|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 23, 5:44*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
casey wrote [...] What machines can do better than us is: Carry out tasks we give them at great speed which means they can do things we can't because we can't write that fast and we at this stage can't rewire our brain for those tasks. They can also do tasks which require much more reliable memory than any human can have too. There may well be a reason we don't have such computer perfect memories. That's why navigation system do much better than any human can ever do, they can use immense databases which produce a much better result when say producing an optimum route to cover a very wide variety of places that must be visited with say a complex delivery run etc. But all that was coded by humans and there may well be a reason we are not that "perfect". Car navigation systems have failed in a way a human would probably not fail leading the drivers into dangerous situations. Also our neurons are slow compared with electronic switching devices which is a physical limitation not a cognitive limitation. We can process visual data very fast because we have parallel wiring for that task. But it remains to be seen if we can do much better with a machine that say uses measurement for facial recognition when the image quality is poor etc. Machines may well do better than humans but again it depends on how clever we are at writing their code unless of course new connections are learned in an ANN of some kind. TD-Gammon is a good example of an ANN that learnt to recognize high value backgammon board states. So let us not confuse speed of execution with intelligence. Sure, but not all computing is about speed of execution. And I wasn't suggesting otherwise. It is however the reason we use computers for what they do so far is mostly what we code them to do and which given their speed we could do also. They don't write their own code or have their own goals. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:42:06 -0800 (PST), casey
wrote: ... there is no reason to suppose that the optimal thinking machine finding the answer to life, the universe, and everything has to be modeled on human thinking. But it would be a good start. If you don't understand how humans think what chance have you of building a machine that can think even better? If we don't understand how humans walk, or birds fly could we make cars or airplanes? Thinking "better" is better for a task. If the task is to think like humans, that's one thing, but if it is to solve some tough problem, there is no reason to assume our way of thinking is appropriate anymore than it is to assume that our way of walking is best for all kinds of transportation. We certainly don't want to duplicate human thinking flaws into, say, our computer overlord. -- Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do their thinking for them. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 22, 2:29 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:57 am, Immortalist wrote: On Feb 22, 7:00 am, Dare wrote: On 2/21/2013 7:36 PM, Immortalist wrote: On Feb 21, 4:29 pm, Howard Brazee wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural activities that are a sense of your self. I concur on the (implied potential) range of activities meme. The series of clones thing I disagree with- it implies that all cells (as mentioned elsethread) in a tissue (and by implication the whole body) get "turned over" every so many years *all at the same time* which is unreasonable. Which phrase made it seem like I was implying that it all happened all at once? Heraclitus thought that the contents of things change, but their form remains the same. He wondered under what conditions do objects persist through time as one and the same object. In ancient times, this problem came to be associated with the Ship of Theseus; The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same. --Plutarch (c. 46- 127). The original puzzle is this: over the years, the Athenians replaced each plank in the original ship of Theseus as it decayed, thereby keeping it in good repair. Eventually, there was not a single plank left of the original ship. So, did the Athenians still have one and the same ship that used to belong to Theseus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus Theseus is famous in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull monster who lived in the Labyrinth in the island of Crete. According to Plutarch, the ship in which Theseus sailed back to Athens was preserved for many generations, its old planks being replaced by new ones as they decayed. Now suppose that a few hundred years later, all the original parts of the ship had been replaced, one by one, so that none of the original ship remained. Is the preserved ship still Theseus' ship? Or is it a copy? And if the latter, then at what point did it cease to be Theseus' ship? It seems that if just one plank were replaced, it would still be Theseus' ship. And if it was still his ship, and another plank were replaced, then it should still be Theseus' ship. By this reasoning (which is the same as in the sorites paradox), it would be Theseus' ship even after all planks are replaced. We are about process, not state. A so-called state of mind is not a photograph, it's a three-panel cartoon. Perception, "filter", reaction. "filter" = particular set of "neural activities" in that range. Some ongoing and constantly changing processes create "stable states". I suppose the simplest example would be a water fountain where a constantly changing column of water shoots up but at the top