Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:52 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Programming the Human Mind:
#11
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 21, 2015 at 3:55 am)Darkstar Wrote: Of course, I am under the impression that in order to perfectly simulate all of the neurons in the human brain you would need to discover how all how all of those neurons work first. But then again, maybe not. Maybe you really could just put them together and get an apparent mind out of it even if you don't really know why it works. There would still be other chemicals you would need to take into consideration, though, like neurotransmitters, so maybe that wouldn't work after all...


Yeah. One problem is that we don't actually know what is there because evolution was limited with working with certain materials, and what aspect of it we need to implement to reproduce the same functionality on a computer and why. Generally when implementing AI on a computer it will be for a far more specific problem whereas the same brain is adaptable to many different problems and it may be that it can do this because it can reconfigure itself in so many different ways. Or it may be that if we understand how and why the brain manages to adapt we might not need computationally expensive simulations and will be able to reimplement it in a way that is more suited to a computer.
Reply
#12
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 21, 2015 at 3:55 am)Darkstar Wrote: Relevant:

https://youtu.be/YWQnzylhgHc?list=WL

It isn't replicating a human mind, but I think this is still pretty interesting. Using a conventional programming language to recreate the human mind would probably be very difficult if not virtually impossible, but if neurons were simulated instead...

Of course, I am under the impression that in order to perfectly simulate all of the neurons in the human brain you would need to discover how all how all of those neurons work first. But then again, maybe not. Maybe you really could just put them together and get an apparent mind out of it even if you don't really know why it works. There would still be other chemicals you would need to take into consideration, though, like neurotransmitters, so maybe that wouldn't work after all...

Now we get down to the philosophical issues: are we trying to reproduce the FUNCTION of the brain, or the actual human mind?  Because I don't think producing matching inputs and outputs necessarily demonstrates that we understanding anything about what the mind is.  Mind is kind of a ghost in the machinery, and I'm not sure making a machine that can duplicate human function will still have that "special something" that we call mind.
Reply
#13
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
The human mind is a function of the human brain and the human body situated in an environment. There is no reason nor evidence to suspect anything else is involved.
Reply
#14
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 21, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Mathilda Wrote: The human mind is a function of the human brain and the human body situated in an environment. There is no reason nor evidence to suspect anything else is involved.

Let's assume that qualia, for example the subjective experience of red-ness rather than just the ability to process light of that frequency and produce behaviors, is a function of the human brain.  Now, on what level of the brain does it supervene?  Does simply reproducing the input/output of the brain imply a subjective agency?  Or is subjective experience dependent on the special WAY in which we take in information from our senses and convert them to behaviors?  Is it in the particular nature of organic neurons, or is it substance-irrelevant, instead being a funciton of the flow of information?

It's all very fine and well to wave in the general direction of the brain as the root of the human mind.  But if you are trying to reproduce the ability to subjectively experience outside the brain, how will you know if your machine really experiences, or is just a philosophical zombie?

It seems mind is in a function of the organic animal brain, but this does not mean that reproducing the functions of the brain guarantees the existence of a subjective mind. That's a non sequitur.
Reply
#15
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
I don't think it really is much about the programming language, but more about the the hardware itself... The "computer" that would one day run a human brain would not be a general purpose computer like the one we are using now. I think it has to be a specially made computer designed specifically to emulate a human brain. It might physically look like a human brain or at least have a physical representation of neurons in its circuits.

And I am not sure if a programming language can accurately represent the human brain. It's much more complicated than hungry->seek food. What if you are hungry and at the same time you were performing an important task, you would not seek food then. Or if your life was in danger, food would be the last of your worries.

Also what do you interpret as being hungry? Having a headache? Stomach churning? Not having eaten in a while? How would a cpu understand hunger? It can't feel hunger, it has to simulate it, and when should it simulate the hunger? Also not all hunger are equal, sometimes you are really hungry like you might die, and sometimes you just crave something.

All the above and we only scratched the surface of one topic: hunger. I heard there is a human brain project in europe. I am looking forward to seeing if it goes anywhere, however it has many skeptics, me among them.
Reply
#16
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 21, 2015 at 8:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: It's all very fine and well to wave in the general direction of the brain as the root of the human mind.  But if you are trying to reproduce the ability to subjectively experience outside the brain, how will you know if your machine really experiences, or is just a philosophical zombie?

