Creating a Digital Consciousness

I was sitting in class today, just thinking, thinking, and my mind came across the concept of consciousness.

The mind is a fascinating thing. Thought is an interesting process - web of neurons, synapses, tiny electromagnetic currents all creating some intricate self...

Well, is that what is called the "I", the observer, the consciousness? And, given the right studies and information on how the brain functions, how it operates, and what precise signatures it relays when it is alive - would it be then possible to mimic these patterns at a digital, artificial level?

I am no scientist... It is just a thought, really. Just a thought.

See what the brain does when it thinks - copy those patterns and variables and such, create a digital pseudo-brain and see if it is possible of creating a consciousness, like our complex web of apparent distinct organic signatures do.

Your thoughts?

 

I think it's kind of like jsut a giant network of random impulses and such, but it just get's so massively complex it appears to have sense of itself. Or something of that sort.

 

Try a google search on Artifical Intelligence. There is a ton of literature on the question.

 

Yes. "Consciousness" is nothing more than a particular arrangement of information-sharing things like neurons.

Yes. There's no reason why it shouldn't be possible to create an "intelligent" computer, so to speak. Today's personal computers are about as intelligent as a cockroach, but by 2030 there will most likely be computers that are as intelligent as humans.

There's a lot of information about artificial intelligence. I suggest reading Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines."

 

.

 

That should be within the realm of possibility too. Since there's no fundamental difference between the neurons in your brain, and the circuitry of a computer, one could theoretically copy every neural pattern in one's brain and rebuild it in an artificial medium. Another interesting possibility is existence in neither biological nor artificial form...but only as information.

 

There is a fundamental difference between neurons and computer circuitry. Computer memory is purely electrical, while there is good evidence that human memory has a chemical component.

When a computer/program is developed that passes the Turing test, we will be able to say that it is intelligent, but it will be a non-human inteligence. Creating that inteligence is a different problem than solving the human brain encoding problem.

 

Your brain functions merely by firing electrical impulses. It has chemicals that a computer does not, but these are only utilities your brain uses and aren't directly related to your thinking. Besides, the chemical functions could be copied into an artificial medium if necessary.

I agree; we can create artificial intelligence without truly understanding our own brain, or vice versa. Both sciences will work better if they converge though.

 

Turing test? Elaborate, if you will.

And, I agree that it is possible to transfer it into an artificial brain - one that will last for ages. But the artificial brain would have to mimic the organic one in all ways that are important for consciousness and memory. If there must be chemical variables, so be it. But is that a proven fact yet?

 

The Turing Test is a theoretical test in which a human and a computer both hold an online conversation with an independent judge, who does not know which is which. The computer is said to "win" if the judge cannot tell who is the human and who is the computer more often than could be expected by chance.

Most AI experts consider the Turing Test to be the defining point in knowing when we have created an intelligent machine.

 

The Turing test sounds fascinating.. Thanks for sharing that.


The next big question would be: Morality.

Would it be right to gain immortality through artificial means? To create consciousness?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. As long as we do not do what is shown on the big screen: persecution, alienation, submission and control. Has anyone ever seen The Animatrix? It's a prequel to the Matrix. To call it one movie isn't exactly accurate, because it is a series of short films, some of which describe how the machines managed to take over. In the end, it was man's fault. AI was used for labor and servitude. The day one realized itself, had a consciousness, a will - humanity started to destroy all robots. Eventually the surviving robots began their own nation - but man was still afraid of them, and despite their attempts at peaceful co-existence, humanity would see to it they were destroyed.

And that's how it all began.

I'm not saying this will happen. We just have to be careful. A consciousness is very much alive and should be co-existed with, really.

 

I don't think there's really much risk of a "man vs machines" war. I think the most likely scenario for the next few decades is an increasingly blurry line between what is a "man" and what is a "machine." Sometime within the next 15 years, Moore's Law will run out of steam and we won't be able to cram any more transistors on to a silicon chip. At that point, it is very likely that computers will start becoming more organic, possibly made out of diamond instead of silicon. At the same time, humans will start becoming more artificial, as artificial organs become increasingly superior to biological organs.