there is a stable flat and smooth spot persists over time. Also don't forget The Multiple Drafts Modal ....there are a variety of sensory inputs from a given event and also a variety of interpretations of these inputs. The sensory inputs arrive in the brain and are interpreted at different times, so a given event can give rise to a succession of discriminations, constituting the equivalent of multiple drafts of a story. As soon as each discrimination is accomplished, it becomes available for eliciting a behaviour; it does not have to wait to be presented at the theatre. Like a number of other theories, the Multiple Drafts model understands conscious experience as taking time to occur, such that "percepts do not instantaneously arise in the mind in their full richness". The distinction is that Dennett's theory denies any clear and unambiguous boundary separating conscious experiences from all other processing. According to Dennett, consciousness is to be found in the actions and flows of information from place to place, rather than some singular view containing our experience. There is "no central experiencer [who] confers a durable stamp of approval on any particular draft". Different parts of the neural processing assert more or less control at different times. For something to reach consciousness is akin to becoming famous, in that it must leave behind consequences by which it is remembered. To put it another way, consciousness is the property of having enough influence to affect what the mouth will say and the hands will do. Which inputs are "edited" into our drafts "is not an exogenous act of supervision, but part of the self-organizing functioning of the network, and at the same level as the circuitry that conveys information bottom-up". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Drafts_Model Once those activities go outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those successions of neural events. Well, a clone is (loosely speaking) an exact replica, but me right now is not an exact replica of me ten, twenty etc. years ago. What continues as "I"? I think it's just a particular constellation of "things I'm good at" and "things I'm bad at" due to brain structure/ disposition(s) from genetics modulo diet, environment, socialization, yada yada. The most popular theory at the time in science is that this "me" is the same thing as the brain doing something over time: the theory that subjective experience is only what the brain does even if it involves quantum spluge. Though it seems static or stable and located in a place it could instead be distributed in a complex way in space and time much like "poly-sensory" modality is. When a cat hears a dog bark some think it has visual memories of dogs. The association areas of the brain are mainly between the areas where sensory inputs are mapped and these areas connect the senses together. Most memories are poly-sensory. Poly-sensory data input through more than one sense at a time, hearing and seeing simultaneously, associate many memories in diverse areas of the brain. For example; Vision is no doubt one of the most sophisticated systems of the brain, and its peculiar information-coding system, together with that of hearing, may have given rise to other aspects of intelligence. In the mammal's brain, the 'association areas' of the cortex allow codified data from various senses to be exchanged and compared. To give a very simple example, if a dog in a dark room hears a cat's miaow, he no doubt 'pictures' the cat, or at least conjures up an idea of a whole cat, not just of its isolated miaowing. All of this exchange of information goes on automatically-it is part of the routine intelligence of a dog. Furthermore, the animal's ability for such poly sensory modelling of the environment may have been the evolutionary basis for the phenomenon of self-consciousness! (More on that, and its philosophical implications, later.) http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Hum.../9780231059466 I agree with my pal Mahipal- "me" always changes. All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as other processes that re-present a present moment through changing stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between 'same' and 'other,' different waters flow in rivers staying the same, though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same. Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher- level structures. http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/ As for "activities outside the range of [one's] -selfing-, I refer you to Lovecraft's _At The Mountains Of Madness_. Isn't that more like the Terminator scenario where the creation takes over the creator and makes war against it? SciFi literature has traditionally sucked the dick of Christianity and Capitalism. Try and mention immortality or replication of a soul and yer condemned from the start. This area could be a growth Industry once the myth and money are violently knocked back into their place. This science fiction obsession with libertarian philosophy dooms it temporarily also. For example, currently my favorite lecture, think of all the concepts tarnished by either supporting or going against some economic framework while discussing the consequences of the evolution of technology. Sonia Arrison: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYMjCfywRCQ from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6 SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. Well yeah, self-examination on the fly is difficult. Especially in the late 1700s when that was written. That's why we study other people. Ironic