First you need to define what qualia is, how to recognise it and how to measure it.

How do I know that qualia exists in your brain or whether you subjectively experience anything at all as opposed to reacting to stimuli? As far as I'm concerned you're just a biological automaton.

The very concept of Qualia is just a quagmire that does not help anyone. Conversations involving Qualia never get anywhere, they never result in any conclusion or testable hypothesis.

You feel like you have Qualia because you are your brain situated in your body situated in an environment. No one else feels what you are feeling.


(November 21, 2015 at 8:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: It seems mind is in a function of the organic animal brain, but this does not mean that reproducing the functions of the brain guarantees the existence of a subjective mind.  

We have absolutely no reason to expect that it won't. Of course you also need to define what it means for something to feel subjectively. You can do that while figuring out how to measure Qualia.
Reply
#17
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 24, 2015 at 4:16 am)mr_j936 Wrote: I don't think it really is much about the programming language, but more about the the hardware itself... The "computer" that would one day run a human brain would not be a general purpose computer like the one we are using now. I think it has to be a specially made computer designed specifically to emulate a human brain. It might physically look like a human brain or at least have a physical representation of neurons in its circuits.

If you're planning on simulating or emulating the human brain then we're using specialised hardware right now in the form of NVidia graphics cards. It's still not enough. Although massively more parallel than a normal CPU, we need hardware with many, many orders of magnitude more connectivity between the processors.


(November 24, 2015 at 4:16 am)mr_j936 Wrote: And I am not sure if a programming language can accurately represent the human brain. It's much more complicated than hungry->seek food. What if you are hungry and at the same time you were performing an important task, you would not seek food then. Or if your life was in danger, food would be the last of your worries.

One way of doing that is to emulate the effect of neuro-modulators on neurons. They have long lasting effects that either excite or inhibit layers of a neural network. They act as non-linear gain controls and allow a self organising system to either settle into or be driven out of stable states. But what you then effectively have is not a computer program so much as a simulation of a physical system.

We know that you can have intelligence using neurons, we're each examples of that. But you can simulate a neural network on computers. I've also figured out how to simulate my own neural networks in a garden using pipes and cisterns that gate and release water when the water level reaches a threshold. It's just me as an observer deciding that both these are examples of neural networks. What they actually are, are self organising systems that perform certain functions. And if a system, whether implemented on a computer, in a garden using pipes and cisterns or using biological material performs can perform the same functions as the brain then why should we have to assume that intelligence has be in the form of neural networks?

We might end up using an entirely different model for creating artificial intelligence like dynamical systems for example. They will perform the same functions but be better suited to the underlying architecture they are implemented on.


(November 24, 2015 at 4:16 am)mr_j936 Wrote: Also what do you interpret as being hungry? Having a headache? Stomach churning? Not having eaten in a while? How would a cpu understand hunger? It can't feel hunger, it has to simulate it, and when should it simulate the hunger? Also not all hunger are equal, sometimes you are really hungry like you might die, and sometimes you just crave something.

Exactly. The computer needs to be situated within a body. It needs it's own version of hunger. In the same way that we do not experience the same kind of emotions as say a dog or a bird. A vacuum cleaning robot won't ever feel hunger in the same way that we do but then it will have a battery level that needs to be maintained. If this drops from 70% to 69% then no problem. If it drops from 4% to 3% then this is major cause for alarm. It also needs to stay safe and has to be fearful of dangerous situations or anything it does not recognise. And as is the case for every other agent with emotions it has competing needs but only one body.

We are each a product of our brain, body and environment.


(November 24, 2015 at 4:16 am)mr_j936 Wrote: All the above and we only scratched the surface of one topic: hunger. I heard there is a human brain project in europe. I am looking forward to seeing if it goes anywhere, however it has many skeptics, me among them.

I don't think anyone is expecting to create human level intelligence from it. But the project will definitely give us some useful information and experience about how the brain works.
Reply
#18
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 24, 2015 at 5:10 am)Mathilda Wrote: First you need to define what qualia is, how to recognise it and how to measure it.
Qualia is what things are like to a subjective agent. It's one thing to respond to red light. It's another to know what it's like to see red.