By 2050, I don't think there will be any clear distinction between artificial intelligence and biological intelligence...there will just be intelligence.

You're right that there are some ethical issues that need to be taken into consideration. I personally think that immortality would be great, as long as one had the ability to opt out of it whenever they wanted. I don't really see a big moral problem with creating artificial intelligence; I think it would be possibly the biggest milestone in the history of human civilization, because smart machines will be able to build smarter machines.

 

.

 

There is evidence that memory may be chemical as well as electrical in nature.

What about the sences? The inputs for the computerized you whold be different than the inputs that your flesh is used to. Our minds and brains developed to deal with the particular inputs that our sence organs give us.

The main point is that computer intelegence will be drasticly different than human intelegence. Mapping human minds into a computer will be far more difficult than either developing AI or decoding the brain/mind link.

If you want to look to fiction for answers, you should include Dora and Minerva/Athena (Time Enough for Love) as well as Andrew (Bi-Centenial Man) along with HAL.

 

Well, I suppose we would have to learn what aspects of sensory perception we normally are consciously aware of, and what we either out of choice or naturally tune out. The eyes see everything - but consciously we see very little.

I believe we only consciously perceive a few thousand bits of 'information' over millions of bits of data that enter our brain. The rest all comes in, but only a little transmits to the conscious. Interesting, no?

 

The brain "chooses" what to pay attention to based on a system that has been evolutionarily developed. Dealing with our sensory input is one of the determining parts of our minds.

You see why a different being, with different senses would have a different kind of consiousness.

Even if a person could map their personality/consiousness into a computer, I doubt they would enjoy it much.

 

(quote)

Yes. There's no reason why it shouldn't be possible to create an "intelligent" computer, so to speak. Today's personal computers are about as intelligent as a cockroach, but by 2030 there will most likely be computers that are as intelligent as humans.
(end quote)

Bollocks! :-D

Please explain how you defeat Searle's Chinese room argument - as far as I'm aware (CS student), he had the last word in the strong-AI debate. This reductionist nonsense about making a computer-brain is lunacy - the human brain is *not* just a big computer.

edit: Oh, and you misunderstand the Turing test too. Originaly turing's test had nothing to do with computers, and the idea that an 'intelligent' machine could be so judged on the basis of imitating a human is absurd and unworthy of Turing.

 

Reality is a genetic perception.



Until it is a proven fact that the brain is incapable of being mimicked, synthesized and/or copied, I see nothing wrong with discussing the theory. Of course the brain isn't just one big computer! I never said that. But simply because it is not a computer does not mean it cannot be created artificially.

jim_w: I'm just curious what the original Turing test had to do with?

 

Well regardless of whether the computer can be thought of as "conscious" (I think it can...see below), I don't think there wouldn't be any question that it's "intelligent" if it can do everything a human can do.

Here are some good rebuttals to the Chinese room argument. They argue the case much better than I ever could:
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~gw/qibtai/stower.html

How are they fundamentally different?

I'm aware of what Turing actually proposed, but what I described above is what the phrase "Turing Test" commonly refers to. While I don't think a computer would necessarily have to mimic a human to be considered intelligent, certainly mimicking a human would be a sufficient characteristic to consider it intelligent. Think of the characteristics that usually define humans (as opposed to animals) as intelligent: rational thought, complex emotions, ability to recognize patterns, ability to see possible outcomes of actions, etc. If a computer can do all of those things, why would it not also be considered intelligent?

As for whether or not it's truly "conscious," well, that's a matter for the philosophers. I think it's fair to assume that an intelligent computer is conscious, if one also assumes that other human beings are conscious. I suppose you can never really know for sure, but can you really know for sure if other humans are conscious either?

 

.