blike Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Computers have rapidly become part of our everyday lives. In less than half a century, countless human operations have been replaced with computers who can do it faster and more efficiently, and don't ask for wages. So when does a computer become alive? If you think about it, computers do most things humans do. They can understand language, they can read, they can see, they can communicate, they can beat you in chess and plan your trip. They can regulate their resources as to run most efficiently, they require energy from an outside source. They can tell you when something is wrong with them, and sometimes even tell you what is wrong. So when is it living? Some people argue that it can only do this because we program it to, which is true. But who "programmed" you to read? Your teachers/parents did. Who programmed you to understand language, or draw pictures of the world around you? What happens when hybrid biological computers that mate living neuron cells with silicon circuits-part living, part silicon-become feasable? Is it alive then? How about (I'm talking way future) when (and a big IF) they can scan your brain into a computer. Does that computer become YOU? Just some things I was thinking about this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 I wonder if assembling an artificial intelligence from part would be almost the same as growing brain tissue in a laboratory and attaching sensory inputs to it. If we had small strands of DNA with only the instructions for the tissue, would it have sentience? What I am getting at is there seems to be incredible amounts of what are called junk genes in between important ones and if you only use the important ones to build the biological unit, would it have structure and no sentience. Would it be like a machine. Maybe our humanity is expressed in the junk genes making us individuals and we might need something extra to add to a computer to make it sentient. Maybe were more than just our expressed parts. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenel Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 A project by a certain doctor, I forget who, involved programming a computer to reply to voice structures, and feelings. If you had an angry voice, it gave you an angry face , a happy voice, a happy face , a concieted voice....well.. . Though a computer could learn to interpret what feelings another individual had, I'm positive it would not be able to experience it itself. (I'm not a big startreck fan, so bear with me here) Take that robot man from Starteck for example; I remember him never being able to have any emotions, because his computer wouldn't allow him to. More spiritually, how can a computer be alive without a soul? Even if a brain was downloaded into one, where's the heart, the soul? The Love? Would "alive" computers breathe oxygen? and carbon dioxide? My only concern, is the fact that if computers are made to replicate humans, and are more effecient in almost anything it can do (than humans), including killing (without a conscience of course), will we be "over-run" by our own creations? Isn't this what Mary Shelly was addressing in her book Frankenstien? It may only be Hollywood, but James Cameron's vision of a robot run world (Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgement Day), may not be too far from the truth. (If we do as blike questions, that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanetCpp Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 living machines is something i can only WISH i had the time to play with. what i always think about is something i guess id consider fractal AI. what i mean by that is, considering a chat bot like A.L.I.C.E, instead of just making a really huge list of responses and sorting keywords into ways that they can be accessed and chosen..have the bot learn on its own, program it to learn, not regurgitate sayings. im not completely familiar with alice's programming, i do know that the bot does have some memory. just before i was talking to it about judith..whos that? i dont know but shes 39 and thinks alice needs friends. when you talk to the bot if you make an observation about it , it might ask you if it can tell other people what you said about it. thats what it did to me, and it really does remember things about you, name and so on. its not perfect of course and ive noticed where it wont remember certain things. the bot also asked me what it should say in response to greeting it, i used a greeting it was unfamiliar with. id guess this was logged by it for future use. what if we base a bot completely on that type of learning? we have to assume that all conversations would stay within the subject bounds, and also all responses be meaningful. in other words we have to assume that we wont teach it to say "hi" when you say "bye". the first conversations would be filled with "how would i respond to that" and logging , but after time those would lessen. would this be considered regurgitating data? and we can also mimic the human short and long term memory, one thing alice lacks is short term memory, in order to keep the conversation within the same subject you have to mention the subject each question (some cases you dont but most do). a short term database can be a guidline for a long term db search. references to 'it' can be matched to the current object being talked about and so on. i think when it comes to machines acting as humans. what i always used to think about computers is now wrong to me, i used to think computers were like really fast dumb people. now i think the problem is that they are too slow, compared to our minds, they really are. i look on my desk and i see two monitors, a pen, a cd, a picture with 3 friends..how do i know these things?? the monitor, how do i know its a monitor. is it a result of an analysis of shape, color, content, and use all searched in memory with the resulting 'my monitor' coming back so fast that i never realize im thinking of it? right now computers are too slow to do that, to take in as many points about an object as we can and search for it, plus the database would be so huge i dont think faf would even know the name for the size of the HD needed. but thats just my opinion i may be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 If a series of these units you described, hundreds or thousands were all connected to a central processing terminal I'm sure they would be able to develop social skills beyond some of the people you meet everyday. Their answering and spontaneous speaking skills would probably put a lot of politicians to shame. Does a politician have sentience anyway? Back to the discussion. If we aso taught it to design its own children better than it was constructed, then it might at some next built stage develop the ability to care that its newest design is built. Kinda scary but then at least it would care about something. We just have to point it in the proper direction. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hogslayer Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 One of the more interesting parts of animal intelligence and human psychology, is our innate system of working with metaphor, anecdote and analogy. That is something far, far away if it ever surfaces in AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 So do you think life can be made up of a bunch of binary sequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 the issue here is as follows: do we have enough understanding of physics to really understand the processes which cause the mind to com into being. Personally I say we don't, and I expect that there is something fundamental about physics that we do not yet know which will shed light on this interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 The brain does seem to operate as multitudes of binary signals. The complicated processing though results in what we call a consciousness and that's multiple inputs before an output. It seems a lot more complicated in the brain then on a circuit board. Someday maybe we can make an actual schematic of a brain. