Scientists from IBM and some of the most important universities in the world, led by Dharmendra Modha, a senior researcher at the company, succeeded in simulating the computing complexity of some areas of the brain. Within a decade, however, expressed optimism about it
By InformationWeek, November 18, 2009, 12:21 pm
Computers capable of equaling the power and efficiency of the human brain may appear as early as 2019 - so predicts Dharmendra Modha, project manager for cognitive computing at IBM (IBM) and one of the company's senior researchers. Modha heads a group of scientists from IBM and some of the most important universities in the world, who, according to him, succeeded in simulating the complexity of the computing of some areas of the brain.
Last year, the DARPA agency awarded IBM and five universities a project for the development of cognitive computing, with the aim of achieving this goal. Modha said that in the framework of the cooperation with the universities, two important milestones were reached in the last year towards reaching the goal. The first is a complex visualization of the cerebral cortex, at a level that exceeds that of a cat's cerebral cortex. The second is a new algorithm called BlueMatter, which makes it possible to use the architecture of the Blue Gene supercomputer to non-invasively measure and map the connections between all areas of the human brain, using magnetic resonance imaging. Mapping the structure of the wiring in the brain is an important step on the way to cracking the brain's communication network and understanding how information is represented and processed.
According to Modha, the human brain is very different from the computers we know today, both in terms of power and dimensions. This is exactly why many scientists strive to understand how the brain works, with the hope that the research will give birth to new types of computing architectures. The growing complexity of the world gives rise, according to Modha, to a "tsunami" of data, and the analysis of so much data requires the use of "a new type of cognitive system, reminiscent of the human brain."
To achieve the goal, Moda and his colleagues are combining supercomputers, neuroscience and nanotechnology - a combination that will make it possible to illustrate the achievements that can be reached in the future. Modha does not promise that it will be possible to make the leap from imaging a cat's brain to imaging the human brain, whose level of complexity is twenty times higher, within a decade. However, he expresses optimism that the goal will indeed be achieved.
121 תגובות
Michael, I agree with what you wrote, but you did not understand me.
Both Stephen Hawking and other paraplegics are disconnected from their bodies, but their means of communication with the world will be carried out through instructions for motor actions in general (a command to move the hand is said - move a mouse cursor on the computer).
Think that it will be possible to imitate the way the brain works and upload it to a computer - its way of working and its commands will still be human (it cannot be ignored that the human brain is complex for a human body - arms, legs, lips, eyes, etc.).
Imagine that your brain is thrown into virtual space - how will you now know how to perform actions in this space when your brain is wired to activate a human body.
As I wrote earlier - suppose we overcome these limitations
Regarding all the comments about loading brains into the computer - I think it will be possible but only in extreme cases -
The human desire is to experience the physical world, therefore I assume that the technology that such a computer will provide will be for the integration of mechanization within the human body - which will result in its improvement and renewal from a mental and physical point of view.
Witness:
You are the one missing the point on two levels.
The one level is that this is a matter of principle of the possibility of building a feeling and thinking brain (not necessarily yours personally).
The second level is the factual level: there are people with brains who live and think without any ability to feel the body or control it.
If the name Hawking means anything to you then you know that one of the most successful minds on the planet is housed in such a body.
Your all missing the point
All your speculations of what are the consequences of loading a human brain
To computers is incorrect. If I'm a human conscious born in a computer how do I adjust to the absence of a human body? Suppose we solve this problem - with neuron connectors that respond to and interact with human transactions
The web-this will cause an excellerating change in our grasp of immortality we wouldn't have to live our lives as machines in a box, all we need is one super computer that will-acquire us the knowledge and later on the ability to live forever in our bodies (or improved ones) so I believe that the human kind will never have to worry about "conditions of law" in the use of conscience backups....
It is good that there are those who did not miss the total understanding of the mind.
I think the comments here missed the total understanding of the brain.
The mind is first of all made up of emotions.
The basis of our survival, the brain stem that is also found in cats, sharks and humans, is the brain stem. who is responsible for the emotions.
Emotions are recordings of different situations in life. Learning how to behave in different situations, which have reached a state that is inherited because it is so obvious that we feel it.
The difficult thing is to model, to make a computational model that will show the complexity of the emotions.
Pain, anger, love, compassion, passion, these are all emotions.
The next thing to model in order to progress to a human mind, is to model emotional intelligence.
The human mind consists of a system of self-criticism.
When we feel the logical mind controls the action of the emotions, when we think the emotional brain controls the logic.
And this is how consciousness is created.
We are aware of ourselves and those around us, and our actions.
It is a learning (cognitive) model that criticizes itself at every stage.
It is not for nothing that the legal system in the United States is based on the separation of powers. Self-criticism leads to self-awareness and high self-control.
What would happen if we only thought emotionally? Or just logically?
The computers are only logical. therefore unable to develop or feel.
On the other hand, mentally ill people, who do not control their emotionality, are not able to focus themselves on a vision or looking ahead and on themselves.
The emotion itself is associative.
Based on what is happening and what happened and what we learned is happening following what happened.
And so is human memory.
The whole idea here is to find the automatic perpetual formula that will create this emotional contiguity system.
And that requires research and development.
The result will apparently be two or 3 computers working at the same time responding to what is happening outside. According to the priority of "Important - you have to give a logical answer" "Less important - you can dig deeper and you can put it aside" "Emergency situation - you have to react quickly and there is no time to calculate or think, preferably react in a way that helped us get out of it last time (emotion)"
world critic,
I read your post 107, and I want to thank you for the seriousness of the reference. It's just a shame that these days I don't have the time to respond in detail as I should, due to my mother's illness, with all the burden involved.
In any case, I believe that the definition of creativity in 'Wikipedia' is a joke (after all, this is the heart of the matter, what is the 'original' thing. And in general, the Hebrew Wikipedia has a lot to improve in all respects) and that your perception of the concept of 'creativity' is incorrect. This is, in particular, when it comes to creativity at an especially high level, that is, when it comes to a course that is completely revolutionary, a course that goes beyond basic concepts and basic patterns of thought, therefore it is unexpected. There is even a certain closeness - external - between creativity and an abnormal state of mind (Oops, again I sinned in a foreign wording. The problem is that I currently do not have an exact translation that expresses the 'nuance'. 'Oops, I sinned again, but how can you say nuance in Hebrew? It doesn't come up On my mind right now. Apologies). It's a bit hard to think of a computer that has such an 'abnormal' mental state, and it's a bit hard to think of a creative computer that thinks contrary to or differently from the algorithms entered into them. The fact that the computer knows how to calculate at much stronger intensities than the human brain is capable of, and works on very sophisticated algorithms - is a completely different matter. Will a computer be able to invent, based on Broke's knowledge alone - a new Mozart? Based on the knowledge of Beethoven's romance - a new Debussy? On the basis of Euclid's axioms - a new Riemann (and in fact a new Gauss - bearing in mind that the innovations to a large extent had been with him for decades)? On the basis of existing knowledge - the next genius revolutionary discovery or invention? If he can do this - it will only be because the programmer thought of 'hacking' the box in a certain way, and the computer only did the resulting technical work, and not because the computer decided to hack it in this high-quality way. For him, such a hack is a mistake, and a computer shouldn't make a mistake...
I disagree with you on almost all of your assumptions and claims.
For example - free will, choice - at some level they exist (and the research on this issue is only at the beginning. In addition, if we do not accept this assumption, there is no rational basis for our very litigation, and it has no meaning), or at least exist as mental images, and I do not think that the computer has 'Consciousness' or anything that can be defined as a mental state or image.
And even if we assume that all of these do not have an objective existence (in your language - 'everything in the head'), and they are all the product of the imagination - then 'imagination' is also a mental state, and a computer cannot even 'imagine' that it has such things, and we - yes. A computer cannot 'dream' 'imagine' - it really does not suit it, for it it is a 'mistake', and it is not wrong... and we - after all, to a large extent, perhaps decisively - dream and imagine, 'make mistakes and are therefore also, among other things, creative'...
Beyond all of the above, you quote and state that "the hidden assumption is that all the ways in which certain information is represented can be described mathematically, and that the representations work in fixed or dynamic patterns that can be absolutely predicted.", so far I agree with you."
I want to invite you to a little thought exercise:
If you agree with me on the existence of the above-mentioned hidden assumption, let us examine the question of whether the realization of this assumption can be achieved at all, and if so - in what way and what is the resulting meaning.
In my opinion, it will be possible to mathematically describe "all the ways..." only if an exact copy (in hardware) of the brain is built, also at the quantum level (biological activity is also affected by events at the quantum level).
Such a thing requires building a brain from organic materials, and not from other hardware - which can be equivalent to the biological brain hardware only up to a certain degree. What is required is actually the creation of a biological brain.