As for recognizing and measuring it: that's the mating call of the physicalist monist. I wake up, experience ideas and sensations, and the word for the subjective sense of experience of things is qualia. I don't have to be able to hold it up to a tape measure for the word to have meaning.

Quote:How do I know that qualia exists in your brain or whether you subjectively experience anything at all as opposed to reacting to stimuli? As far as I'm concerned you're just a biological automaton.
Then you are limited to considering brain function, and not mind.

Quote:The very concept of Qualia is just a quagmire that does not help anyone. Conversations involving Qualia never get anywhere, they never result in any conclusion or testable hypothesis.
That's your problem.

Quote:You feel like you have Qualia because you are your brain situated in your body situated in an environment. No one else feels what you are feeling.
I feel like I have qualia because I have qualia. Your narrative about WHY I have qualia would be more convincing if you could, for example, determine whether ANY physical structure does or doesn't have it. You can't, so you will say it's a "quagmire," or a useless term. But the problem is, when I see red, I see redness, and nobody has even an inkling why that is so.

But if you want to program a human mind, you will need to be able to address this question. You cannot, and therefore clearly cannot, at least with full knowledge that it is working, reproduce a human mind.

Quote:
(November 21, 2015 at 8:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: It seems mind is in a function of the organic animal brain, but this does not mean that reproducing the functions of the brain guarantees the existence of a subjective mind.  
We have absolutely no reason to expect that it won't. Of course you also need to define what it means for something to feel subjectively. You can do that while figuring out how to measure Qualia.
I don't need to measure Qualia. I just need to have a word which differentiates the difference between red light hitting the eye, and the subjective experience of redness.
Reply
#19
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: As for recognizing and measuring it: that's the mating call of the physicalist monist.  I wake up, experience ideas and sensations, and the word for the subjective sense of experience of things is qualia.  I don't have to be able to hold it up to a tape measure for the word to have meaning.

But you do for it to be useful. I am only interested in terms that are useful. If it's not useful then it's irrelevant.



(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote:
Quote:How do I know that qualia exists in your brain or whether you subjectively experience anything at all as opposed to reacting to stimuli? As far as I'm concerned you're just a biological automaton.
Then you are limited to considering brain function, and not mind.

It's you that's saying that there is a difference. There is no reason to suggest that there is and plenty of evidence to tell us that there isn't. Neurodegenerative diseases and anesthetic will compromise your mind as they inhibit or destroy your brain.



(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote:
Quote:The very concept of Qualia is just a quagmire that does not help anyone. Conversations involving Qualia never get anywhere, they never result in any conclusion or testable hypothesis.
That's your problem.

Not a problem at all. It just means that I just end up ignoring the whole issue of qualia and not missing out in the slightest. You're the one who brought it up. Not me.



(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote:
Quote:You feel like you have Qualia because you are your brain situated in your body situated in an environment. No one else feels what you are feeling.
I feel like I have qualia because I have qualia.  Your narrative about WHY I have qualia would be more convincing if you could, for example, determine whether ANY physical structure does or doesn't have it.  You can't, so you will say it's a "quagmire," or a useless term.  But the problem is, when I see red, I see redness, and nobody has even an inkling why that is so.

Which all means that I can safely ignore whatever you say about qualia. If it's something that only you experience and which cannot be measured then I do not have to worry about it. It's irrelevant. Your reason is circular. You feel like you have qualia because you have qualia?

Whatever explanation anyone could give you, you could just turn around and accuse someone of being a physicalist monist or some such term. You're creating something undefinable and then demanding that people explain it. For example, what does it even mean to see redness when you see red?

Now if by qualia above you mean the conscious awareness of seeing red, then I can easily come up with some plausible hypotheses as to how this could be implemented in a robot. It would be useful to have a robot that was conscious of seeing red.


(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: But if you want to program a human mind, you will need to be able to address this question.  You cannot, and therefore clearly cannot, at least with full knowledge that it is working, reproduce a human mind.

Actually I don't want to program a human mind. I don't think that's possible because then it wouldn't be human.