since the quote by David Hume was in part a critique of George Berkeley's Solipsism and Idealism. From---- http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm Is a feeling of identity or self related to experiencing Time? What happens to "self" if there is no time... Zen adepts claim that self vanishes without time-bound experience. Cool. The second part of your question addresses issues relating to consciousness and continuity. Can the activities of the brain that are the self, if stopped be started again? Would it be only a clone that believes it is you or have we always just been a bunch of clones that produce this feeling of being one me? But to this continuity dilemma you raise; there are too many things and processes happening to give some simple answer. Why would we believe that consciousness can or cannot be stopped and then started in the first place? If the heart stops tissues die but when we sleep consciousness seems to stop, so simple comparisons will probably fail us. Religion and philosophy seem to be the culprits that make us invent such ideas. In sleep consciousness is altered; it does not stop. Look up lucid dreaming and sleep learning for starters. While it is true that neurons are always active at some rate of patterned firing, there is a big difference between dreaming and deep sleep. Researchers have found that we deep dead sleep for more than an hour and then dream for 15 or 20 minutes and then go back into deep dead sleep. Some think that the reason outside noises make it into the dream is so the organism can wake if the dream becomes radical. The just so story then predicts that we dream to periodically check the outside world before we drop back into a vulnerable state of deep sleep. The central principle of neurophysiogy is that nerves don't just turn off and on but that each changes it's rate of firing so that various parts of the brain dance together. An area of the brain considered not active is active but is firing at the wrong rate to make any difference. What if consciousness is full of stops and starts? Again time seems to be necessary if consciousness is the same thing as activities in a brain. Consciousness seems to me to be more like a conversation between different specialized wetware modules of the brain. It can be a roaring rock party babble or a low indistinct mutter. If nobody has anything to say to each other at a party there's a lull, but not really a stop. Same with our "selves". Bravo, that sounds similar to the nerves are always firing at some rate argument. Things don't really stop. (It's qualitative not quantitative) ......In a sparse distributed network - memory is a type of perception.....The act of remembering and the act of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns....When we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to perceive the pattern originally. The stored patterns change over time as the physical substrate they're "written" on (cerebral neurons and their interconnections) change over time. Can you show in the presented text where such an argument was presented for or against the notion of change in memory structures? Could all parts of our experience and reasoning abilities be very similar to a type of perception? If the act of remembering and the act of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns and when we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to perceive the pattern originally, and trigger areas of the brain which our senses would, in essence bypassing the senses, then it seems possible that most of our experience works in a similar way. Yes, of course. Some modules perceive sensory input, some only perceive the output of other modules. Mostly it's like with vision where primary areas break up the data and other nearby areas detect or specialize in detecting particular features in that data. http://reanimater.tripod.com/StagesOfDecoding.html Benjamin Libet famously suggested it takes about half a second for the brain to get through all the processing steps needed to settle our view of the moment just past. But this immediately raises the question of why don't we notice a lag? How does anyone ever manage to hit a tennis ball or drive a car? The answer is that we anticipate. We also have a level of preconscious habit which "intercepts" stuff before it reaches a conscious level of awareness. And yet it really does take something like half a second to develop a fully conscious experience of life. You can read about the cycle of processing story and its controversies in the following.... The implication is that the whole brain "get(s) through all the processing steps" at the same time. That's unreasonable since different parts of the brain process information at different rates; there's no computer-analogous "system clock" for organic brains. That's not quite true since most animals with a brain stem have something equivalent to the Reticular Activating System which is a series of neural loops or feedback circuitry that time and coordinate larger functions in widely separated regions of the brain. Also many areas of the brain are simple "drivers" in that they translate data from one area of the brain into the language of other areas. Major groups of the brain have their own language that is different than others. Again this is probably influences by the different data from different sense perceptions, sound vs sight. On The Reticular Activating System http://www.google.com/search?q=retic...ivating+system The activity of this system is crucial for maintaining the state of consciousness. It is situated at the core of the brain stem between the myelencephalon (medulla oblongata) and mesencephalon (midbrain). It is involved with the circadian rhythm; damage can lead to permanent coma. It is thought to be the area affected by many psychotropic drugs. General anesthetics work through their effect on the reticular formation. Fibers from the reticular formation are also vital in controlling respiration, cardiac rhythms, and other essential functions. Although the functioning of this system is a prerequisite for consciousness to occur, it is generally assumed that this system's role is indirect and it does not, by itself, generate consciousness. Instead, its unique anatomical and physiological characteristics ensure that the thalamocortical system fire in such a way that is compatible with conscious experience. The reticular activating system controls our sexual patterns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticul...ivating_system The Brain Clocks man in the hypothalamus; The suprachiasmatic center is one of the body's two major biological clocks. It not only regulates hormones related to the day/night cycle, but it orchestrates the activities of many other internal clocks. In numerous experiments, it has been shown that when the SCN is not innervated, the human body clocks free run; they set their own time. The body is awash with internal clocks. Researchers know of over one hundred clocks so far (Carol Orlock; from the book "Inner Time"). The human body has inner clocks in nearly every organ, every type of tissue, and inside many cells. All of these clocks have to be synchronized, and all are controlled (and influence) the body's two master clocks, the SCN inside the hypothalamus, and a second unidentified clock that regulates body temperature and alertness. (the activities of the second clock are well known, but its locale within the brain is unknown) Chronobiologists divide the clocks into three areas: ultradian rhythms (those shorter than a day); circadian rhythms (24 hour cycles); and infradian rhythms (those cycling in intervals greater than 24 hours). Heart beats, body temperature, breathing patterns, and blink rates are examples of ultradian rhythms. The day/night cycle is circadian. A woman's menstrual cycle is infradian. All of these cycles are governed by hormones released by internal body clocks. http://www.wayfinding.net/hypothal.htm Ontogeny of the circadian clock: Dysfunction of the circadian clock may underlie several disease states, including Seasonal Affective Disorder, and sleep disorders. My PhD thesis work concentrated on the development of the circadian clock, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus. In particular, the synchronization of the neonatal circadian clock by cues derived from the mother, and the development of the light synchronizing pathway which allows the ambient light-dark cycle to influence synchronization of rhythms in the mature mammal. A combination of neuroanatomical, biochemical and behavioral approaches in the rodent were used to characterize maternal- entrainment mechanisms and the neuronal changes within the biological clock at key developmental stages. Results have revealed a role for maternal cues in the co-ordination of circadian rhythmicity during the postnatal period. A role for the neurotransmitter dopamine has been implicated in transducing these maternal cues prenatally. I have provided neuroanatomical and biochemical evidence for this system in the postnatal rodent. Since completing the PhD my recent experiments have demonstrated a loss of dopaminergic influence and a continued effect of melatonin on adult circadian entrainment, and have examined the role of the transcription factor pCREB in various entrainment pathways within the SCN. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jdunlap/people/giles.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jdunlap/people/giles2.jpg Many tissues in mammals, e.g., liver and skeletal muscle, have endogenous clocks. But all of these are under the control (more or less, see note) of a "master clock", the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) - clusters of neurons in the hypothalamus. Small wonder, then, that the blood levels of hormones synthesized in the hypothalamus, e.g. arginine vasopressin (also called the antidiuretic hormone, ADH) or whose secretion is controlled by the hypothalamus such as growth hormone and cortisol have strong circadian rhythms. http://tinyurl.com/eyz4 In humans and other mammals the primary body clock is located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei, a cluster of around 10 000 neurones located on either side of the midline above the optic chiasma, about 3 cm behind the eyes. 3 4 If these nuclei are destroyed, either experimentally in animals or as a result of disease in humansfor example, compression by expanding pituitary tumoursthe ability to express any overt circadian rhythms is destroyed. The temporal programme of behaviour and physiology is scrambled. In experimental animals with such ablation, central grafting of neonatal hypothalamic tissue containing the suprachiasmatic nuclei can restore circadian patterning to the activity-rest cycle. Not only is this compelling evidence that the clock is an autonomous property of the suprachiasmatic nuclei, it is also an excellent example of the restoration of function by neural grafting. The daily clock is crucial for longer term processes in many animals. Migration, hibernation, fattening, and fur growth are all adaptations to winter, while the annual rut of large animals and the summer population explosion of smaller ones are all cued, months in advance, by the change in day length. The