Such a thing can be done, perhaps in the future, by very advanced genetic engineering. Maybe... but what will be the result then? - A biological brain, not a 'computer'... not a computer!
Michael, I have no idea what was in the Mayan temples.
I think they had a part in the discovery of the 0,
which is very essential for building the computer.
Shabbat Shalom !
So let's stop too
Did you notice that since 10:25, we are the only ones commenting here?
The world critic:
Your response 108 is completely confused and the only thing that emerges from it is that you are not willing to admit your mistake.
You invent all kinds of crazy scenarios and ask me to deal with them.
not interested! I have something to do!
I will continue to use the words as I see fit and I do not intend to ask your permission.
for your information:
Everything I say is my opinion, so there is no need to state it in every sentence.
If I try to say something that you think it will be appropriate to state it.
Regarding my response about the "interpretation" of my words Valerie, it is a bit arrogant of you to claim that Shuleri surely intended to use the words he used, and despite the firm opinion ("if he meant something else he could have expressed himself") you still wrote "in my opinion".
To err is part of being human.
Computer is not wrong.
The existence of the means does not ensure their correct use.
Does the existence of a toothbrush and toothpaste guarantee that the brusher will brush correctly ("correctly" according to the dentists' definition)?
Michael, I have a question for you, when you said "these are very accepted and well-known words", do you mean all the accepted and well-known words that exist in the world or only the words we talked about?!
Just the ones we talked about, right?
So why do the other terms you use have to be so broad, say what is relevant and the rest of the term you can leave out, because it does not contribute to the discussion, but only hinders the understanding of your intention.
For example, epigenetics is a term in biology, maybe it can be used in other fields where the principle will be similar, but its meaning will be different?
In such a situation, how can I know what kind of epigenetics you mean?
to guess ? Responding to all the types I know about?
I came to comment, not to write my own article on epigenetics…..!
Reply to Eddie, post 18:
Your response made me feel happy.
"Mapping the structure of the wiring in the brain is an important step on the way to cracking the brain's communication network and understanding how information is represented and processed. The hidden assumption is that all the ways in which certain information is represented can be mathematically described, and that the representations work in fixed, or dynamic patterns that can be absolutely predicted.", so far I agree with you.
"If you understand that the mind is 'creative', and creativity is something that cannot, a priori, be fully expressed in a formula, but partial (in the 'good' case)." - Disagree:
What is "creative"?
Wikipedia says "Creativity is a variety of thought processes that lead a person to create an original product that has meaning" (briefly).
That is, if the computer is able to show processes of "artificial thinking" that will lead it to create an original product that has meaning, then the computer will be creative, right?
Who did more, in deciphering the genomes of all the animals whose genomes have been deciphered to this day, humans or supercomputers?
Could we decipher the human genome without these computers?
Who won in chess the "deep blue" supercomputer or Kasparov?
Today's computers are much more creative than us!
For years they have been creating mathematical formulas of the behavior of materials, different structures and different situations.
Thanks to them it is possible to create "smart materials" today.
You don't have to formulate creativity mathematically, but rather be mathematically creative or mathematically formulate events (such as, for example, weather forecasting).
"Let's assume that the above-mentioned tasks are successfully completed (ie - will ever be successfully completed) - the result is a physical machine that emits symbols that are representations of things that we recognize as various mental phenomena familiar to us - consciousness in general, love, jealousy.... We have no evidence that it is Experience what we experience when we are aware, loving, etc. It works according to certain algorithms - admittedly extremely sophisticated - that were entered into them, and only according to them and only according to them, and it emits outputs that are purely computational results. This is a machine that behaves 'as if' it were a brain, and is unable to get out of its 'box'." - No, this is a computer that can think artificially (with artificial intelligence) that does not feel anything, and does not need to "get out of the box".
Our need to get out of the box to achieve certain breakthroughs comes from our inability to draw conclusions and courses of action from all our knowledge, we are not capable of thinking on a scale that would include all our knowledge at the same time.
In contrast to us, the computer draws conclusions only by "thinking on a scale that would include all of its knowledge at the same time", unless it was asked to ignore some information.
"But can it be said that she is an authentic 'personality'?" - What is the connection to an authentic personality and who determined that all human beings have an authentic personality).
"One that is capable of creative, unpredictable construction - of herself and her skills and actions?" - Are you saying that creativity is unpredictable?
And what if I told you that it is so predictable that throughout history there were significant breakthroughs created by different people in different countries at the same time, and they all came up with their discovery in exactly the same way in a situation that was not possible to discover by espionage?
(Creativity that led to the same conclusions in different people at the same time).
In addition to this, the work of "futurists" (or futurists) is to predict the future creativity of people.
"Can it be said that she is a personality endowed with the power of free will, free choice and/or the 'consciousness' of free will or free choice - at least?" - No, computers have no personality, no free will, they are not a type of animal, they have no consciousness.
And as for "free will and free choice", no one has these, not computers, not animals, not plants and not inanimate objects.
Free will and free choice exist only in our imagination, in fact, we are programmed just like a computer is programmed, only in a different way.
For our "programmer", I call "nature": the nature of the earth created the mechanism we call "brain", and the nature of the environment and the surroundings, makes the programming that is equivalent to computer programs.
There is no will and choice, only cause and effect, actions and actions lead to other factors that cause further actions.
Since this is all we know, it seems to us as if we are acting out of desire and/or choice!
Now you probably "want" to ask who "programmed" nature...
If so, you must agree with me that the reason it comes up for you now, is that a moment ago I said that nature programmed us (the action I took led to the action you "want" to do or did in your head and you would also write me back in response if I didn't say you would do it).
In any case, I do not know who programmed the nature of the Earth, perhaps the programming of this nature is a "default" of the existence of the physical materials and forces that were created as a result of the "big bang" in this area of the universe.
"Even if the machine behaves as such, to the extent that it is fully capable of behaving this way (and there is doubt as to how much it is really able to imitate the brain)" - as I explained earlier, if our brain is a programmed mechanism, there is no reason why the computer's programmed mechanism cannot imitate the brain our.
"The machine - no matter how sophisticated - remains a machine, with its relative limitations/essential differences in relation to the 'real' thing."
What is a "real thing"?
In your opinion, are our feelings a real thing?
What about the psychological state of a person is a real thing? Does it exist in reality?
When a soldier "loses" his entire leg in the war without knowing it, and in the hospital his knee itches so much that tears fall from his eyes, is the itching he feels "a real thing"?
Do you think the knee can itch him "by remote control" or from another dimension?
If not, why does it cause an emotional reaction?
If when you scratch a person's knee does it mean that the knee is real?
No, it's in the head!
All in your head.
Your mind determines for you that you have or do not have this or that.
I mean, what we can say with certainty that we have, is just a thinking mechanism.
And the computer also has a thinking mechanism!
Response to post 19:
If you create an exact copy of all the parts of a certain person's brain, including the electrical charge that flows inside it and all the other elements, you necessarily provide it with the same mental capacity.
Regarding personality, there will be a difference only if the person's soul affects the personality and only if the copy of the person does not contain an exact copy of his personality.
The world critic:
No kidding is meant by using words you don't know.
These are very common and well-known words and those who do not know them - better go to Wikipedia or any other source and learn their meaning instead of demanding others not to use them.
More than that: the description you offered for epigenetics is wrong with the meaning of the word and does not encompass everything that this field deals with and there is no reason to mislead people when it is possible to use a word that those who do not understand it and are interested in understanding it can easily learn its meaning.
The story with mycoplasma laboratorium is different, in this case.
This is not just a word, but the name of a large-scale experiment being carried out in the laboratories of Craig Venture in the creation of a living creature synthetically (at this stage, only its DNA is created synthetically).
When I referred to it in the past, I often pointed to the description of the entry on Wikipedia and Eddie should already have known it.
That's why I also referred him - when he said he didn't know what it was about - to a response of this type that he should have known - instead of referring him directly to the value.
Regarding your reference to my post 16 - I think you misunderstood Valerie because he talked about both "backing up" (and backing up is creating another copy) and "clone" (which also creates another copy).
Beyond the matter that I think - this is what Shuleri meant (and you should know that he has a computer and a keyboard and if he meant something else he could have expressed himself), I also think that there is no chance of ever realizing a "transfer of consciousness" of the type you describe - simply because consciousness is not separate from the body and has no existence without it.
Response to Michael, post 16:
I think Shuleri meant a situation where you could make a person a new body and inhabit that body with their consciousness (transfer a person's consciousness from one body to another).
And if you transfer consciousness to a new body, the old body no longer contains you.
Why would it bother you that he dies?
