ategio wrote...
if some of you are interested in the question of AI i recommend some of the classics like John R. Searle and his chinese room experiment. Hes basically saying that sentient beings differ from AI because the latter works exclusively on a syntactically level. that means they are simply connecting symbols with pre defined rules. they dont understand what they do because objects (words, symbols...) dont have a meaning to them.
changing dna of a synthetic (dunno how thats supposed to work
) would either mean reprogramming which doesnt solve the problem or giving them consciousness (soul,brain etc). Shepards "energy" would then what? split between all synthetics and all synthetics to come? fantastic...
The human brain is not one indistinguishable organ, it is a complex system comprised of vastly differing components. They are generally classified into three sections, commonly referred to as the R Complex, the Mammalian Brain, and the Neocortex. The survival mechanism you refer to originates in the R Complex and is further amplified by the chemical processes produced by the Mammalian center, known as emotions. What makes the Neocortex so different is that it has no such mechanism. It's function is strictly cognitive, and though it operates in conjunction with the survival instincts of our lower brain, it is not it's source. As I'm sure you well understand evolutionary theory, it will suffice to say that the natural evolutionary process favors survival, as such a naturally occurring organic brain cannot come into existence without first developing all the requisite non cognitive functions required to keep the biological organism alive. Nevertheless, the Neocortex shows that organic brain function need not be defined as survival oriented. In fact, the Neocortex operates in a manner much more similar to a desktop computer than say the limbic system. So do we define organic as the nervous system of a biological organism, or simply as any cognitive system made of organic matter?
I think that you are assigning chemical processes developed out of evolutionary necessity as intrinsically organic and although these attributes cannot be ignored when comparing a human brain to an artificial one, they are not prerequisites when discussing the technical advantages of organic vs synthetic For example, if one were to replace all but the gray matter with synthetic systems, such a system would be free of any involuntary neural activity negatively impacting accuracy in favor of efficacy. Yet the cognitive organ would remain wholly organic. Conversely, a synthetic cognitive system added on to an organic human lower brain would remain cognitively synthetic but would be susceptible to all the problems presented by the biological instinct for survival. It is the involuntary nature of these instincts that creates such a conflicting, tumultuous mental life for we humans.
It seems that emotional response is what is typically associated with an organic mind, while synthetic minds are imagined as devoid of such processes. The implications this has on the fundamentally human trait of empathy is, in my opinion, at the source of the fear many have of artificial intelligence, however that is a complex topic best left for another day.
Basically, the "intellect" section of our brain would process information similarly to an artificial intelligence, the difference being the presence of emotional and instinctive processes in other parts of the brain. The biggest questions ultimately come down to whether empathy is an inherently logical conclusion, the risk/reward of simulated emotional responses, and if and where the sentience/intelligence limit is set.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
