean values are exactly what he is not suggesting. In all examples, he speaks of three states.

Three choices.. YES/NO/MAYBE which is how neural networks were first made, but conservation of energy works in passing 2 states of energy between each other. It depends on which stage of the brain you are talking about. I figured that the bell curve was electrical rather than choice related.

[ataxas]

If you are referring to the labelling of output nodes as yes/no/maybe, then you misunderstand. Output nodes can be labelled whatever one wishes in a neural net, however, the internal values used for calculation, as in a biological brain, are analogue.

[Pincho Paxton]

If you are referring to the labelling of output nodes as yes/no/maybe, then you misunderstand. Output nodes can be labelled whatever one wishes in a neural net, however, the internal values used for calculation, as in a biological brain, are analogue.

Output variables can be named whatever you want, I have programmed them you know. I have made my own AI programmes.I was talking about the first Neural Networks which used Yes/No/Maybe as the rules. The computer programes that were taught to speak in English. Biological brain is sentient, and you will not find the sentience, but you might be able to use it some day. Sentience is most likely analogue, electrons could be analogue, but I would say that the move through a aether, and that would make them work in steps, although, very, very tiny steps, totally indivisable.

[ataxas]

I was talking about the first Neural Networks which used Yes/No/Maybe as the rules. The computer programes that were taught to speak in English.

Either I am still not understanding your meaning correctly, or you are mistaken. Neural networks, even at their humble beginnings, used much more complex internal variables than "Yes" "No" "Maybe" and back-propagation rules to modify the connection weights between nodes.

Here is a link for the reference of others, who may not be entirely familiar with the debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network - A link showing neural nets as they are today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedforward_neural_network - A link showing the simplest and earliest neural net, the single-layer perceptron, and the second generation, a multilayer perceptron, which is the first type to use back-propagation techniques.

The second link, I think, clearly shows that the earliest type of neural net uses analogue internal values (decimal points between -1 and 1), and that it was not used to model English, as, in the 1950s when it was devised, there was no hardware capable of supporting such a function.

In double-checking my information, I had the thought that you might be referring to the first real-world application of a neural network. It was a project named MADALINE, which is still in use, filtering static out of phone lines.

https://www.thedacs.com/techs/neural/ - A link to an article about the history of neural networks, containing information about MADALINE. The history of neural nets is in part 3.0; the link will not link directly.

I then set about searching for the model to which you refer, which seems to be this model:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n09gg0v2x5736887/ - A summary of the paper in question.

The paper was published in 1994, and submitted in 1993, almost a half-century after the first physically constructed model of a neural net. It is disquieting to accuse another of intellectual dishonesty, and so I will assume that you were convinced of the accuracy of your information, and so did not check your facts.

Biological brain is sentient, and you will not find the sentience, but you might be able to use it some day. Sentience is most likely analogue, electrons could be analogue, but I would say that the move through a aether, and that would make them work in steps, although, very, very tiny steps, totally indivisable.

I wonder what you mean by electrons being analogue. Do you mean their movement? What do you mean when you speak of "aether"? Something like this?:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

Then, do you deny the existence of vacuums?