If there is a concern that the chassis of your car has ever been damaged/damaged in the future, will you refuse to allow it to be inspected, for fear of harming its modesty ("being looked down upon")?
By the way, all humans have always moved from an old body to a new body throughout their lives, this is called "cell regeneration" (our body cells die and the body creates new ones in their place, and this is how our whole body is replaced over the course of several years).
If you moved into a new body (which is a clone) and your original body was destroyed or died, that's good for you because you can't put your consciousness back into it, in case someone thinks that maybe you didn't fully use up the old body.
The fear is that people will use technology to change identities, "deprivation of consciousness" of people (for example, a murderer who "empties the consciousness of his victim, and puts his own in its place) and even punishment by transferring a person's consciousness to the body of a "plant" or a human/clone Having complete physical paralysis (imprisonment inside a body, instead of a prison) or to the body of another animal (cruelty for its own sake).
Reply to comment 45,
guide of the universe,
I was impatiently waiting for someone to bring up the subject of singularity.
Are you one of the "singularity people" (believe that scientists will put the reins on evolution and the world in the hands of the computer)?
When I first read about the subject of the Singularity a few years ago, this subject amazed me.
Imagine technological progress of a hundred years in one year or even less than a year!
And the most amazing part is that thousands of scientists around the world have the ability to realize this - writing software (even "backward" software) that "teaches itself" today, creating technological progress of a hundred years until November 2010.
It is so feasible that scientists are required to tread very carefully on their way to technological progress, for fear of activating the singularity by mistake, in a moment of inattention to the consequences of their actions.
I want to emphasize that the fear is from human use of technology in the singularity it will bring, and not a fear that robots will try to eliminate us:
If the Singularity can create the technology of "Terminator 2", for example, why would they abandon the ability to simulate sound and external form in the hands of a robot?
It makes more sense to entrust such "infiltration and espionage" technology to a human soldier (every defense system wants to maintain the possibility of predicting the movements of its soldiers, this will not be possible if the soldiers are robots with artificial intelligence).
The biggest problem with this technology is that people will stop trusting each other completely, which will eventually cause (my estimate in no more than 30 years from the moment the civilian population learns that this technology is being used for espionage) the disintegration of society on a global scale.
Reply to post 101, Michael, people should not write a complete commentary from Wikipedia as long as the book of Esther, but only the words that explain what is related to what they are trying to say, for example:
Instead of "cannot be explained by purely material mechanisms", you can write, cannot be explained by material mechanisms only.
Instead of "proposals of various, serious scientists, who raise hypotheses of 'epigenetics'", why not write, proposals of various, serious scientists, who raise hypotheses regarding the change of the active genetic properties in a cell made by feedback from the environment and the world (such as diet or stress in life) .
This is one spread of epigenetics, as an example.
It is not necessary to present every term and concept as a whole, only what is related to the subject in question.
Do you really not understand these things or are you just angry at my reaction on the subject of creation?
Those of the writers who feel the need to show that they are a scientist can simply change their username to "Scientist".
You and Eddie, you are both smart people, but sometimes you try to present yourself more as "intelligent people", I don't understand why.
And to prove my claim that "if everyone pulls out their "impressive" vocabulary - we won't be able to have a discussion", have you noticed that no one is talking to you about the "mycoplasma for the obortorium"?
Because they don't understand what you are talking about!
Are you talking about contamination of cell cultures in laboratories?
You wrote that it is worth reading about "mycoplasma for the laboratory", you did not write where you can read about it, or in what context you advise reading about it.
Menashe,
Most of the commenters write who they are commenting on or the number of the comment they are commenting on, and others comment on the article.
Nahum,
Why did you stop at my place, all the other commenters wrote all their sentences correctly according to the Hebrew Academy?
Why does my bias error bother you so much, that you comment on it instead of sharing your knowledge with us by commenting on the article or on serious things that people write here?
The world critic:
I'm not avoiding at all.
You are the one trying to escape by clinging to a word that you have decided to understand differently from whom (and the rest of the world) and forcing your interpretation on others.
If you had read their words I responded when I used this word, you would have seen that these words meant exactly (but exactly!) the meaning that I meant by the word healthy, so that all clinging to the word is a mere evasion.
You are welcome to use another word as you wish and start answering the matter.
Your claims regarding the use of words are not justified.
There is no reason to avoid using accepted terms and what you describe as "difficult words" are accepted terms that even your responses indicate that some of them do not have a Hebrew equivalent (do you really expect that every time someone wants to use the word epigenetics they will copy an entire entry from Wikipedia into the text?)
Eddie:
Here is my response relating to the topic of mycoplasma laboratorium in the discussion you participated in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/we-owe-it-all-to-comets-1205095/#comment-216025
And here is a more extended response from another discussion:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-1002094/#comment-172196
With regard to the method of identification as a person, I repeat - you personally did not "observationally" identify me as a person, therefore presenting this difference has no meaning.
Besides - do you have any doubt that it is also possible to simulate the observational experience of someone watching a computer?
When you meet a person on the street, you don't analyze him to conclude that he has consciousness.
I think you're grasping at straws.
Regarding the God of the gaps - if I did not understand your intention - you are welcome to explain it.
In claims 18, 19 and 48 I did not find valid reasons for your claim and even you did not find such reasons in them because all the clauses in all these claims are in the style of "so and so still does not prove that there is consciousness" and as we all know - in science there are no proofs so it is clear that even "so and so" will not be proof.
This does not negate the fact that "so and so" will be an impressive and convincing testimony ("if it goes like a duck, etc.").
Religious belief also suppressed the development of science and continues to suppress it even today.
The evidence for this is so abundant that it is simply ridiculous to argue about it.
How many people with the potential to become scientists do you think there are among the people of "Torah and His Art"?
How much time could have been devoted to corrupt scientific research debating the opponents of science whose reasons are religious?
After all, this debate is also such a waste of time.
Note that I didn't have to go as far as Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno or The Monkey Trial.
The conflict between science and faith is also demonstrated by this statistic:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
I am aware of the issue of epigenetics very well and even allow myself to assume that it is better than you.
I have also talked about it a lot here on the site and I find your offer to learn "a little" about the subject insulting. Do you expect me to erase the lot I already know?
This subject has no fundamental contribution to our discussion.
The fact that you said in post 60 that there is a problem with the mathematical feasibility is only proof that you said it.
Statements in Alma are not arguments worth considering (but with the subject he declares the statement).
It's a shame that there is no hierarchical arrangement in the comment system here, it's no longer clear who is responding to whom and who is referring to whom in the night of messages here, really a salad, I got lost, I can't follow anymore.
@The world critic: "I will go", not "will go".
Ok, now I'm going to sleep (so don't expect me to respond anytime soon).
If I have time, during Friday, I will come back here.
Eddie and Michael, I had the pleasure of talking with intelligent people like you, and I hope we will continue to talk in the future.
This term has a translation in Hebrew, the meaning is quite clear as it is explained in Wikipedia:
"Epigenetics in biology is the change of the phenotype (the active genetic traits in the cell) made by feedback from the environment and the world (such as diet or stress in life), so that no genetic change occurs in the DNA. Apparently, these substantial changes could be considered genetic changes, but the mechanism of epigenetics works around the DNA without changing genes at all, but only shapes the expression of certain genes, weakens and strengthens others, etc.
This is the beginning of the meaning of the term.
Additional words that are not clear (some foreign and some not) for the scientifically illiterate:
"God of the Gaps", metaphysical, material (you can write material, can't you?)
People don't want to sit down with a dictionary so they can join the discussion....
And as I said, other commenters also react in a way that makes the discussion difficult.
Of course, all this is a recommendation, I wanted to draw your attention and heart to this point.
For those who think they can articulate more clearly ……
After all, wisdom stands for the ability to understand and simplify complicated things and situations.
Michael Rothschild,
See post 95.
world critic,
I did not mean to insult Michael Rothschild's intelligence. On the contrary - I am full of appreciation for his intelligence, his diverse and rich knowledge, and also for the determination and force with which he defends his positions.
I think he does a tremendous service to the site and the surfers, and he is certainly the most prominent, prolific and important talkback player on the site.
Of course, all this does not prevent the disputes with him in these matters. I mentioned his intelligence only to emphasize the fact that I do not accept that he does not understand my position - precisely because he is so intelligent.
In any case, if I phrased it incorrectly or was misunderstood - I apologize!
By the way, regarding your claim about the use of foreign words - I looked at my post 90, for example, and found only one foreign word that is not in regular and common use ('epigenetics'). This is a term that is a scientific term that does not have a Hebrew translation. So sorry - 'Mr. Judge, Mister Judge - I'm not guilty, I'm not guilty'...
incidentally,
I recommend reading material on epigenetics, and not just to know what the word means. It's interesting…
Eddie,
What is the source of your need to insult and speculate on Michael Rothschild's intelligence?