circadian clock is central to this effect because the signal it gives out changes its shape to reflect the longer nights of winter. As a result, the nocturnal peak of melatonin secretion by the pineal gland, which is tightly controlled by the suprachiasmatic nuclei, provides an internal endocrine calendar. A lengthening melatonin signal from night to night indicates the season is moving through autumn to winter, while progressive shortening means the worst of winter may soon be over. http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7174/1704 Circadian Rhythms and Clocks Daily biological rhythms, including sleep-wake cycles, are called circadian rhythms. These internal clocks, sometimes referred to as biological clocks, exist in mammals, plants, fungi, insects, etc., and run on approximately a 24 hour cycle. The molecules that control this process have been studied in a number of organisms. Although the clocks do not function in exactly the same way in all species, they are very similar. In Drosophila, a fruit fly, the clock mechanism is better understood, so it will be presented first, followed by the mammalian system. Lastly, a brief overview of the circadian clock mechanism in a fungus is included. The SCN is a distinct group of around 10,000 cells located in the hypothalamus of the brain. Peripheral clocks are located in every cell, and are regulated by the SCN. The retina has light receptors and is connected to the SCN through a pathway called the retinohypothalamic tract. Recent studies suggest that these light receptors, sometimes called photoreceptors, are located in a small group of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). Most RGCs receive signals from the rods and cones and then pass the signals on to vision areas of the brain. A small percent respond directly to light and pass their signals to the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) instead. The SCN then sends these signals to the clocks in the rest of the body. http://www.allsciencestuff.com/mbiol...arch/circadian De Mairan s apt observations illustrate one critical feature of circadian rhythms- their self-sustained nature. Thus, almost all diurnal rhythms that occur under natural conditions continue to cycle under laboratory conditions devoid of any external time-giving cues from the physical environment (e.g., under constant light or constant darkness). Circadian rhythms that are expressed in the absence of any 24-hour signals from the external environment are called free running. This means that the rhythm is not synchronized by any cyclic change in the physical environment. Strictly speaking, a diurnal rhythm should not be called circadian until it has been shown to persist under constant environmental conditions and thereby can be distinguished from those rhythms that are simply a response to 24-hour environmental changes. For practical purposes, however, there is little reason to distinguish between diurnal and circadian rhythms, because almost all diurnal rhythms are found to be circadian. Nor is a terminology distinction made among circadian rhythms based on the type of environmental stimulus that synchronizes the cycle. The persistence of rhythms in the absence of a dark-light cycle or other exogenous time signal (i.e., a Zeitgeber) clearly seems to indicate the existence of some kind of internal timekeeping mechanism, or biological clock. However, some investigators have pointed out that the persistence of rhythmicity does not necessarily exclude the possibility that other, uncontrolled cycles generated by the Earth s revolution on its axis might be driving the rhythm (see Aschoff 1960). http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-2/85-93.htm Here them are; http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/hypothalamus.htm If there is one thing that seems certain about consciousness it is that it is immediate. We are aware of life's passing parade of sensations -- and of our own thoughts, feelings and impulses -- at the instant they happen. Yet as soon as it is accepted that the mind is the product of processes taking place within the brain, we introduce the possibility of delay. It must take time for nerve traffic to travel from the sense organs to the mapping areas of the brain. It also takes different amounts of time for each module to process its allotment of data. Straw Man distorted version of the argument presented. The author did not argue for or against the notion of how much time modules need to function. The author did admit that "it must take time" for some processes to take place. Worse, some data goes through more than one module, in series and or parallel, introducing more delays. Can you show where the author made such a claim either for or against such a notion? The point is a good one but the relevance to the argument is weak. Some information may take multiple frames of consciousness to be structured enough for translation into poly sense modes. It must then take more time for thoughts and feelings about these messages to propagate through the brain's maze of circuitry. If the processing is complex -- as it certainly must be in humans -- then these delays ought to measurable, and even noticeable with careful introspection. It's worse- the delays can be negative. There's experimental evidence that we start to perform physical responses based on sensory inputs *before* the parts of the brain allegedly responsible for mediating decisions do their thing. Clearly all our attempts at modeling the mind are flawed. Clearly your attempt to critique Libet's half second frame rate of consciousness is insufficient since he is the