452 réponses à ce sujet

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
If we can simulate the behavior and atoms and molecules on a computer, I don't see how you could say that we couldn't simulate the brain that is made up of those things.
Edit: It would be much easier to simulate brain cells and their interaction rather than atoms.

Are you sure about that, i didn't think we could simulate that due to the uncertainty principle

Inverness Moon wrote...
The signals sent to the brain are electrochemical impulses.

"nerve impulse: the electrical discharge that travels along a nerve fiber."

Either one is happening or it isn't; on or off; binary.

But that's digital, and the brain doesn't work in digital. I think a nerve impulse can contain more information than on or off. I'm not certain about that, just what i've been told.

Inverness Moon wrote...
If a brain were to be deprived of all senses from the moment of its creation, it would not do anything beyond the instinctual (pre-programmed).

 
Ok i'm not saying perception isn't a part of sentience, just that it's not the part we don't understand. So i just focus on the internal reasoning as we don't know how the brain does that.

[wulf3n]

Wiggles89 wrote...
It's an interesting thought experiment but I don't find it at all persuasive, mainly since the A.I.'s subjective experiences -- or their suppossed subjective experiences -- are being held to a higher standard than we hold each others' subjective experiences.

I find it interesting because it raises the question of how can you be sure the AI actually "knows" or is it just a really good imitation, the problem is then it falls into the category of philosophy which i don't like.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:13 .

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
If we can simulate the behavior and atoms and molecules on a computer, I don't see how you could say that we couldn't simulate the brain that is made up of those things.
Edit: It would be much easier to simulate brain cells and their interaction rather than atoms.

Are you sure about that, i didn't think we could simulate that due to the uncertainty principle

The uncertainty principle applies to measurement of tiny things. That doesn't stop you from creating virtual atoms in a simulation. That principle also doubly doesn't apply because your brain is made up of cells interacting in certain ways. It is these interactions that grow exponentially with the number of brain cells that are beyond us, not what the brain is made of.

Edit: To be more clear, the uncertainty principle does not apply at the cellular level.

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
The signals sent to the brain are electrochemical impulses.

"nerve impulse: the electrical discharge that travels along a nerve fiber."

Either one is happening or it isn't; on or off; binary.

But that's digital, and the brain doesn't work in digital. I think a nerve impulse can contain more information than on or off. I'm not certain about that, just what i've been told.

I think you need to get certain about it before you enter into this argument. Your brain cells use electrochemistry to communicate. Those chemical reactions are pretty straight-forward.

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
If a brain were to be deprived of all senses from the moment of its creation, it would not do anything beyond the instinctual (pre-programmed).

 
Ok i'm not saying perception isn't a part of sentience, just that it's not the part we don't understand. So i just focus on the internal reasoning as we don't know how the brain does that.

We might not understand it now, but that is irrelevant. Like I said before, your brain is made of billions of cells interacting in ways that we have yet to understand. The fact that it is made of cells means that each cell has limited individual capability. If we understood how all the interactions worked and where cells would need to be placed in our virtual brain to get it to work, it would be possible.

wulf3n wrote...

Wiggles89 wrote...
It's an interesting thought experiment but I don't find it at all persuasive, mainly since the A.I.'s subjective experiences -- or their suppossed subjective experiences -- are being held to a higher standard than we hold each others' subjective experiences.

I find it interesting because it raises the question of how can you be sure the AI actually "knows" or is it just a really good imitation, the problem is then it falls into the category of philosophy which i don't like.

That seems like a trick question to me. We don't understand how our brains work, so to say that what they do is any different from what an AI could do is not very smart.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:24 .

[SuperMedbh]

Was Turing right?



Just throwing that out there, as Joker would say

[Inverness Moon]

SuperMedbh wrote...

Was Turing right?

Just throwing that out there, as Joker would say

Right about what?

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Edit: It would be much easier to simulate brain cells and their interaction rather than atoms.

The uncertainty principle applies to measurement of tiny things. That doesn't stop you from creating virtual atoms in a simulation. That principle also doubly doesn't apply because your brain is made up of cells interacting in certain ways. It is these interactions that grow exponentially with the number of brain cells that are beyond us, not what the brain is made of.

