Page 3 - Can Computers Think?

Creativity=Intelligence,
A computer can not create anything new.

thats where i was a few posts back

I enjoy these sort of discussions. Thanks mrps2 for bringing up this topic.

It certainly is a creative idea thus interesting discussion. It also, isn't dangerous at all (i.e. terrorism, politics, seatbelt, drinking, sex, abortion) and is very unlikely to get moved into the flames. So, keep the discussion flowing.

All in all, I just wanted to point out that this has been a very provocative thread and still is.

Thanks everybody for taking part and contributing in the discussion. Let's continue...

PS: I also plan to bring up a/few topic(s), ideas that would be as provocative like this in the near future.

--

Creativity indeed is one of the main attributes of humankind. Another nebulous topic; thus creativity can't be proved, modeled and emulated.

* A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
* A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
* A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

---Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics

those three laws of robotics sound like the 3 laws of i-robot - that movie with will smith.

anyway, what im now saying madhyena (i've opened another little neurological connection in my brain on the previous page) is that IF a device can be made that performs in the same manner as a brain cell, then heaps can be put together to make a "brain circuit diagram". this would have more memory capacity than a human obviously, but it would also be more creative, inventive, more affectionate, caring, etc as the circuit works exactly the same as a brain would, with the difference that 100% of the "artificial brain" can be used

the big IF is that IF a device can be made that behaves the same way as a brain cell - notice how ive said device, not electronic component. who knows what devices will be invented/discovered in the future. maybe electronics will be obselete one day? the device used to make the artificial brain/ai may not be electronic.

Considering that i robot is loosely based on the short stories of Asimov compiled in a book of the same name, and the Three Laws, were included in that compilation...

You forgot the Zeroth Law of Robotics-- A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Of course, it was not a programmed law...

Mvagusta, actually threads like these require both creativity and knowledge/intelligence. That basically means that we're strengthening the neurological connections (neuro-brain) between our "two brains" (left & right), plus, of course, also newer brain cells are grown.

Your idea is very creative; I especially like that part where you've pointed out that it can be "not electronic component" too. Yes, it makes very much sense. Looking back in the history of electronics the evolution is astonishing. Reading your post I've thought of the science "genetics," which should have a very important part in developing these "artificial brains." It could, for example, in close relationship with cloning. Of course, if cloning is developed and the success rate gets close to 100% then further modifications can be added, for example "doping" these "artificial brains;" -- 'tuning,' 'overclocking' whilst is prepared and cloned. So basically when we get there, the technology could create super-human-beings-- even more than 100%+ brain power, mind capacity and then again, psychical power, strength and increasing lifespan also makes sense (hence apparently our cells are rebuilt on frequent basis so our 'bodies' could basically keep us running for hundreds of years).

Main problem would occur, of course, with overpopulation of our very own planet, Earth. Then again, perhaps, like you already mentioned, until we get there we could basically travel intern/extern-galaxies, too. This really got science-fictional, I agree.

The above mentioned events could happen in the future but, in my opinion, no way in the near future. Development of AI & AC could happen in the near future... but it requires a lot of hard work. Electronics play a very high role in current technology, so transition to "non-electronic device"'s can't be placed in the 'near-future' time-plane. First, we are going to reach an even higher level of electronics where basically in everything will be incorporated electronic devices, chips, ICs and we all will communicate via digital/analog signals.

Currently, according to newer studies we, human beings, barely use 3-5% of our total brain capacity. Extremely intelligent, smart, knowledgeable, high IQ --beyond genius (150+)-- persons scored like 5-6%, if I recall correctly the world record was somewhere around ~9%. That's mind-blowing. So that means we do not need "artificial brains," cloned overclocked, increased brain power minds. We should research and invent, find out ways, methods, technologies to fully use our brain-power and mental capacity.

Studies showed/proved that our subconscious mind can process ANY information that was viewed (with our eyes) even for a second. This is the basis for PhotoReading (developed by Paul Scheele), a highly popular mind-system, that is learnable and acquirable from very highly priced courses. It claims that with around ~70% comprehension reads can recall the read books, of course, with PhotoReading. PhotoReading is based on 2 pages per second. Readers need to learn to relax, meditate (basically lowering brainwaves to low alpha/high theta) and whilst in this extremely relaxed state, with a bit blurred vision --relaxed eye-gaze-- they start reading the material selected. A typical book with 300 of pages can be PhotoRead in 5 minutes or so. Problem is with recalling and as Paul Scheele would say "activating" the read material. Here Direct Learning (DL) plays a very important role; DL is one of the newest inventions of Accelerated Learning.

Skeptics, of course, attacked this and in many ways it was proved. No real need to debate here on this that it works or not, the main idea IS that we have more mental capacity and brain power than we can possibly imagine and think of it.

Win Wenger said "You are brighter than you think!" and it pretty much makes sense...