very person that made the pre-consciousness dilemma you mention popular and with his proofs of how long it takes for a frame of consciousness presented in my arguments and links. David Chalmers has a hard problem, he wants certainty with no theories. Funny he bases much of his proof of unknowability on Libet's theory of the half second frame rate of consciousness. Libet's evidence has cripple the mind/brain debate especially the pre- conscious part you mentioned earlier. Mark L. Fergerson Oh you, how's it go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CqOd1zSxc |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 24, 3:03*am, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:42:06 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: ... there is no reason to suppose that the optimal thinking machine finding the answer to life, the universe, and everything has to be modeled on human thinking. But it would be a good start. If you don't understand how humans think what chance have you of building a machine that can think even better? If we don't understand how humans walk, or birds fly could we make cars or airplanes? Well we don't know how brains "think" and yet we have made computer programs that do things that if done by a human we would call "thinking". Just as we have duplicated some of the things humans do such as playing a game of chess we have also duplicated walking and flying in machines. Do they walk like us or fly like a bird? Maybe one day. Thinking "better" is better for a task. If the task is to think like humans, that's one thing, but if it is to solve some tough problem, there is no reason to assume our way of thinking is appropriate anymore than it is to assume that our way of walking is best for all kinds of transportation. And I don't disagree with that. We evolved legs as the best way of walking although wheels are better in the environment we have created. But we invented the wheel and we invented the methods machines use to fly so it is our way of thinking that has done all these things. There is no program I know of that thinks "better" than we do rather it things faster than we do but its methods are methods our thinking has created. That is true for chess programs, logic programs and Watson. We certainly don't want to duplicate human thinking flaws into, say, our computer overlord. Overlord? Let us avoid that! To avoid duplicating human thinking flaws we must first identify them as flaws. What appears to be a flaw may have served us well in the past and that is the reason we think that way. However what works well for one task may not work so well for another task. -- Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do their thinking for them. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote casey wrote What machines can do better than us is: Carry out tasks we give them at great speed which means they can do things we can't because we can't write that fast and we at this stage can't rewire our brain for those tasks. They can also do tasks which require much more reliable memory than any human can have too. There may well be a reason we don't have such computer perfect memories. Corse there are, but they don't apply to computer systems and that's why computer can leave humans for dead in some areas. That's why navigation system do much better than any human can ever do, they can use immense databases which produce a much better result when say producing an optimum route to cover a very wide variety of places that must be visited with say a complex delivery run etc. But all that was coded by humans Doesn't have to be, most obviously with automatic mapping systems that just record all the detail for themselves etc. and there may well be a reason we are not that "perfect". Corse there is, but that's not relevant to why computers can leave humans for dead in that area. Car navigation systems have failed in a way a human would probably not fail leading the drivers into dangerous situations. Irrelevant to whether they can and do leave humans for dead. Also our neurons are slow compared with electronic switching devices which is a physical limitation not a cognitive limitation. We can process visual data very fast because we have parallel wiring for that task. But it remains to be seen if we can do much better with a machine that say uses measurement for facial recognition when the image quality is poor etc. Machines may well do better than humans but again it depends on how clever we are at writing their code unless of course new connections are learned in an ANN of some kind. TD-Gammon is a good example of an ANN that learnt to recognize high value backgammon board states. So you have now just blown both your feet off and can fall over now. So let us not confuse speed of execution with intelligence. Sure, but not all computing is about speed of execution. And I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I wasn't suggesting you did. It is however the reason we use computers for what they do so far is mostly what we code them to do and which given their speed we could do also. We in fact use them for a hell of a lot more than just the speed. We also use them for a level of accuracy that humans can't ever get within a bulls roar of too. They don't write their own code or have their own goals. They can do and do. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 24, 9:55*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