Edit: To be more clear, the uncertainty principle does not apply at the cellular level.

But it does apply at an atomic level, which you said we could simulate?

Inverness Moon wrote...
I think you need to get certain about it before you enter into this argument. Your brain cells use electrochemistry to communicate. Those chemical reactions are pretty straight-forward.

 
But they aren't binary. Neurons don't store single "bits" of information. so it's possible the electro chemical signals aren't in binary either.

Inverness Moon wrote...
We might not understand it now, but that is irrelevant. Like I said before, your brain is made of billions of cells interacting in ways that we have yet to understand. The fact that it is made of cells means that each cell has limited individual capability. If we understood how all the interactions worked and where cells would need to be placed in our virtual brain to get it to work, it would be possible.

 

I'm not saying it's not possible, just that understanding the brain doesn't make replicating one in a computer a certainty. Unknown factors could mean that the limitations of a computer may make it impossible.

Inverness Moon wrote...
That seems like a trick question to me. We don't understand how our brains work, so to say that what they do is any different from what an AI could do is not very smart.

I don't see how it's a trick question.

 It's possible to write programs that "seem" like they are intelligent, even though they are not.However  theres no real distinction if you believe in determinism, but like i said that falls into the realm of philosophy which i really don't like.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:55 .

[chester013]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Yet because the geth are a different form of life, you judge them by a different standard than you judge yourself or other organics.

For one, Saren did not join the Reapers of his own free will. Secondly, the geth aren't alive. They're computer programs and a computer program is not alive. 

Define alive, a computer transmits data via electrical impulses and organic brain does the same thing. Organic beings are simply machines. Whether life came to be by accident or as a deliberate act you cannot treat the two differently.

[wulf3n]

chester013 wrote...
Define alive, a computer transmits data via electrical impulses and organic brain does the same thing. Organic beings are simply machines. Whether life came to be by accident or as a deliberate act you cannot treat the two differently.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life

.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter

.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 juillet 2010 - 04:53 .

[chester013]

[quote]Kroesis- wrote...

Real world arguments aside, the argument
about the Geth's sentience/conciousness is moot as the game and the
universe within that game already acknowledges that they are.[/quote]

Admiral Xen disagrees.
[/quote]

Well he would, in order to successfully kill an enemy you must dehumanise it, for lack of a better word. Far easier to shoot a toaster than a sentient being.

Your arguments are flawed by debating the ME universe and then demanding real life examples, your opinion skewed by putting organic life on a pedestal when in reality it's little more than a happy coincidence. You and I are a self replicating supra-molecular structure, conciousness and sentience are by products of evolution.

[chester013]

wulf3n wrote...

chester013 wrote...
Define alive, a computer transmits data via electrical impulses and organic brain does the same thing. Organic beings are simply machines. Whether life came to be by accident or as a deliberate act you cannot treat the two differently.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life

.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter

.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Well said, that is our current understanding, how would the advent of synthetics such as the Geth alter our perspective?

Besides, most of the traits could be applied to Geth, though adaptation, growth and reproduction require a conscious effort to actually build more platforms though Geth can exist outside of the bipedal shell.

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
Edit: It would be much easier to simulate brain cells and their interaction rather than atoms.

The uncertainty principle applies to measurement of tiny things. That doesn't stop you from creating virtual atoms in a simulation. That principle also doubly doesn't apply because your brain is made up of cells interacting in certain ways. It is these interactions that grow exponentially with the number of brain cells that are beyond us, not what the brain is made of.

Edit: To be more clear, the uncertainty principle does not apply at the cellular level.

But it does apply at an atomic level, which you said we could simulate?

Then I misspoke, it applies to arbitrary levels of precision in measurement. It is simply more apparent at the atomic level. Either way, it is completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
I think you need to get certain about it before you enter into this argument. Your brain cells use electrochemistry to communicate. Those chemical reactions are pretty straight-forward.

 
But they aren't binary. Neurons don't store single "bits" of information. so it's possible the electro chemical signals aren't in binary either.

The word binary has more uses than just in the realm of computers, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The electrochemical signals are binary because they can either be occurring or not. There are two states.