How well do you know him?
In your opinion, Mr. Rothschild's words can influence researchers who are engaged in studies in which millions of dollars or shekels or euros (or international) are invested?
And another thing, why do you and the other intelligent commenters respond using so many foreign concepts and words?
If everyone pulls out their "impressive" vocabulary - we won't be able to have a discussion!
Correction: in the previous response in the second paragraph, Chal
to the world critic,
My questions in post 3 were only ironic.
I expressed my opinion in the posts above.
I agree with you that a 'computer' does not and cannot have a 'consciousness'.
In my opinion, it does not have any other mental quality (not even that of 'memory' - which I have also experienced as far as human memory is concerned. Essentially, the only equal side between human memory and computer 'memory' is the phonemic similarity only).
All this without detracting from the fact that the computer undoubtedly has wonderful capabilities of what in terms of our useful needs is represented as 'calculation' and 'memory', which at the technical level already exceed today, and will far exceed in the future the capacities of calculation and memory in the powers that exist in the human brain.
For response number 14,
If you do what you said, you will not see a painting of the Mona Lisa, you will only see a sketch!
Second and more significant thing, painting is an abstract thing, in the tangible world a colorful painting is a placement of certain types of lines and of a color or colors in a way that creates a certain meaning in the eyes of the viewer.
Different people see different meanings in the drawing of a certain thing (there is no single and absolute meaning), but consciousness is only preserved if its meaning is single and absolute.
M. Rothschild,
For your response 62:
I have no idea what "Laboratorium Mycoplasma" is. Your suggestion to read ("again"...?) about it - is incomprehensible.
I do not believe that an intelligent person like you does not understand the simple distinction between identification by observational means - of X as a 'person' versus identification of X as a 'computer'...
I also think that (even) an intelligent atheist like you understands that 'God' by its very definition and philosophical concept is at a level beyond that of a child in kindergarten - it's not something you 'see', while an 'alien' is something we are supposed to see...
You claim "there is no difference between the God of the gaps and a general concept that says in advance that all the gaps are filled by God". Well, I didn't claim that all the gaps were filled 'in advance' - you didn't understand my claim on the matter.
And I still did not find in your words a confrontation with the claims I raised in posts 18,19,48...
I do not agree that my approach suppresses scientific research. Generations of scientists have done their work faithfully out of a deep feeling and conviction that their scientific investigation is a way to know God. Some of them were quite 'fanatics' - take Maxwell for example. Such scientists are still working today - and it does not seem that any of the quality of their research work has been compromised due to their belief in a divine metaphysical explanation for being at its core.
There is no doubt that the hypothesis of evolution as it is indeed provides a valid operating principle (survival of the fit, etc.) in various segments of the phenomenon of life and its development. But this operating principle is not the only one that comes into consideration - take, for example, the proposals of various, serious scientists who raise hypotheses of 'epigenetics'.
Beyond that, and above all: as I said in post 60, in terms of mathematical feasibility - the question of the origin of life, as well as its developmental chain - cannot be explained by purely material mechanisms. The material explanations describe, to a certain extent, the factual processes as they happened - in retrospect, but they are unable to settle the problem of feasibility.
By the way, I highly recommend reading a bit about the hypotheses related to epigenetics.
point,
A state of tensions and currents, does not create consciousness in any structure of legality.
The electrical matter is only a source of energy to activate the mechanism that creates consciousness.
The idea of "computerized consciousness" talks about the creation of a kind of virtual "consciousness software" that will replace the physical consciousness.
Michael Rothschild,
you dodge
When a word is taken out of its original context, it cannot be relied upon.
What you did with the word "creation" is to simply define it according to your definition of the creation of things in some way, and on that you "dressed" the statement: "The basis for the conclusion that we were not created is not the fact that creation is impossible, because if we believed in this we would not try to create."
This is taken out of context and not a way to establish!
Valerie,
If it will be possible to "upload" ads to a computer, it will almost certainly be possible for hackers to change people's ads at will.
For example, to make awareness of a healthy person "completely" and awareness of a person who is defined as a "plant".
Would you be willing to risk it?
The world critic:
Please don't try to teach me Hebrew - especially not when you don't know it yourself.
You can make the claim that the origin of the word is in the Bible for almost all words in Hebrew and this does not limit their use.
In your opinion, should the word Athens be reserved for Balaam's Athens or is it allowed to be used for other purposes as well?
Whether you think it is allowed or whether it is not allowed - the fact is that the word is used without any connection to the Bible and talks about "intelligent creation" and "creationism".
The question of where I didn't see the basis in your words that a computer will never have consciousness is very easy to answer: I didn't see it anywhere.
Michael Rothschild, if you do not understand the context of my words, it does not mean that I did not explain, and I never claimed that I expected to be believed in anything.
Also, I would be happy to clarify my opinion, if you "update" me what is not clear to you, where you did not see the context in my foundation that a computer will never have consciousness.
To Michael Rothschild:
No one is trying to create.
Apparently your definition of the concept of "health" is incorrect.
"Creation" originates in the Bible, and according to the Bible, creation is the creation of something living, growing and/or inanimate "out of nothing" (creation of something out of nothing!).
If you know of such an experience, or will know of it in the future, please let me know.
But you are right that there is no proof that it is impossible.
What's more, the only belief that it is possible can only be based on the fact that there are things that exist today even though in the past thinking in their direction was considered complete madness.
The world critic:
You say that you explain and later that you explained that a computer will never have consciousness.
Let me update you: you didn't explain it at all. All in all you asserted it assertively and you expect everyone to believe you know what you are talking about.
Guys, I don't want to get mad at you, it doesn't match my character!
But enough with the nonsense:
"What, would it be permissible to disconnect such a computer from the electricity? Would the dismantling of such a computer be considered murder?" for example.
No one is talking about creating a computerized human brain.
We are talking about changing the size and structure of the computer, just the structure, so that it can reach the power and dimensions of the human brain.
They haven't even talked about a DNA-based computer and people are already thinking about murder...
Anyway, in order to murder something, the "something" has to contain consciousness.
No consciousness - no murder.
Otherwise, building a modern house should be considered the height of human cruelty (imagine for a moment what building a house would look like when, instead of bricks, human corpses were used, and I think my point will be horribly clear to you!).
Now Shmulik, why should computers build computers??
So that they don't feel lonely?
A computer has no consciousness, and if it encountered the possibility of creating consciousness for itself, it would choose not to create it, simply because consciousness interferes with logical thinking that is based on all the data it has, and "logical thinking" is the basis of the way the computer thinks, it will never have a way Other !
Since he has no consciousness, he does not need more computers, he will be interested in improving the software he has.
And improving its software will only be a problem in a situation like the one described in the movie "Trapped in the Net" for example, this is the only "Achilles heel" that will always be between us and the computer.
And the solution is, when the time comes, to introduce software into the basic software (software such as the operating system) in which it will be specified that in "sensitive" areas such as life-threatening accidents of any kind, the computer must indicate (before the appropriate party) how it thinks it is appropriate to react in the situation that has arisen and accept Verbal and written confirmation after the same person identifies himself in several ways of identification that cannot be verified and do not change during life.
I hope this will protect us from fateful "misunderstandings" between us and the computers of the future.
Movies like "Matrix" and "Terminator" describe a situation that is impossible in reality where computers develop consciousness, and as I explained before, computers will never be interested in consciousness.
If someone tries to force "consciousness" into their computer, the computer will ignore this "software" or stop working, because it will disrupt its operation.
"Nature" pushed our consciousness so that we develop much more slowly than our brain would allow without consciousness.
We are able to think despite our consciousness, because our way of thinking does not work on "pure" logic.
Part of the impurity in our logic stems from the fact that, unlike a computer, our memory is dynamic (changing over time) and full of holes as a result of partial forgetting, or in 3 words: our memory is distorted.
And unlike a computer, we do not have the ability to draw conclusions from examining all the knowledge we have on the subject in question.
That is, we derive our opinions in terms of parts of our total knowledge and not from the whole.
That's it for now...
Moshe:
I definitely think that prophecy is not legitimate in the context of science.
In fact I think the prophecy is not legitimate in any field.
I find no reason to believe the prophecies.
All existing knowledge in quantum theory is well described through mathematics, so no matter how you spin it - there is nothing missing in mathematics that is necessary for the description of quantum theory or any detail of it.
In relation to what was in the temple - there were all kinds of things there.
Maybe they put some kind of cabinet there and fool people that it has some magical properties.
What do you think was in the Mayan temples?
Moshe Klein.
Prophecy has many meanings, which one do you mean?