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 First off, we should define life. It remains undefined, in general but there are some classifications such as heredity. Every classified living thing has DNA. Note that I said classified for the afforementioned reasons. In conclusion, it is perfectly tenable to assume that copmuters are alive, seeing that the whole definition of life is anisotropic. Comments? How do you define life? Secondly, the brain is influenced by magnetic waves, right? So why not make a computer that is sensitive to magnetic waves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward the issue here is as follows: do we have enough understanding of physics to really understand the processes which cause the mind to com into being. Personally I say we don't, and I expect that there is something fundamental about physics that we do not yet know which will shed light on this interesting topic. As I said before, in a way we do. The essence of our existence is almost entirely based on magnetic waves/electricity. What interests me is that the heart can still beat when the brain is frozen for a certain period of time. So how does one explain such a phenomenon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 I'd like to hear more about this frozen head example. Do you mean froze or just very low temperature? Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Cardiac cells beat to their own signal. If you cut some cells out of a heart, they still beat for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Cardiac cells beat to their own signal. If you cut some cells out of a heart, they still beat for a while. Do you know how long this time is? B/c I'm sure we've all heard of someone running, and suddenly gettint their head chopped off, but the body will still run for a while; the heart is a different concept right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Oh, yeah, that's right! When people are beheaded, their eyes blink for a minute or two. That's how Anne of Boyln(I think I'm pretty close with the spelling) was accused of being a witch by her husband, King Henry the VIII. Why do cardiac cells do this? I'm sure its not only the cardiac cells that are involved. What role do neurons have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta As I said before, in a way we do. The essence of our existence is almost entirely based on magnetic waves/electricity. that is a pretty invalid assumption to make. I suggest you read The Emperor's New Mind. Originally posted by MajinVegeta That's how Anne Boelyn was accused of being a witch by her husband, King Henry the VIII. I thought she was accused of this before she was beheaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward oops. :scratch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara?:scratch: no delete button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrIVIAL/\bLue Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Well, One thing that I can think of for why a person's eyes would blink after death, for a few minutes, is that in humans the electrical signals arn't dependent on a complete circuit to function. That is how neurons are involved...they are still able to fire after death, well untill there power source fails. I know very little about the brain so I may be wrong...but it could be that there are different types of neurons...ones that fire and ones that are dependant on other ones before they fire. So the high priority ones (the ones that can fire) would fire without input but have a higher possibiblity or "reason" to fire with and additional input. I dont know if that makes sense... I am quite visual so I can see all of this happening but I dont know if I can describe it or if any of it is relevant. I am just shouting somthing out there! sorry for the typos.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Originally posted by TrIVIAL/\bLue stuff residual synaptic capacitance, or something... It is a while since I say the technical term for it. and that is what heppens in chickens when you cut their heads off and their bodies run around for a bit. What is described above is different. having one's head cut off does not lead to instant brain death as there is no reason for the brain to die immediately, though you might be knocked out with the pain. the brain takes a few seconds to die as it runs out of blood and oxygen, and in this time you can still look round and blink and stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Living machines: I thought there were criteria for life (Ingestion, excretion, respiration, growth and reproduction). Are we talking about living machines, or sentient machines? Someday maybe we can make an actual schematic of a brain. Just aman There are an estimated 1 billion neurons in the spinal cord, 70 billion in the cerebellum and 12-15 billion in the cerebral cortex. Multiply that by the number of dendritic connections between neurons and...well, I wish you luck, but I won't be holding my breath Why do cardiac cells do this? I'm sure its not only the cardiac cells that are involved. What role do neurons have? MajinVegeta Cardiac cells are autonomous. Their membranes allow a steady influx of sodium ions that result in an action potential at comparatively regular intervals. Put two or more of these cells together, and they will begin to beat in unison. Keep them bathed in oxygenated Wringer's solution and they will do this indefinitely. What role do neurons have? In the case of the heart, they simply moderate the rate. The motor component of the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X), regulates heart rate according to demand. Sever the vagus nerve and the heart will continue beating, but at its own rate and irrespective of the changing needs of the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 "Cardiac muscle cells are electrically coupled to enhance the rapid depolarisation of the whole heart. ie Between cardiac cells there are Intercalated Disks which are regions where the cell membranes come very close together. In these regions there is a reduced electrical resistance to allow rapid A.P. transfer via GAP JUNCTIONS. Therefore better flow of charged particles and hence current." From this site Basically when once a cardiac cells gets a message to contract it passes it on to it's neighbours and they do the same. Pacemaker cells rhythmically fire; their membranes allow Na ions to flow in which triggers an action potential, after which it returns to a resting state then the Na leaks in again and triggers another action potential...(also from that site) We were dissecting toads the other day that had been kept below freezing, and were brain dead, for hours. Some of them still had beating hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Originally posted by Glider I thought there were criteria for life (Ingestion, excretion, respiration, growth and reproduction). Are we talking about living machines, or sentient machines? are sterile people not alive then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 There's always something in biology that escapes the definition. I guess you can say they are people, and people generally reproduce, so they are alive by belonging to a group which has the feature of being alive. That's some fairly convoluted logic I'll grant you. Virus' are also tricky, my microbiology lecturer believes they aren't alive because they can't reproduce on their own, don't metabolise, grow, etc. I disagree but I know what I'll put on the exam;) That aside though, being sentient is not on any lists of requirements for being alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now