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
We might not understand it now, but that is irrelevant. Like I said before, your brain is made of billions of cells interacting in ways that we have yet to understand. The fact that it is made of cells means that each cell has limited individual capability. If we understood how all the interactions worked and where cells would need to be placed in our virtual brain to get it to work, it would be possible.

 

I'm not saying it's not possible, just that understanding the brain doesn't make replicating one in a computer a certainty. Unknown factors could mean that the limitations of a computer may make it impossible.

Yes, you said that, and I disagree, because your brain is made of cells and we know what those cells are made of and what they do, so we can simulate that. What we don't know is how they work together which becomes exponentially more complicated depending on the number of cells involved.

wulf3n wrote...

chester013 wrote...
Define alive, a computer transmits data via electrical impulses and organic brain does the same thing. Organic beings are simply machines. Whether life came to be by accident or as a deliberate act you cannot treat the two differently.

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life

.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter

.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

That is the definition of organic (biological) life, and is not applicable to synthetics.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 27 juillet 2010 - 05:19 .

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
Yes, you said that, and I disagree, because your brain is made of cells and we know what those cells are made of and what they do, so we can simulate that. What we don't know is how they work together which becomes exponentially more complicated depending on the number of cells involved.

edit:(We may know what they do, but not) how they do it? how can you be certain they can be replicated on a computer? You say we can simulate cells etc, but i've yet to see a proper simulation. Any examples would be appreciated.

Inverness Moon wrote...
That is the definition of organic (biological) life, and is not applicable to synthetics.

I wasn't aware there were any other forms of "life" i would be happy to look at evidence to the contrary.

Modifié par wulf3n, 27 juillet 2010 - 05:33 .

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
Yes, you said that, and I disagree, because your brain is made of cells and we know what those cells are made of and what they do, so we can simulate that. What we don't know is how they work together which becomes exponentially more complicated depending on the number of cells involved.

We don't know what they do, or how they do it? how can you be certain they can be replicated on a computer? You say we can simulate cells etc, but i've yet to see a proper simulation. Any examples would be appreciated.

Google "nerve cell simulation" 

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
That is the definition of organic (biological) life, and is not applicable to synthetics.

I wasn't aware there were any other forms of "life" i would be happy to look at evidence to the contrary.

In Mass Effect terms, both Legion and EDI would be considered alive by the synthetic definition. You can't apply the organic definition of life to them because they are not organic.

Philosophical crap aside, Legion is alive when he is able to operate with sufficient power, and dead when he isn't.

[Kacynski]

For all of you guys who think a computer cannot replicate the function of a brain:



http://en.wikipedia....e_Brain_Project



That's an actual scientific project, that started in 2005, with its pre - studies originating in 1995. The science team claims it will accomplish a replication of human brain within the next ten years.

I find this highly interesting and correlating to the discussion goin on here: Is a biologic brain needed to form a sentient, sapient consciousness? This project may show us ... and he science team firmly believes, that the "computer-brain", will act just like a human brain.

It is rather chilly, if you ask me, and if you consider all the AI-gone-rogue stories

[Inverness Moon]

Kacynski wrote...

For all of you guys who think a computer cannot replicate the function of a brain:

http://en.wikipedia....e_Brain_Project

That's an actual scientific project, that started in 2005, with its pre - studies originating in 1995. The science team claims it will accomplish a replication of human brain within the next ten years.
I find this highly interesting and correlating to the discussion goin on here: Is a biologic brain needed to form a sentient, sapient consciousness? This project may show us ... and he science team firmly believes, that the "computer-brain", will act just like a human brain.
It is rather chilly, if you ask me, and if you consider all the AI-gone-rogue stories

This is exactly what I'm talking about. They're trying to simulate the brain at the molecular level rather than the cellular level that I mentioned before. It should prove to be quite interesting.