(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote:
Quote:We have absolutely no reason to expect that it won't. Of course you also need to define what it means for something to feel subjectively. You can do that while figuring out how to measure Qualia.
I don't need to measure Qualia.  I just need to have a word which differentiates the difference between red light hitting the eye, and the subjective experience of redness.

Why do you need a word which differentiates the difference between red light hitting the eye, and the subjective experience of redness? What use is it? How does it help you? Why is it relevant?

You have not given any reason why I should be concerned with qualia when creating an Artificial Intelligence. I'll leave qualia up to the philosophers to worry over.
Reply
#20
RE: Programming the Human Mind:
(November 24, 2015 at 11:45 am)Mathilda Wrote:
(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: As for recognizing and measuring it: that's the mating call of the physicalist monist.  I wake up, experience ideas and sensations, and the word for the subjective sense of experience of things is qualia.  I don't have to be able to hold it up to a tape measure for the word to have meaning.

But you do for it to be useful. I am only interested in terms that are useful. If it's not useful then it's irrelevant.
If so, then mind is irrelevant to you, because anyone with a mind knows that it is defined by subjective experience.

Quote:It's you that's saying that there is a difference. There is no reason to suggest that there is and plenty of evidence to tell us that there isn't. Neurodegenerative diseases and anesthetic will compromise your mind as they inhibit or destroy your brain.
It may be that mind is of the brain, and only of the brain. And that, after all, is what the OP is about. If you want to prove that there is no mind separate from the brain, then welcome to the end of this thread.

Quote:Not a problem at all. It just means that I just end up ignoring the whole issue of qualia and not missing out in the slightest. You're the one who brought it up. Not me.
If you want to define that which is subjective purely in terms of that which is objective, then you are welcome to. You are also welcome to define black as white.


Quote:Which all means that I can safely ignore whatever you say about qualia. If it's something that only you experience and which cannot be measured then I do not have to worry about it. It's irrelevant. Your reason is circular. You feel like you have qualia because you have qualia?
Yep. That's what qualia are, after all: the feelings of what it is like to experience things.


Quote:Whatever explanation anyone could give you, you could just turn around and accuse someone of being a physicalist monist or some such term. You're creating something undefinable and then demanding that people explain it. For example, what does it even mean to see redness when you see red?
What does it mean to taste pineapple? It must be experienced to be known. And even if you know, perfectly, the physical and chemical structure of an object, you cannot say what it's like for something, human or otherwise, to experience it.


Quote:Now if by qualia above you mean the conscious awareness of seeing red, then I can easily come up with some plausible hypotheses as to how this could be implemented in a robot. It would be useful to have a robot that was conscious of seeing red.
If you think this is true, then you don't what seeing means, since you must conflate all perceived qualities with the objects with which they are associated.

Quote:
(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: But if you want to program a human mind, you will need to be able to address this question.  You cannot, and therefore clearly cannot, at least with full knowledge that it is working, reproduce a human mind.

Actually I don't want to program a human mind. I don't think that's possible because then it wouldn't be human.
Then as far as the OP goes, you and I have hit the end of the road in agreement.

Quote:
(November 24, 2015 at 10:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't need to measure Qualia.  I just need to have a word which differentiates the difference between red light hitting the eye, and the subjective experience of redness.

Why do you need a word which differentiates the difference between red light hitting the eye, and the subjective experience of redness? What use is it? How does it help you? Why is it relevant?
Those are the words we use to talk about the mind, and this thread is about programming the human mind. That's the relevance.

Quote:You have not given any reason why I should be concerned with qualia when creating an Artificial Intelligence. I'll leave qualia up to the philosophers to worry over.
Nobody's talking about AI. We are talking about programming the human mind.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Here's a simple programming problem for you to solve ErGingerbreadMandude 44 4857 April 28, 2016 at 10:02 am
Last Post: ErGingerbreadMandude
  Programming Language Swift Poll Shining_Finger 24 4162 December 2, 2015 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Programming Question Shining_Finger 8 1361 December 2, 2015 at 5:30 pm
Last Post: Tiberius
  Anyone into Android programming? emjay 97 17914 September 20, 2015 at 6:50 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Advice Sought for Web Programming AFTT47 13 3257 April 4, 2015 at 10:41 pm
Last Post: bennyboy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)