casey wrote Rod Speed wrote casey wro There may well be a reason we don't have such computer perfect memories. Corse there are, but they don't apply to computer systems and that's why computer can leave humans for dead in some areas. Your hero worship of our current computer programs is I believe scary and dangerous. TD-Gammon is a good example of an ANN that learnt to recognize high value backgammon board states. So you have now just blown both your feet off and can fall over now. If you think that we are not on the same page. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote casey wrote Rod Speed wrote casey wro There may well be a reason we don't have such computer perfect memories. Corse there are, but they don't apply to computer systems and that's why computer can leave humans for dead in some areas. Your hero worship of our current computer programs That's just your silly little fantasy. I JUST recognise that they can do SOME things much better than humans can and it remains to be seen if there will always be some thing that humans can do better. I expect there will be, with creativity alone. I don't see how it can ever be possible for a computer program to ever produce what Beethoven produced for example, but it is clear that they can certainly do better than say pre school children painting wise. I have repeatedly said that while we can certainly do a hell of a lot better at flying a modern heavy jet aircraft than any human can do, we still haven't worked out how to do better at sheering sheep, or wiping little kid's arses than even very stupid humans can do. is I believe scary and dangerous. You haven't actually got a clue about how I feel about computers. TD-Gammon is a good example of an ANN that learnt to recognize high value backgammon board states. So you have now just blown both your feet off and can fall over now. If you think that we are not on the same page. Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about computers. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 22, 5:29*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:57*am, Immortalist wrote: On Feb 22, 7:00 am, Dare wrote: On 2/21/2013 7:36 PM, Immortalist wrote: On Feb 21, 4:29 pm, Howard Brazee wrote: On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey wrote: Something that would be good for science to answer. If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body how would you know if it was you who lived that physical life on Earth or if you simply had the memories of that now dead human? If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you" means. If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural activities that are a sense of your self. * I concur on the (implied potential) range of activities meme. The series of clones thing I disagree with- it implies that all cells (as mentioned elsethread) in a tissue (and by implication the whole body) get "turned over" every so many years *all at the same time* which is unreasonable. * We are about process, not state. A so-called state of mind is not a photograph, it's a three-panel cartoon. Perception, "filter", reaction. "filter" = particular set of "neural activities" in that range. Once those activities go outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those successions of neural events. * Well, a clone is (loosely speaking) an exact replica, but me right now is not an exact replica of me ten, twenty etc. years ago. What continues as "I"? I think it's just a particular constellation of "things I'm good at" and "things I'm bad at" due to brain structure/ disposition(s) from genetics modulo diet, environment, socialization, yada yada. * I agree with my pal Mahipal- "me" always changes. I will cherish that sentence construct until like forever. You are too kind Mark! Still, you turn me on... do you want to be poet? "You see it really doesn't matter When you're buried in disguise By the dark glass on your eyes Though your flesh has crystallised Still...you turn me on" Ergo I Mahipal am me on... me_on... meon, rhymes with neon. If you can't laugh, then you can't grasp... so I have learned. * As for "activities outside the range of [one's] -selfing-, I refer you to Lovecraft's _At The Mountains Of Madness_. from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6 SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. * Well yeah, self-examination on the fly is difficult. * That's why we study other people. Without other people, we -- especially me, myself, or I -- are nothing. From---- http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm Is a feeling of identity or self related to experiencing Time? What happens to "self" if there is no time... * Zen adepts claim that self vanishes without time-bound experience. The second part of your question addresses issues relating to consciousness and continuity. Can the activities of the brain that are the self, if stopped be started again? Would it be only a clone that believes it is you or have we always just been a bunch of clones that produce this feeling of being one me? But to this continuity dilemma you raise; there are too many things and processes happening to give some simple answer. Why would we believe that consciousness can or cannot be stopped and then started in the first place? If the heart stops tissues die but when we sleep consciousness seems to stop, so simple comparisons will probably fail us. Religion and philosophy seem to be the culprits that make us invent such ideas. * In sleep consciousness is altered; it does not stop. Look up lucid dreaming and sleep learning for starters. What if consciousness is full of stops and starts? Again time seems to be necessary if consciousness is the same thing as activities in a brain. * Consciousness seems to me to be more like a conversation between different specialized wetware