Is prophecy (proven or not) in your opinion something that is not illegitimate in the context of science?
Has science always progressed exclusively in a linear fashion?
Kolmogorov's model of probability theory was created around 1930
It was at a time when the entire physical world was burning around the subject of quantum theory (EPR, etc.)
But Kolmogorov chose! He didn't address it at all. Therefore the classical probability theory
Gives a formal response to the knowledge that has existed in mathematics for hundreds of years. Since Pascal de Mobraham and more
So what do you think was really in the room of the Holy of Holies of the Temple?
And regarding the building of the Temple: come on! Why did they build the Mayan temples? Why did they build the churches? Why did they build the structure around the black stone? Why did they build all the halls in Greece?
All to put a computer in them?
And another thing - goes without saying, of course:
Uncertainty is dealt with in mathematics and an entire mathematical discipline - probability - is dedicated to it.
Moshe:
There are indeed people who think that quantum phenomena play a role in thinking, but many others think that this is not true.
In the field of brain simulation, computers are often used that are not based on Turing's model - neural networks.
Your words seem to me more like the words of a prophet and prover (from the language of rebuke - not from the language of proof) than the words of a scientist
.j
If the temple really existed then why did they build it? Do the IBM engineers know how to create a machine that has consciousness? I guess this is not the new direction that the article points to. A computer without consciousness will never resemble the operation of the human brain. The interesting question here in my opinion is whether it is possible to create a machine with consciousness. All today's computers are based on a model of a Turing machine, that is, on a binary representation of the numbers. Then John von Neumann succeeded in realizing the theoretical model. But as long as uncertainty is not an inherent part of the language of mathematics, a computer with consciousness will not be created. Whoever has in his hands today the key to a different concept of the number concept will be able to create a truly quantum computer. This wisdom was not born today. This knowledge existed in humanity already thousands of years ago.
Yes
And do you think the temple existed?
By the way, Moshe, computer or not - in my opinion the Ark of the Covenant was not there at all.
Moshe:
I just don't understand what you are saying.
Where did we suddenly get a quantum computer and where did we talk about mathematics - normal or otherwise?
You gave a puzzling link about the Ark of the Covenant and expected us to understand what? Was the Ark of the Covenant a computer? I wonder why it is not written anywhere.
Moshe Klein,
What computer are you talking about?
Maybe you could expand a bit on the details:
What principle does it work on?
What is its source of energy?
Is it still running?
Michael, what is your skepticism? If you believe that it will be possible to build a quantum computer with ordinary mathematics then allow me to disagree with you. Moses
Hurry hurry….
With all due respect to IBM, the most sophisticated computer was already operating several thousand years ago
He resides inside the Ark of the Covenant. And here is the proof. We here in Israel are already thinking about the next generation of computers.
This computer was actually a model/replica of the universe. Every impact on him created an immediate impact on the universe.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA
To the owner of the strange name "in relation to feelings" (and to others):
You should enjoy the following segment:
http://junkerhq.net/MGS2/MarkIII.html
Every woman knows how to fake emotions (and other things), maybe if they program the software in a reliable way, for example a sexy or childish voice that is hard to refuse, or words that will be like emotional blackmail, they will make us believe that the computer really cares, like HAL 9000 begged for his life in the movie Odyssey , you could really feel sorry for him, as if he would die if they turned him off..
Look, the best example I know right now is in advanced computer games, it's like in chess, even though all the moves are predicted in advance, you have the uniqueness of making your move your own way. A computer may not have molecules, but instead it has a "byte". Maybe every question has a pre-prepared answer but it's no different from us, if you know the answer you've probably heard it before. There are many inanimate objects that copy what nature gave us from birth: camera, microphone, joystick, speakers, hard disk, memory and more... So again the question is if an inanimate object sees, hears, speaks and thinks, is it alive? Maybe he has no feelings and here the problem is to accept him as my life for anything. It's the missing piece of the puzzle, if it has feelings it has a soul. Maybe one day a technical solution will be found for this too.
Eddie:
My argument is a principled argument and I ask you to explain to me why - if I were a computer program it would have a point in a rational discussion with me.
I assume that you know that people have conversations with entities much more ethereal than software (I mean, of course, the flying spaghetti monster).
Unlike the entities you talk to, these people - the entity I was - if I were a computer program - would also answer meaningful things and not be silent all the time.
In general - what is the connection between the ability to have a rational discussion with someone/something and seeing it?
There is no connection between things.
If you are not ready to talk about aliens because you have not seen them - how come you allow yourself to talk about God?
I must admit, to my shame, that you have never seen God.
There is no difference between the God of the gaps and a general concept that says in advance that all the gaps are filled by God.
This is a concept that, beyond the fact that it does not explain anything - it suppresses any research.
Evolutionary research is progressing more and more in understanding the development of life in the process of evolution and where there is no knowledge there are hypotheses from different hypotheses.
That's why the claim "that the theories of evolution, including modernity, are unable to provide a full explanation for the phenomenon of life, as well as for the evolutionary development paths that actually happened." Unfounded - to say the least.
By the way - I recommend that you (again) read a bit about mycoplasma for the obortorium.
Correction to my response at 60:
In the penultimate paragraph, instead of "or an insight that relates to the scientific aspect of reality" CEL "or an insight that relates only to the scientific aspect of reality".
Michael Rothschild,
To you in post 50:
The truth is that you bring a somewhat zombie atmosphere to the discussion, and I do not mention this to be derogatory.
In my opinion, you must choose between your argument as a principled argument and your argument as a factual one.
If you stick to the factual claim - there is no room for a rational discussion with you (not only between us, but with any person who has not yet verified you with tangible evidence, if you can be tangibly verified at all). Likewise if you insist that you are nothing more than computer signs or software or some kind of machine, but you make it clear that it is possible that you are not like that ("even if I were software").
And if your argument is a principled argument - receiving an answer in post 46, using the 'presumption of equality between likes'.
As for your claim regarding aliens:
I have to admit, to my shame, that to this day I have not had the privilege of seeing a foreigner or anything like him, unlike some other people. I attribute this only to my short-sightedness and my consciousness. It's true that I received some hints about their existence, for example in certain comments here on the site, some kind of hysterical reactions (and sometimes also piggish), but I didn't know how to draw the proper conclusions from them... what a shame...
And on a more serious note - if and when you define for me who an alien is - I will demand a claim and I will try to tell you what I think is going on with him from a mental point of view... We may have to check and verify him in a tangible way, and this may be an interesting experience without a doubt...
As for your claim about my 'creationism':
Since you occasionally raise various insinuations on the subject, I should clarify myself. Well, it's nice to just be 'kind of creation'. It's just as nice to be just 'kind of an evolutionist'. It is about something/someone who is a reserved creationist and a reserved evolutionist - and indeed, I think this is where the truth lies. From the very fact that evolutionary processes on certain scales did happen (and are happening all the time) there is no doubt that the evolutionary principle is valid. In my view, the evolutionary principle is more inclusive - and also applies to what I perceive as divinity, and not only to inanimate nature. But I really think that the theories of evolution, including modernity, are not able to provide a full explanation for the phenomenon of life, as well as for the evolutionary development paths that actually happened. This is, among other things (and not only) because they call for unknown processes and unknown algorithms (which it is highly doubtful that we will ever be able to know), and as much as we are able to imagine these processes - these hypotheses require such tiny probabilities - that it is impossible for them to have been realized in practice , also paying attention to what we know about the age of the earth and the universe in general. A physical regulatory factor is needed here to establish the picture.
My concept does not use a 'God of gaps' - I do not need 'God' to fill any gaps, since in my concept, which is an overall philosophical one and not an ad hoc hypothesis or an insight relating to the scientific aspect of reality - the gaps are found in the final consciousness of man, while divinity is from the beginning A source of all being, an evolutionary dynamic source of dynamic being with a principle of action that is to a significant extent evolutionary. This deity is not a source of 'miracles' nor an object of 'belief' in Alma, but a being that can be defended from a rational philosophical point of view.
According to the specific claim - as a qualified creationist and a qualified evolutionist - I do believe that consciousness is an 'evolving creation'. But I don't think that the keys to any act of creation, and evolving creation in general, are in the hands of hardware engineers, software engineers and even any mathematicians - however talented they may be. I detailed some of my reasons in posts 18,19,48, XNUMX, XNUMX - reasons that were not discussed - in the pen of the quasi solipsistic claims as raised above against me.
By the way, of course, those who do not recognize the organization as creating a new essence also do not recognize the existence of anything that is not an elementary particle.
Therefore there is no coffee, no paper, no trees, no animals, no life and this sentence also does not exist.
point:
As I said - we were already in this debate.
