Thread: Sentient Computer ?????

"Hmm. A computer having an opinion"

A computer can already be programmed to have an opinion on a given topic, programming a computer to work out opinions is of course a little harder

"So that means that a computer can make an interpretation of happenings, a book, a painting and think about it? "

A computer can use algorithms to analyse a painting, or a book for that matter..........as for "thinking about it", when we "think" about stuff, all that happens is that we are aware (to a limited degree) of the inner workings of our brain.

"It can also think: I don't like that music?

It could be programmed to display signs of dislike when hearing certain types of music.

"And it is also possible that a computer creates a painting? A painting which expresses some feeling? "

There is already a robot painter in existance, the paintings are quite good, though of the abstract variety.

When you talk about expression of a feeling, of course things get more complicated, but on a basic level, AI can already alter the responce it gives depending on its "mood", which in turn depends on various external factors.

"So you think that it is possible that we can recreate the brain? Perhaps in a technological way, we will be able to recreate the brain. But in my opinion a person is not just a brain. A person also has a personality, built up through the years. This requires a lot of biological processes which I think we can't recreate. And if we are able to, then biological would turn out to be technology. Which implies that also evolution can be recreated"

A person IS just a brain, your personality, memories are all stored in your brain, your feelings, senses, everything is processes in your brain forming the person that you are. That much has been proven countless times, there are plenty of examples that show that people who have trauma to a particular part of the brain can get complete new personalities after the accident.

Biology isn't magic its just chemistry.

Consider this, if we could use a piece of silicon that had the same electrical and chemical properties of a cell, then we could build an artificial brain that would have the exact same properties as a biological brain.

Evolution can certainly be replicated, infact recently they have managed to get a computer to design circuits by using evolutionary principles.

Yes, I know about that experiment. Very interesting.

It is biology, chemistry, physics and perhaps also technology. But then it the question comes to mind: what is technology? Isn't technology something that is created by humans?

When it comes to nanotechnology, we are able to play with atoms. This could mean that we are able to play with or even perform biological processes with nanotechnology. In that case we could be able to manipulate atoms in such a way they form cells. The next, very big, step would be to create primitive life. So perhaps it's possible to create life.

"When it comes to nanotechnology, we are able to play with atoms. This could mean that we are able to play with or even perform biological processes with nanotechnology. In that case we could be able to manipulate atoms in such a way they form cells. The next, very big, step would be to create primitive life. So perhaps it's possible to create life."

You don't need nano-tech to play with biological processes, regular biochemistry will do that, we can already build proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, even DNA, in the lab. Of course building an entire cell from the ground up is a far cry from molecular components.

Though there are several teams around the world who have taken the simplest bacterium, knocked out as many genes as they can from it but not so many that its not still alive, and are now trying to "build" thus cut down bacterium in a lab.

Nanotech is the field I intend to go into, at the moment the techonology is very basic, but it has tremendous potential.

There is a molecule out there, the precursor to DNA, that formed from a swathe of complex equilibria, and that was capable of replicating itself but not exactly... finding that molecule would be nice

"on a different tangent...
are chimps sentient ??
any other animal ??
are we the only sentient life ??"

Chimps are considered sentient as are dolphins, there are a series of test, that are performed. One of which is to see whether animals recognise themselves in a mirror, you smear lipstick over the right eye of an ape then show them the mirror and they will wipe off the lipstick. If an animal can recognise itself, it means it has a concept of "self" and hence we conclude it is aware.

Now, it could be a trick, we could design a computer that would NOT be aware to do something similar, but we are dealing with evolutionary principles, where "tricks" like this won't happen: there is noadvantage in "pretending" to be sentient.

<<something happened in the brain of a primitive man/ape... that
little spark which we can't explain...and eventually here we are, the only sentient life on our planet. no other animal including all the types of apes has become sentient. we are the only "intelligent" life.
whatever it was, a genetic mutation ???, i think it was like a snowball effect once it started>>

This doesn't really prove your point. All you are saying is that "Humans are sentient because humans are the only living thing that are sentient"

Without a doupt apes and dolphins are sentient and as my first vitness I call clyde (see prev post) I would like to say that almost all animals are sentient just on different levels but i don't have any prof handy right now.

" I would like to say that almost all animals are sentient just on different levels but i don't have any prof handy right now."

I think most animals are considered sentient to an extent though the debates still rage over how much of an extent that is.

Todays approaches to AI seam to only work on very specific problems, most of which are just clever ways of cutting down search spaces (eg CSP's,GA's neural nets) and dont seam to have much to do with actually 'simulating' intelligence. I think we need the einstein of computer science/neurology to bridge the gap between todays approaches and actuall 'life'. If it is possible/when it comes, will computers become more intelligent than humans? shouldnt be too hard.

I like the analogy I once read between AI and aeronautics:

'For hundreds of years humans tried to fly by imitating the birds flapping wings, then they invented the airofoil'

Its my impression that neural nets are just fancy statistical estimators,(although it could be argued that this is what the brain is aswell?) If you have enough sample points then its easy to find a 'probability' of corectness. A sample point is basically all a perceptron is. As far as I know they have only been used for taxonomy purposes (classifiers)

"A robot has been built that has "learnt" to produce a range of facial expressions that look extremely human. "

I've not heard of this and would appreciate a link if you have one. However I'm willing to bet this is done by using a training set to teach the machine to classify different expressions, then all the machine has to do is categorise any future sets of data...

btw I'm going to invest in a spell checker soon (seam=seem etc)

"does sentient just mean self-aware in a basic level?? humans are the only creatures to believe in god for instance, to commit suicide etc "

Sentient merely means "aware" or concious. You don't need to believe in God to be aware, nor do you need to be capable of commiting suicide.

There is a difference between intelligence and sentience, one is basically problem solving ability, the other is something more esoteric.

"what i meant by a little spark is......well chimps and dolphins have been around as long or longer than humans, why aren't they intelligent ??? "

Because everything in evolution is a trade off, in many instances more intelligence is NOT favourable, greater intelligence requires a bigger brain which needs more energy and hence more food.

Ape's are a darn sight stronger than humans, that's the trade off we paid for more intellect.

"why did only one strain of ape evolve, the rest staying pretty much as they are?? "

They didn't, both apes and us have a common ancester, we did not evolve from modern day apes.

There is no doubt that humans are the most intelligent animal around, they are not however the only sentient one.

"i thought sentient meant self-aware, in the sense that say i know i'm a human being, i live on a planet etc.........only humans have this....."

Self aware means that you are aware that you exist, it does not require any other knowledge.

Ape's are most certainly aware they exist, the lipstick experiment proves that.

"i know, but the ancestor was ape-like i meant. "

We are apes too ya know

"in the time-frame of humans evolving intelligence at an exponential rate, chimps sat in trees eating bananas, and guerrillas scratched their butts.!!! "

Humans evolved no faster than the other apes.

"what happened to make humans the only intelligent life. something did."

There is no magic here, an ape is effectively a human with a lame IQ, in the particular environment we were in 500,000 - a million years ago, increases in intelligence and language were an advantage........... hence we are at the level of intelligence we are at.

Of course if we wiped all life and started again, intelligent life may not immerge, just luck really, getting the right environment and an organism capable of exploiting it.