We aren't aware of billions of things that we "could do" but currently "we cannot." Decades ago the current technology was impossible and now we're hanging out at a computer forum, communicating from every part of the world. Things are like that. We currently cannot use more than 10%+ of our brains, because we weren't "thought" how to use, how to proceed; schools, parents, teachers couldn't 'teach' us hence they didn't knew either. Once we discover those newer methods/techniques will virtually change our world. A child could learn in a minutes more than his grandparent learned in his whole lifetime. We could get so close to a point where we're basically "downloading" information to our brains/minds, whilst in the appropriate state and using the newly invented techniques (who knows what they are?).

That's why I've stated at the very first time that "Nothing is impossible!", the big questions are "When?" and "How?".

Artificial Intelligence, as it now exists, is fairly primitive. Like I already mentioned, with consciousness, self-awareness and emotions there should be linked another attribute and that is the "survival instinct" -- desire to survive. It's the most basic attribute that made evolution of species possible. It can be located in every species, from animals up to humans. Then the question rises, if "perfect" survival instinct could be possible incorporated in a robot, how would that instinct work toward survival? The robot, of course, wouldn't need to reproduce. Survival instinct would be then closely linked with protection of self.

As a side note, mvagusta, why you want "more affectionate" artificial humans? That'd be close to the perfect woman, heh.

PS: Awesome discussion... keep up the great work.

you know i was thinking, electicity is part of nature, we learnt how to generate it, manipulate it, next thing you know we have cpu's...

another powerfull force available in nature, which we have very little idea on how to control, is a living cell. vegetable or animal. we're learning however and maybe one day we will end up with cloned brains in our pc's with "ai inside" stickers on the case

The claim that we only use a small percentage of our brain power is a myth.

what percentage do you think we use? i reckon it's below 50%. i have met a guy that had half of his brain bashed in and then removed and he seemed fine. im sure before & after iq tests, memory tests, etc would show weakness but after all the times i met him i can say he seemed perfectly normal. "quicker" than some guys you meet anyway. once in a blue moon i noticed a slight slur in the speech, but hey everyone does something like that! i do a slight stutter at least once a week! lol

Maybe-- read on!

I know that this "ten-percent-myth" is widely published and skeptics attacked the 'claim' in many ways, but the real thing is that we do not know which of these is true. On my above post I've used a wrong term, I should have said "mind" instead of "brain." That'd make more sense and couldn't be debatable. Why? Let me explain.

First of all, we do use more than 10% of our brains, apparently, but it wasn't proved yet. Bottom-line is that our everyday activities use very small parts of our brains and all of these all together could form a higher percentage. Brain image research techniques (PET scans) showed that which part of our brains when is used. These small little parts may and will get higher than 10% due to specific complex events, activities that "can" occur during our lifetime.

Also, people can recover from substantial brain damage. It is true that "this" recovering does not happens over-night but it happens slowly but steadily. Of course, a person with 90% of damaged "brain" couldn't recover. Main idea here is that our brain can develop other neural connections that would ultimately use different part of our brains to replace parts that are damaged. Thus the recovery takes time and does not always results with complete success. This "recovery" happens in higher rates at children than at older people. Why? Studies showed that children with severe and "intractable epilepsy undergo a hemispherectomy" could recover after a brain surgery, which involved removal of slightly less than 50% of their brain. This amount was states as perhaps the maximum that can be removed and can get recovered later on; Even these kids weren't necessary "perfectly" healthy later on.

This topic was debated and still is by dozens of doctors, researchers in every area of sciences and definitely we can't draw a line and conclude that it's untrue or true. It is a myth, because it wasn't proved with total success; both contra- and pro- facts were showed and scientists couldn't make up their minds. We, certainly don't know either, which is true or not. This myth is very commonly used in the media (popular ads), that offer us certain techniques and/or methods to unlock our 100% of total brain capacity. These are also untrue, hence no proof(s).

I do agree that these claims, myth(s) shouldn't be used for marketing and advertisement purposes but unfortunately none of us can stop them. No matter of it's true or not they shouldn't "state" in so "ambiguous" ways.

I, for one, do not believe skeptics who say that we use ALL --100%-- of our brains. It's not true. Why? Because we can learn, get better and gain more knowledge whilst we're alive. That can again be debated with the memory storage and neuron-connections. Either way, it's not 10%, but not 100% either. Hence the above fact with kids that recovered (even if not perfectly) with ~50% of brains.

Another fact that is that apparently our brain contains around ~100 billions of neurons-- that provide us with the ability to think. However around 10% of our brains are neurons. These neurons need another cells, which are called glias. These glias are support cells and increase the speed how the electrical impulses can travel through the extensions of neurons.

Now, why did I said that if I've used "MIND" instead of "BRAIN" my above post would be correct. Because that rest 90% could be in strong connection with the unlocked potential of our mind. Neural connections are the key, here. It's all about "how" many connections do we have and use them on a daily basis (otherwise we lose them). Of course, there is a number of neuro-connections that we lose daily (few thousands!!) but still we can pretty much remain with 'enough' amount. That's why it's important to realize that "with thinking" we establish "more connections" and thus ultimately leads to the statement that we "get smarter, intelligent."

Also, there is another term and it's the subconscious-mind. It's a very vague term and scientifically must be proved. It's very important, and again, has to do with quite a LOT (almost everything, in fact) of Accelerated Learning. There is a vast resource of unlimited potential of our minds-- physic powers, intuition, extrasensory perceptions and many others. We don't know these for sure, none of us knows and they weren't scientifically proved either.