[Kacynski]

It has to be mentioned, though, that this experiment seems to be discussed highly controversial in the scientific community. While the team of the Blue Brain Project believes to be successful in replicating all human brain functions - including speech and emotions, there are other groups of neuro-scientists who dismiss that claim ..
For all of you, who are interested in computer modelling of the brain, you can start to look from here: http://www.scientifi...rains-like-ours

As coming back to the topic: "Should we treat Geth as species?"
I would argue, yes we should. They are a species that is not(*) bound to biology, but what difference does it make?
Are they self-aware? Certainly yes, from what we see in the game
Do they value life? Certainly yes, reference is made to the Tali-Legion exchange on the Normandy
Are they sentient? No certainty here, but from the a.m. exchange I would also judge with yes
Are they sapient? Maybe no, but that wouldn't differentiate them from organic beings ..
Is their electronc brain capable of actions and emotions to be classified as "being" instead of "machine"?  I do support the team of the Blue Brain Project and defintily think an electronic brain is capable of generating a self aware consciousness.
For what it's worth for me: Yes, I consider Geth as a species that should have the same rights and duties as any other sentient being - organic, synthetic or whatsoever

(*) edited missing "not" in this sentence

Modifié par Kacynski, 27 juillet 2010 - 06:06 .

[wulf3n]

Inverness Moon wrote...
In Mass Effect terms, both Legion and EDI would be considered alive by the synthetic definition. You can't apply the organic definition of life to them because they are not organic.

Philosophical crap aside, Legion is alive when he is able to operate with sufficient power, and dead when he isn't.

I just don't see the importance everyone seems to be putting on "life" just because something isn't alive doesn't mean its not self aware, and just because something is alive doesn't mean killing it is wrong. 

Just think about how much "life" will be destroyed by you in your life time, just to keep you alive. To me the whole alive debate is pointless, if anything the focus should be on sentience and sapience.

[Inverness Moon]

wulf3n wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...
In Mass Effect terms, both Legion and EDI would be considered alive by the synthetic definition. You can't apply the organic definition of life to them because they are not organic.

Philosophical crap aside, Legion is alive when he is able to operate with sufficient power, and dead when he isn't.

I just don't see the importance everyone seems to be putting on "life" just because something isn't alive doesn't mean its not self aware, and just because something is alive doesn't mean killing it is wrong. 

Just think about how much "life" will be destroyed by you in your life time, just to keep you alive. To me the whole alive debate is pointless, if anything the focus should be on sentience and sapience.

I agree with that.

[Kroesis-]

wiggles89 wrote...

I don't even find it interesting on that level because if we apply the same standards to other humans we can't be sure whether they have subjective experiences. I mean, does Searle really know what he's talking about or is he simply performing an imitation of knowing what he's talking about? Barring some sort of illusion, I can always be sure that I have subjective experiences, but no one else has an actual reason to believe that I do.

& what's wrong with philosophy?<_<

Well I don't know that any of you are aware and alive, in fact you could all be a computer(s) creating these responses. Plus if I carry on down that track, if I think about it, I could be in an evironment where the only person who is real is me and everyone else are robots or I'm on a holodeck or something.

Obviously I take for granted that each and every Human is alive, sapient and sentient, but sometimes...

Computer... End Program....? No, OK then.

[scotchtape622]

That is also a big reason why the Quarians hadn't broken any laws.

[Kroesis-]

Shandepared wrote...

Mr.Caine wrote...


Doesn't Legion say this line in Mass Effect? Something like "You organics are hardware and software. We Geth are just software"?

Indeed. Geth are just software and that is an important difference between a geth and a human or any animal or even an different A.I. like EDI. I'm not saying that I believe EDI is 'alive' either, but you can make a much stronger case for her than you can a geth.

I don't see how you can make a stronger case. Your allowing your view of 'alive' or 'sentient' to be viewed from a biological perspective. Biological life are hardware (Flesh and Blood) and software (the mind). EDI is by design similar (but not the same) because that is how she was built: Circuitry is her hardware and software is her mind. Could she be transferred from her body (the cicuitry) to another? Quite possibly.

The Geth were simply created differently because although they also have circuitry as their hardware, it's not a single AI's hardware, it's shared between AI's which exist as software (mind) which can change to different platforms or databases as required.

Its the 'mind' that you need to be able to measure to make the determination of sentience, not the way that mind is sustained. Considering that we can't accurately measure another humans mind in terms of sentience or even have an agreed set of values to which you need to compare a measurement to means that making a case for anything being 'Sentient' or 'Alive' is harder than you think.