After all, you do not recognize that an organization is "something" and therefore, from your point of view, this article does not exist either.
This seems to me to be a pointless approach, but I have already understood that you will not give it up.
Whatever.
Although the claim goes against all direct intuition, it does not contradict anything real. If it were so, I would abandon it immediately.
I also say that the machine "will have consciousness" but just like our own consciousness, that is, in practice there will be nothing new, that is, nothing is created, and this is the point of dispute, is consciousness something (a collection of particles is not something, it is a particle and another particle. .) or not.
Nad:
I think like you, only you didn't express yourself precisely and I wanted things to be clarified.
point:
I am firm in my opinion and your words did not completely change the tone, but we were already in this debate.
When I said that the machine you described would have consciousness, I also explained what kind of consciousness this would be (as mentioned - one that is not aware of the objective reality but of the recorded one).
In other words - I meant only the qualia of consciousness.
Your claim - as I have explained many times - simply contradicts reality in every possible way.
It contradicts the fact that we learn and that consciousness has an important role in this, it contradicts the fact that consciousness developed in evolution, and it contradicts everything we feel.
By the way this is Nad
Michael, I think I've already explained, but here it is again, "happening by itself" - if I find the ingredients and conditions that lead to the formation of an explosion and the explosion simply goes deaf, that's one thing, but if I create an imitation of the explosion phenomenon, that's another, the imitation and the real explosion are not the same natural phenomenon Therefore, it cannot be said that they are the same,
If I discovered the causes that create self-consciousness, I created them and self-consciousness really was created, then I can know that there is consciousness, but if I imitated the effects that are created by self-consciousness, then I will never be able to know with this thing that it really feels towards itself that it exists
By the way, I am very satisfied if the matter of self-consciousness will ever be fully understood. Perhaps it is as Aristotle said (I think) - consciousness cannot be known, just as hearing cannot be heard or sight can be seen.
That is, you can understand things, but it is not certain that you can understand the thing that understands things, it is simply not the right tool.
And more,
Since you claim that it is created, it is not created anywhere specific, there is no transistor where consciousness is created. Therefore there is no such thing as consciousness. Everything that does not exist in spacetime (and more precisely in the physical world as we understand it), simply does not exist. From the definition of the universe and existence.
Following on from what I wrote in comments 10, 31,32, XNUMX and the questions asked about it.
Michael, don't you notice the big problem that has been created, because if consciousness is created in the transistors when they are connected, and when they are disconnected, and when a recording system is running in general, maybe someone will even pretend that consciousness is created at the head of the recording that reads the data from the recording film. So actually a lot of consciousnesses will be created at the same time.
And the whole thing becomes ridiculous and senseless.
Therefore, the simple explanation is that there is no such thing as consciousness at all, in general there is a brain that always transmits to itself "I have consciousness, it's called I, I am consciousness" like that in a constant loop and that's it.
NAD:
I still have to say that your demand for it to happen on its own makes no sense.
If I know exactly how to cause it and I do exactly what is needed to cause it then it doesn't happen by itself.
More than that: it may be that one day the subject of consciousness will be completely understood (because there is a reason why something becomes self-aware and there is no law that states that we cannot discover this reason and produce it artificially).
To Judah and to the one who returned to him in repentance:
I have long since raised in various discussions both your question and the answer to this question.
The basis for the conclusion that we were not created is not the fact that creation is impossible, because if we believed that we would not try to create.
The basis for the conclusion is the facts we find in nature that show that evolution has occurred and that if anything can be said about creation, it is that it is clearly irrational.
Now - of course it is theoretically possible for a creator to have created the world with dinosaur skeletons inside - just as it is theoretically possible for a creator to have created all of us with all of our memories exactly one second ago (or maybe he only created you and everything else is a virtual environment that he provides for you) but this is a useless thought.
Beyond that - such a creator must be an idiot if, after planting thousands of evidences pointing to his non-existence, he still expects us to worship him.
Eddie:
You can't rely on the resemblance because you've never met me.
All expression of my existence is for you signs on the computer.
Even if I were software you would see exactly the same thing.
Relying on similarity in this matter is also very strange for other reasons:
If aliens land here - will you claim that they have no consciousness?
I promise you they won't be like us.
More than that - as a type of creationist you must actually believe that consciousness can be created because you claim that even our consciousness was created.
Even if there are things that I don't know how they happen, they are not a reason for me to fill the gaps in my understanding of God or other miraculous things.
Nad:
We do agree and it turns out you don't agree with Eddie.
Eddie, I agree with you in principle that self-consciousness cannot be imitated, but I certainly think that it is possible to create a system that develops consciousness and creativity in the process of self-evolution, for me there is nothing different between self-consciousness and any natural phenomenon in the sense that if you were able to create all the appropriate conditions for the creation of the phenomenon then it is simply is happening, and again the emphasis is on creating the conditions for the phenomenon to occur and not on the phenomenon itself
Michael Rothschild:
In the discussion with Nad in post 38, you claimed that "this is not about imitation of the external expression at all, but about imitation of the mode of operation in the hope that imitation of the mode of operation will eventually give the familiar external expression! That's why we are talking here (if it succeeds) about true consciousness."
I agree with the particular provider implied in the sipa of your words.
But I allow myself, following my claim in post 18 about the 'creativity' feature of the brain and mental skills in general - that the 'mode of operation' cannot be imitated at all.
As a mathematician, you must be aware of the creative moment involved in high-level mathematical work. Can mathematical creativity be replicated? Can it be imitated? If this could be done, I suppose creative geniuses like Gauss would be much more common, and there might also be 'upgraded' Gauss models 2, 4, 8, etc.
The same argument also works on the level of 'experiential' mental skills, chief among them the very experience of consciousness, which brought to life a completely creative authentic experience.
The way these skills are produced, the way the mechanism leading to them works - are not dogmatic patterns, and therefore cannot be imitated a priori. There is simply nothing to imitate.
Nad:
Some of the above mentioned also refer to your position. I would love to receive your reference.
Yehuda Shalom, you are right but I just can't decide on a name 🙂
("Mr. from" really doesn't seem to me)
I don't really believe that someone created us, I just said that even if we assume that he did, then at most he created the first living cell and not beyond that, why? Because as I explained earlier, there is countless evidence that all animals evolved from each other and were not created as they are, our bodies are full of various and strange defects that an intelligent designer would not have allowed them to appear, also there are many remains in our bodies from organs that served our ancestors in the past (such as the tailbone, or the hairs that cover our bodies that are a remnant of the fur that covered our monkey ancestors, or a gene that is an exact fusion of two separate genes that exist in monkeys, including their ends that appear at the point of connection)
To commenter 45 "the guide of the universe" I think your approach is fundamentally wrong, the replication of a person in the future will not be a replication into a desktop computer or into a laptop computer, nor will it be a disk, it will probably be a computerized brain that will have an actual body (probably much more flexible and durable than our own body ) and the only difference is that instead of being realized biologically by neurons and molecules, he will be realized by electronic chips, it is possible that he will look externally just like a human being, you will not be able to differentiate between them, only that his mind will be computerized and not biological, that will be the whole difference, Of course, his brain will work about a million times faster than yours and will have capabilities that are hard to even imagine...
Michael Rothschild:
Regarding your post 34, I continue with the procedural regulatory approach.
In this method, the presumption of equality applies between similar ones (homo species species - homo species species). From this I deduced the assumption ("belief") regarding the existence of consciousness in you.
This presumption does not apply between incomparables (the SS - stone, the SS - machine, etc.). Here the assumption is that you don't 'have' consciousness unless you prove it positively. The burden of bringing the evidence and the burden of proof is placed 'on you'. You will not be able to meet these burdens - for the reasons given in post 18, section 3 above.
In light of the above, your claim (post 34) of a contradiction between my belief that you have consciousness and my belief that the machine does not have consciousness - is wrong. The difference between two beliefs is completely rationally justified.
From here on I will be fully justified in questioning the existence of machine 'consciousness' as I conceived it in post 18.
I think there should be a discussion about the meanings of being able to copy a personality into a computer or clone it into a computer, and this is long before we become creators according to response #43.
Imagine a situation in the not too distant future where a person can copy his entire consciousness to the computer before he dies. The entrepreneurs will of course promise him, for a handsome sum, eternal life. However, I predict that the problems this action will cause will be many and varied.
Who owns the disc that contains all your past lives? Who will be entitled to continue receiving advice from you and use your intellectual capacity? Can you bequeath the disc to your son? When your son goes bankrupt, will your personality embedded in the computer become the property of a stranger? If you don't give him proper advice, he will threaten to delete you forever? Will it be allowed to delete an embedded personality? Maybe by law it will be possible to delete an imprinted personality only if it has committed a crime throughout the virtual world?