Main idea still is that WE can get smarter and research, find out "information" that would allow us to get smarter and unlock of our 'full' potential. Then again, there's PhotoReading --that was debated and still is-- but thousands of people are using the techniques with quite success and living happily. It has again to do with the belief. If you think you're using 100% of your brains and think that there's nothing "more left," then I'm sorry. Your brain is already full, no space left for future experiences, learnings and anything related. I believe that we CAN achieve and get smarter, unlock extrasenzorial perceptions, and other intuition-like-physic powers, too.

Your post technically was nothing related to this topic and therefore could be considered as off-topic. Basically you haven't "contributed" anything that could be considered as "on-topic." I realize that "this" is really vast and virtually anything could be included but you haven't proved your statement, either. Luckily I've read about the myth and could continue the debate, otherwise I'd be lost in the meaning of your sentence. I invite you wholeheartedly to contribute and USE your creativity, and post something that has to do with the development of AI, AC and "computer thinking." We've a bit drifted off the topic and shouldn't continue this way. It has made sense to talk about our full brain-power because mvagusta pointed out "artificial brain," term and thus comparing to our human brains pretty much made sense.

Then again, if you want to continue debating do not hesitate to start other new topics in the appropriate place (often Science) and I'll do my best to contribute. Let me give you a few tips: "lucid dreaming," "out of body experiences," "intuition," "twilight-state / theta brainwaves, the point of amnesia," "meditation," "the power of subconscious mind," "creative visualization and/or image streaming," "Schumann Resonance," "Butterfly Effect," "Law of Attraction," "Life in The Universe?", "F major Increases IQ?", "PhotoReading," "Paraliminal Programming," "Mind Powers to Influence Others?", "Extrasensory perceptions," et cetera. I hope my list is long enough; If you want to debate, pick one, research and let's begin. Also, discussing about the above topics will require creativity and ultimately we'll end up learning from each other; it's a win-win situation. But, I don't want to ruin this thread with off-topics.

So, please continue with AI/AC related discussions, here.

All the best.

I think part of the fallacy is that there is a lot of support structure in the brain (~1-5T glial compared to 100G neuron cells) that shouldn't be counted since the "use" part takes neurons to accomplish.

In other words, if the brain contains some 15% by volume of neurons (for example, I don't know the actual numbers), then one can only "use" 15% of one's brain...

ref

Bringing back this topic to life... a little food for the thought too.

Basically, currently there are no machines, computers that are as intelligent as the humans are; the AI/AC is not developed enough. Then again, their speed of calculation and computation is way faster due to the coding skills of humans and the skills of micro/nano-architects, designers, engineers that contributed to the evolution of electronics to this era. The way as a computer, machine computes is a bit rudimentary and executes the codes "as is" without any sort of creativity, intuition, awareness and prediction.

Since technology, physics, biology and cognitive sciences are advancing in quantum leaps, in my opinion, real changes will happen in Genetic Programming (link). I don't know when but quite possible in the near future. Let it be 10-20 or 75 years but we could experiment the changes, inventions in our lifetimes. Dynamic coding is important here. If we can get to a stage, where we can dynamically self-code the genes through some genetic algorithms, we could end up with a new era of Artificial Intelligence and doped, boosted human beings.

For example, in the following 30-50 years quite easily the science could reach a stage, where parents could customize their pre-born kids-- blue eyes, blonde, 140+ IQ, 6'2'' tall, female, athletic; changing the genes and chromosomes. Specific algorithms and procedures would result in preprogrammed genes. Eventually we could reprogram ourselves, too; we could cure diseases, et cetera.

New form of mechanical life with ultra-boosted, genetically preprogrammed artificial intelligence and self-awareness could possibly result in robots that look like, act like, think like humans. Of course, they can be incredible dangerous, simplest example could be, a malfunctioning or a bug in their code and their actions would be disastrous. Even though, current people can do terrible too, i.e. serial killers. New measures would be needed to prevent them, new police system? Who knows...

Summing these up, I think that in the following hundreds of years there will be drastic changes in the human kind. That change will be by far greater than it was before -- humans living in 2500 compared to 2000, and those who lived in 1500 and 2000. Evolution is unavoidable-- it just happens. I do believe that the human kind won't disappear in the future, at least not completely, but it's going to change, symbiosis with those "ultra-boosted bio-genetically manipulated and preprogrammed quantum supercomputing nano-machines like humans," perhaps?

Hope it makes sense.

Here is a better qustion can people think?

I like this theme.
And real question should not be "Can computers think?", the right question should be "Can computers be aware of their existence."
We humans are aware of our existance, are we? Yes we are. How do you know? Simple, We can process informations from input (5 senses), and we ask ourself "Who am I?".
BUT, what if I make simple computer that will as input take "Am I existing?" string and program it to give "I am computer and I exist." as an answer. We can program all answers regarding existence. After that I can complicated whole program to answer various question regarding existance. I can even implement survival instinct and instinct for reproduction.
How is it different than humans (except that it is much simplier)?
Should that be self awareness?