modules of the brain. It can be a roaring rock party babble or a low indistinct mutter. If nobody has anything to say to each other at a party there's a lull, but not really a stop. Same with our "selves". ......In a sparse distributed network - memory is a type of perception.....The act of remembering and the act of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns....When we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to perceive the pattern originally. * The stored patterns change over time as the physical substrate they're "written" on (cerebral neurons and their interconnections) change over time. Could all parts of our experience and reasoning abilities be very similar to a type of perception? If the act of remembering and the act of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns and when we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to perceive the pattern originally, and trigger areas of the brain which our senses would, in essence bypassing the senses, then it seems possible that most of our experience works in a similar way. * Yes, of course. Some modules perceive sensory input, some only perceive the output of other modules. Benjamin Libet famously suggested it takes about half a second for the brain to get through all the processing steps needed to settle our view of the moment just past. But this immediately raises the question of why don't we notice a lag? How does anyone ever manage to hit a tennis ball or drive a car? The answer is that we anticipate. We also have a level of preconscious habit which "intercepts" stuff before it reaches a conscious level of awareness. And yet it really does take something like half a second to develop a fully conscious experience of life. You can read about the cycle of processing story and its controversies in the following.... * The implication is that the whole brain "get(s) through all the processing steps" at the same time. That's unreasonable since different parts of the brain process information at different rates; there's no computer-analogous "system clock" for organic brains. If there is one thing that seems certain about consciousness it is that it is immediate. We are aware of life's passing parade of sensations — and of our own thoughts, feelings and impulses — at the instant they happen. Yet as soon as it is accepted that the mind is the product of processes taking place within the brain, we introduce the possibility of delay. It must take time for nerve traffic to travel from the sense organs to the mapping areas of the brain. * It also takes different amounts of time for each module to process its allotment of data. * Worse, some data goes through more than one module, in series and or parallel, introducing more delays. Life and mind really cannot be about its mechanics, down deep. It must then take more time for thoughts and feelings about these messages to propagate through the brain's maze of circuitry. If the processing is complex — as it certainly must be in humans — then these delays ought to measurable, and even noticeable with careful introspection. * It's worse- the delays can be negative. There's experimental evidence that we start to perform physical responses based on sensory inputs *before* the parts of the brain allegedly responsible for mediating decisions do their thing. Clearly all our attempts at modeling the mind are flawed. * Mark L. Fergerson I really am still reading Immortalist's response. Wish he would IRL name himself. Enjo(y)... Cheers! -- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops. http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're just not tr(y)ing!" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
On Feb 24, 1:47*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[...] I just looked back over our exchanges to see if I should have expressed myself differently or better and clearly we aren't going to be able to have an constructive exchange take place. Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about computers. Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange. The ability to make your thoughts and views clear to others is the hallmark of a good writer. A bad writer will of course blame it all on the reader. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics & The Future of Brain Research
casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote I just looked back over our exchanges to see if I should have expressed myself differently or better and clearly we aren't going to be able to have an constructive exchange take place. Yeah, you don't have a ****ing clue about anything at all to do with computers and can't even manage to work out what I think about them either. Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about computers. Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange. Your mindlessly silly claim about what I think about the capability of computers in spades. The ability to make your thoughts and views clear to others is the hallmark of a good writer. You are nothing even remotely resembling anything like that. A bad writer will of course blame it all on the reader. And that is precisely what you did. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ETHICS IN THE ERA OF POSTSCIENTISM | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | December 8th 09 02:22 PM |
Ethics For Physicists | Immortalist | History | 16 | November 16th 06 08:27 PM |
That's a fak, Jak!... See-thru ethics | Painius | Misc | 0 | May 22nd 06 03:36 AM |
The Ethics of Terraforming | Eric Nave | Policy | 83 | December 13th 03 04:10 AM |
Boeing Ethics | ed kyle | Policy | 7 | December 5th 03 04:41 PM |