Remember!!! This is no longer science fiction, but a reasonable expectation for the coming decades.
It is assumed that we cannot well imagine such a world as it was impossible to imagine in 1950 a mobile device with a direct transmission of news from another continent.
The singularity is near!!
First of all, Mr. So-and-so, you need to define a name for yourself because we want to answer to an entity even if it is virtual or from the future, so please, give yourself any name. Maybe I will define a name for you "Mr. from" so let's begin:-
to Mr. from
First of all you should understand that I am a Darwinist who believes in evolution with all my heart, but one should not ignore the above paradox which at least provokes thought and is apparently in contradiction to evolution.
But how did you determine that, in your opinion, the creative being created only a living cell when you are more than a human, going big on a fully intelligent creature? Why do you claim that those who built us only created a single living cell? I don't agree with you.
And regarding the laws and commandments - first of all I would suggest you go to my website (click on my name above) and look for the fictional story "Thesis in Astronomy". Look there, there, how laws can be created out of necessity.
Other than that, have a good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda Shalom, your answer is very similar to mine (response 9 "Answer Lolari Nakash"), and regarding the continuation, you are absolutely right, I have also thought about it quite a few times, it is clear that at some point we will reach such a high technological capability that we will be able to create worlds ourselves, and within them Intelligent beings, the question is will we require them to behave like stupid robots lacking independent thought? Shall we insist that they pray to us and worship us, and observe a collection of laws and mitzvos that we require them to observe? Or let them live their lives and decide independently what they want to do?
So yes, you are right, there is always the possibility that humans were also created by very, very intelligent beings in the very distant past, but there are many problems with this theory, let's start with the fact that there is no trace of this intelligent being that supposedly created us, secondly, there are so many proofs Decisive and clear to the theory of evolution and to the fact that all the animals in our world evolved from one another, that even if the theory about the highly intelligent being that created us is correct, it means that at most it created the first living cell, no more than that.
You need to understand two things
Even if we create an identical copy of ourselves even with consciousness, then the second I finish creating it, it becomes a personality in itself with new memories different from mine, for example, I will see things over the shoulder of my copy and he will see things over my shoulder and it doesn't have to be the same. And when I leave the copy and close the door behind me, I will surely have new memories that are different from the copy. In short, there cannot be two identical Yehuda Sabdarmish or two identical Michael Rothschilds.
But we must not forget that as soon as we created an intelligent creature we are its creators and if he is asked what did evolution or creation create?, he will answer - creation. This is where problems will arise with evolution that if we are creationists/someone's creator god, then why shouldn't someone be a creator god of intelligent people like us.
In the worst case we can say that creationism is an upper stage of evolution!
Food for thought.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael By this I mean in general that there is no primary specific command or program in the system whose function is to express some effect of self-awareness for example - a command that answers yes to the question, do you exist? The commands of self-awareness should be derived from other commands and be a self-addition and evolution of the initial structure, if you agree with that, then again, no argument
Nad:
not exactly.
What the system is or isn't supposed to be is not important.
What matters is how it is built.
If someone knows that a system with a certain structure will develop consciousness and he says he is building it so that it will fight robbers - then it is supposed to fight robbers but it will still develop consciousness.
Michael, then we have no argument, we agree that the only way to be sure that consciousness has been created is if you create a system that is not supposed to be imitative of the external expressions and that system discovers the external expression by itself, that is, becomes aware of itself
But NAD!
This is not about imitating the external expression at all, but about imitating the way of acting in the hope that imitating the way of acting will eventually give the familiar external expression!
That is why we are talking here (if it succeeds) about true consciousness.
Michael An imitation of a thing is only a partial imitation based on the external expression of the same thing and the external expression is always limited, therefore in my opinion the sentence "full imitation" is problematic, let's take for example another natural phenomenon, say an explosion, let's say I have a very sophisticated hologram that imitates an explosion, the noise The thrust, the heat, the appearance and even the feeling now arises the question of whether the imitation-explosion is the same natural phenomenon as the explosion itself caused by various factors that occurred by itself in accordance with the laws of nature? Or you can ask it another way, will I ever be able to be sure that I have simulated the whole explosion?, maybe there are unmeasurable elements that are also part of the explosion or maybe there are elements whose specific measurement affects their existence and can change the big picture
Self-consciousness is a normal natural phenomenon, admittedly terribly complex and perhaps chaotic, but still a natural phenomenon, if you create the appropriate conditions there are chances that it will occur and thus you can be sure that it exists, if you simply imitate its external manifestations you will never be able to know that it is indeed the same phenomenon and it is Experiencing the same subjective feeling towards herself, you just never know.
point:
This does not prove it.
This only proves that you are trying to attribute to the word consciousness a different meaning than it has.
Michael is right, but this only proves that consciousness does not exist!
Eddie:
I'm just asserting that your claim about the machine's lack of consciousness is at odds with your belief that mine actually has consciousness because you have no information about any difference between us.
You and Nad simply assume what is requested (by you) and try to convince others of it.
It can't work.
Reasoning is necessary to convince, and any reasoning that holds true for the machine will hold true.
Nad:
The machine in question will be as complex as a human being and fully imitate him - including turning consciousness towards itself.
On what is the assumption that it is something else based?
point:
There are no problems.
In my opinion, a consciousness will be created - but one that is aware of the recorded reality and not the reality that prevails at that moment.
Among us - after all, today we do this kind of thing with humans as well (remember when you stimulate a point in a human's brain and he raises his hand and reports that he did it because he decided to do it? It's exactly the same thing!)
And you can continue to ask, whether instead of transmitting the voltages to the transistors, it would be enough to simply transmit without connection to the transistors. After all, what happens in transistors is basically a voltage change, and this is exactly what happens in the entire transmission system, which outputs electrical signals, so the transistors don't really add anything new...
Arie, what is the problem with maintaining a sequence of states of transistors. Electric probes are attached to them, and their condition is recorded on magnetic tape at every moment.
And how do you broadcast? very simple. After we have recorded for a few minutes, we will disconnect the transistors, and connect them to the transmitter, and the transmitter will run the magnetic tape on which we recorded and transmit the recorded voltages to the disconnected transistors.
And this is a simpler system than those connected transistors, and not more complex as they said here.
And my question is this, will the new voltage change in the transistors create consciousness? And if so, at what time resolution (bandwidth) must we broadcast our recording for consciousness to be created. And what will happen if we even change the transmission rate?
Are you starting to understand the problems?
Again when you copy it you can't tell if it exists or not, when it happens by itself you can tell
Michael, almost the only thing that a person can be sure of is the fact that he himself has self-awareness, even if we assume that this is not the case and there is a deceptive phenomenon that makes me think that I have self-awareness, so who is this phenomenon deceiving? If I can be deceived then there is an I, or as Descartes said, I think, which means I exist, even if you find a way to describe all the things that create the illusion of self-consciousness as deterministic processes
are necessary, you still cannot ignore the existence of that subjective feeling, in order to know if I have created something that has that feeling, it is not enough for me to wait for all the effects created by this feeling, I need a conscious thing to become complex enough in some process until it can Alone to direct the usual awareness towards oneself and say - I exist.
We will look into the problem, in the meantime I have released the response
Father, why is my answer "awaiting confirmation"? There is not even any link in the message, why is it delayed?
It really doesn't work that way, inanimate matter is inanimate matter, the difference between inanimate matter and living matter is the different arrangement of the molecules and the connection between them, in an inanimate object there is no life and it is not capable of thinking, on the other hand, a human brain in which the molecules are arranged in a different way is capable of thinking processes .
It's like carbon atoms that in a certain arrangement are just a piece of black and dirty lead, and in a slightly different arrangement they become a sparkling diamond worth millions.
I have the book "Footprints of God" by Greg Ailes, and right on the first page of the book in the acknowledgments the first words are thanks to Ray Kurzweil, and a recommendation to read "The Age of Thinking Machines".
In any case, in this book too, you put a "super MRI" of a person into a supercomputer, and the result is known 🙂
If inanimate objects can be made to think, perhaps inanimate things should be treated differently, perhaps truly as the chewing gums said "the tree is alive, the earth, the stars, the whole universe is alive", perhaps they simply lack the part of speech (output) but they definitely have the part of The understanding (input)?
After all, all it takes is a few light electric shocks and hey it's talking...
Valerie,
Ray Kurzweil, in his book The Age of Thinking Machines, indeed predicts the backup of the brain and the transfer of personality to the computer.
Amazing book, highly recommended.
Michael Rothschild,
Suppose I claim to you:
"I'm really not sure you have consciousness. I'm not even sure you are any 'you'. If you (who may not be 'you' at all) claim to me that I have no basis to assume that 'you' have consciousness - my rational action alternative 'towards you' would be not to have any conversation with 'you', since you are nothing but fiction. I'd rather go to the sauna on this winter day."
