Skip to main content

View Diary: Computerized Brain To Be Completed by 2020 (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I wouldn't worry about it.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andrew C White, AoT

    Artificial intelligence has been 'about 5-10 years away' for the last 50 years.  Algorithmic approaches like this will never produce creative systems like human minds.  They still may do useful and interesting things, but the wont be capable of human thought.  That's my take as a non-mainstream cognitive scientist.

    •  Creativity is just trained trial and error (0+ / 0-)

      And that can definitely be programmed. In fact, I would argue that computers have the capacity for greater creativity than humans because they aren't burdened with the need for recognition.

      Thinking computers probably won't mimic human thoughts exactly, because they don't have bodies, but I can easily see their potential for emotions and curiosity.

      •  I respectfully disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT

        What I'm specifically denying is the Church-Turing Hypothesis that all natural processes are computable.  Computers can process information that is programmed into them, but they do not create (nor destroy) it.  Basically computers can only do what they are told by their creators, even if their creators don't not exactly what that will be.  That ignorance doesn't change the fact that what they do was predetermined the minute the their program was complete.
        I contend that there are many natural systems (cognition, life, ecology, etc.) that are sources and sinks of information that cannot be predetermined and are therefor non-computable.

        •  I think that people don't understand the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ecjade

          model/reality distinction in this context.  I think it's entirely possible to create a machine that thinks in some way, but that machine won't be a "computer" in regards to just being a number cruncher like the computers we have now.  People tend to think of computers as being more than just number crunchers because they appear to do so much more, even though they really just flip bits from one to zero and vice versa in ways that are useful or pretty or whatever.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 10:42:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Simple counter example (0+ / 0-)

          It's trivial to come up with algorithms that create chaotic output. Beyond certain thresholds, output is completely unpredictable. (See Mitchell Feignbaum's studies of chaotic oscillators)

          The difference between a simple oscillator that produces unpredictable output and a human that produces unpredictable output is just a matter of degrees. (We have a lot of inputs) There are no instances of the creation  of completely new information in human history. Every advancement or discovery builds upon previous advancements and discoveries.

          We may not yet fully understand how our brains mix and process information, but that doesn't mean that human comparable intelligence cannot be approximated algorithmically.

          •  That assumes that it's possible to (0+ / 0-)

            completely map a complex system, and that's a pretty big assumption.  Sometimes these things go from being a difference in degree to being a difference of kind.

            We may not yet fully understand how our brains mix and process information, but that doesn't mean that human comparable intelligence cannot be approximated algorithmically.
            The problem I see is that we don't know if they are yet.  And really calling them algorythmic says to me that they probably aren't, given that this is another case of comparing the brain to whatever our most recent technology is.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 11:37:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Still deterministic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            Chaotic systems are completely deterministic... the same inputs always produce the same outputs, even if you are sure that that will be.

            We are probably talking past each other about information as it's a pretty vague word.  I mean information in a sense like this:  Today there is certainly information about elephants.  What about 1 billion years ago?  Was there information about elephants then?  I'd say no...that information had to be created through the process of evolution.  And it's not that there was 'zero' information about elephants... it was less than that... no information at all (how could you conceive of an elephant at that point).  Sadly, that's what would happen to the information about elephants if we manage to wipe them out. :(

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site