- It is clear that there is no basis for discourse and discussion between us, certainly not rational discourse. We must assume, as a constitutive regulatory condition, that we are both capable of 'consciousness', if we claim/as claiming that we are human beings with minimal mental skills.
I would make the same claim against someone who claims to be a computer.
In the meantime, since I am experiencing my subjective experiences, and due to the aforementioned regulative principle, I assume fundamental principled equality or similarity (to the extent necessary for the matter) with the experiences of others who claim/as claiming or pretend to claim - that they are of my type (homosexuals legally kosher homosexuals ) - I am certainly entitled to claim the claims I made in posts 18 and 19 above, as rational claims; as well as my claims in this post (for the purpose of this matter - I assume a practical assumption - only practical - that you are a Homo sapiens sapiens with a conscience and legal competence. And if I was wrong - nothing happened, except for the somewhat entertaining mental exercise/practice).
Edi and NAD:
I hope it is clear to you that your words have no basis.
How do you think I have consciousness?
You believe this for one and only reason: you read my words on the site and conclude that consciousness is necessary to write them.
You would draw exactly the same conclusion if I were a computer program (and I'm pretty sure Uber will already find a wise man to claim that this is exactly the case)
I agree with Eddie, the only way it will be possible to know with consciousness is that it actually experiences itself with it growing naturally by itself in a kind of evolving system, anything else will be considered an imitation of the effects created by self-consciousness from our own observations of them. This also answers To the fundamental question of a point, self-consciousness is not the thing that looks and behaves as self-aware, but it is something that is really self-aware, meaning that awareness precedes and leads to conscious behavior.
And one more thing:
In light of what was said in my previous response(18), I am not sure that what was called above as 'replication' is indeed a duplication of the person. It is a copy of hardware in a certain approximation only, which is activated at a certain level of simulations - for the physical operation of the brain, moving to a given moment and as it is measured in a momentary state. There is nothing real in this copy that belongs to the personality or mental capacity of the original, and their dynamics.
When I read the article yesterday, I had a few questions:
1. There needs to be a great engineering research power to build cortical imaging at the level of a cat's brain within a decade. Basically - it doesn't sound simple.
2. The second task - mapping the structure of the wiring in the brain is an important step on the way to cracking the brain's communication network and understanding how information is represented and processed. The hidden assumption is that all the ways in which certain information is represented can be mathematically described, and that the representations work in fixed, or dynamic patterns that can be absolutely predicted. This is an assumption whose correctness is not necessary, and even highly satisfied, if you understand that the mind is 'creative', and creativity is something that cannot, a priori, be fully expressed in a formula, but partial (in the 'good' case).
3. Let's assume that the above-mentioned tasks are successfully completed (ie - will ever be successfully completed) - the result is a physical machine that emits symbols that are representations of things that we recognize as various mental phenomena known to us - consciousness in general, love, jealousy, etc., etc.
We have no evidence that he 'experiences' what we experience when we are aware, loving, etc. It works according to certain algorithms - admittedly extremely sophisticated - that were entered into them, and only according to them and only according to them, and it emits outputs that are purely computational results. This is a machine that behaves 'as if' it were a brain, and is unable to get out of its 'box'. But can it be said that she is an authentic 'personality', one capable of creative, unpredictable construction - of herself and of her skills and actions? Can it be said that she is a personality endowed with the power of free will, free choice and/or the 'consciousness' of free will or free choice - at least? - Doubt.
Even if the machine behaves as such, to the extent that it is fully capable of behaving this way (and there is doubt as to how much it is really able to imitate the brain) - it is difficult to talk about 'personality', and the machine - no matter how sophisticated - remains a machine, with its relative limitations/essential differences in relation to the thing 'True'.
Aryeh Seter:
Nice response.
I would only highlight the part of the answer in it and say "yes. In this new, more complex system, there will be consciousness"
Valerie:
This answer of mine does not come from "scholarship" but from a personal feeling that would surprise me if it is not shared by all of us:
I wouldn't consider it eternal life.
What is being created may be a copy of me but it is not me.
This is easy to prove if you assume that they will use this technology to duplicate you but you will remain and another identical copy of you will simply be created.
In this case, would you agree to be killed?
Suppose that in 30-40 years it will be possible to back up the brain using a computer and it will be possible to clone an adult person
Is it possible to live like this forever and does it seem to anyone that such a thing would be possible at all?
I would love to read about it from people more learned than me. (Thank you in advance for your response)
Point, it's a bit like asking what will happen if we take a painting, for example the image of the Mona Lisa, and suddenly disconnect all the pixels of the paintbrush from the drawing block, that is, we will preserve in some artificial way the position of all the pixels exactly as they appear in the original painting, but we will disconnect the The page, we lift it up, the drawing block, the base on which the painting sits, will we still see the image of the Mona Lisa in front of us? And the answer is definitely yes.
To your question, the answer, in my opinion, is clearly yes (I just realized that your question is theoretical in principle)
Point, I'm completely unclear where you're headed, it's like asking what would happen if we suddenly cut off all the physical connections (synapses) between the neurons in the brain and artificially preserve only the electrical pulses that pass between them, why would we want to do such a thing? What's the point?
The hardware (the neurons and the branching network they create) is the one that ultimately creates the basis for your self-awareness, without the hardware (the neurons) there would also be no electrical pulses that would flow from one place to another, and there would be no synapses that would regulate the strength of the transition from one neuron to another, just like the electronic cards In your computer they are the basis that allows your computer to run and the operating system to load and for pictures and games to appear on your computer screen, you ask what will happen if we remove (delete) the hardware on the computer and keep only the flow of voltages and currents, will my favorite game still continue to run normally? So I ask what's the point of doing it anyway? The hardware (the neurons, the electronic cards in the computer) is the basis, it is the infrastructure that directs all the voltages and currents (in the brain or computer) why eliminate it? Why is she bothering?
Point - there is a technical problem in your question. How do you think of changing the state of millions of transistors at once without them being connected to each other. And to change them in this situation, you have to connect them all to a system of additional elements and thus you will get a much more complex system than the one you had.
And now comes the important question of course. After all, in the end, all there is in a computer is that transistor A changes voltage from high to low and vice versa, and thus it affects transistor BC etc. that are connected to it, and these affect the transistors that are connected to them.
Suppose we will take the state (voltages and currents) of all transistors at a certain moment. And we will physically disconnect them from each other, but we will artificially maintain the state of the voltages and currents, and we will also change them with the same legality that they would change if they were connected. Will there be consciousness even then?
I am very sure that in the future you will be able to create a perfect copy of yourself on the computer, i.e. a replication of the entire branched and branched neural network spread out in your brain, a computerized network that will include everything you have in your brain, your personality, your past memories and also your self-awareness.
This computerized network will feel just like you, and say "yes it's me!" She will be able to tell you about everything that happened to you in the past, and she will be aware of herself and be sure that she is you (think of suddenly you "wake up" inside a computer, that's exactly how she will feel) but for you she will simply be a duplicate of you, like an identical twin brother, self-awareness Yours will still reside inside your skull in your biological brain, I have no idea how it is possible to actually flow the self-awareness from your head into a computer, what they will probably be able to do is probably only duplicate, copy you one for one, that is, there will be 2 copies of you in the world, one biological and one computerized , but you will be two completely separate entities.
Laurie
Today, absolutely not.
in the future? Who knows, maybe. This will indeed be a vision of the end times
And the scientific answer to eternal life (assuming that the hardware on it will be
The consciousness will not be impaired and the source of power will be permanent)
I wonder if it will be possible to download our ads into a computer and back it up
I would be very happy if someone could answer this for me
What is certain is that the end of humanity and the world as we know it today is nearing its end.
In 100 years the world will look completely different.
People just didn't know how to understand what exponential growth means.
By the way, following on from the previous message, in the course "From Synapses to Free Will" lectures 4 and 5 have also been uploaded (5 is very interesting!) and this week lecture number 6 will be uploaded, which is also expected to be fascinating.
We must mention in this context another, amazing and even more ambitious project, which was built right next to the Large Hadron Collider, only 70 km from it, a project in which leading scientists and brain researchers from all over the world, including from Israel, are trying to build a complete human brain that runs on a computer:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=938&msgid=135874426
The head of the project anticipates that the task will be completed within about 10 years.
What, would it be permissible to disconnect such a computer from the electricity?
Would the dismantling of such a computer be considered murder?
Then the computers will also be able to create computers, like in the Matrix?
I think it will be more like 2030, meaning 20 years from now…
In any case, it's going to be very interesting 🙂