Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:32 AM, benjayk > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:03 AM, benjayk >> > <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Aug 15, 10:43 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I am more worried for the biologically handicapped in the future. >> >> >> Computers >> >> >> will get faster, brains won't. By 2029, it is predicted $1,000 >> worth >> >> of >> >> >> computer will buy a human brain's worth of computational power. 15 >> >> years >> >> >> later, you can get 1,000 X the human brain's power for $1,000. >> >> Imagine: >> >> >> the >> >> >> simulated get to experience 1 century for each month the humans >> with >> >> >> biological brains experience. Who will really be alive then? >> >> > >> >> > Speed and power is for engines, not brains. Good ideas don't come >> from >> >> > engines. >> >> > >> >> > Craig >> >> > >> >> I agree. It is a very narrow to think computational power is the key >> to >> >> rich >> >> experience and high intelligence. The real magic is what is done with >> the >> >> hardware. And honestly I see no reason to believe that we somehow we >> >> magically develop amazingly intelligent software. >> > >> > >> > Neural imaging/scanning rates are also doubling every year. The hope >> is >> > that we can reverse engineer the brain, by scanning it and making a map >> > all >> > the connections between the neurons. Then if the appropriate hardware >> can >> > run a few brains at 1,000 or 1,000,000 times faster than the >> biological >> > brain, we can put our best scientists or AI researchers inside and they >> > can >> > figure it out in a few of our months. >> > >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns >> There are *so* many problems with that. We are naive, a bit like 7 year >> old >> wanting to build a time machine. We know little about the brain. Who says >> there is no quantum effects going on? There doesn't even have to be >> substantial entaglement. Chaos theory tells us that even minuscle quantum >> effects could have major impacts on the thing. ESP and telepathy suggest >> that we are to some extent entangled. There are *major* problems >> reprodocing >> this with computers. >> >> Neural imaging and scanning cannot pick up the major information in the >> brain. Not by a long stretch. > > > Automated serial sectioning of brains is already fairly advanced, and is > doubling in performance and accuracy each year. > http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/lichtman/ATLUM/ATLUM_web.htm That's pretty impressive, but it is far from sufficient ("0.01mm³"), and we don't know how good it will scale up.
Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> It is like having a picture of a RAM and >> thinking this is enough to recover the information on it. >> >> What use are fast brains? > > > A million years of human technological progress in the time frame of one > year seems highly useful. But technological progress is not exlusively made in our brains. Also, the amount of useful technological progress that our brain can deliver may be intrinsically limited. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> Our brains alone are of little use. We also need a >> rich environment and a body. >> > > I'm not sure bodies are necessary, but in the context of a simulation you > could have any body you wanted, or no body at all. (Like in second life) Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> >> You presuppose that AI researchers have the potential ability to build >> superintelligent AI. Why should we suspect this more than we suspect that >> gorillas can build humans? I'd like to hear arguments that make it >> plausible >> that it is possible to engineer somthing more generally intelligent than >> yourself. >> > > I there was someone just like me, but thought at twice the speed, I am > sure > he would score more highly on some general intelligence tests. Of course, if only because he effectively would have twice the time. But that's not what I am referring to when I say superintelligent. Imagine he would have 10000 times more time. Would that make him 10000 times more intelligent? Of course not. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > If we can > find a gene or genes that make the difference between Newton and the > average > person, and then switch them on in the average person through gene > therapy, > would that count as engineering something more intelligent than yourself? Ultimately, no. What you say may well be possible, but we are essential just using the intelligence that is already there and copy it. But even then I doubt that we can get the kind of deeply creative intelligence, that includes wisdom, which is the essential driver of progress. I don't buy at all that intellectual intelligence is what drives us forward. Intellect can be used for selfish and destructive purposes as well. Real intelligence consists in clear awareness of yourself and the world, which also leads to moral intelligence. This is what I say can't be engineered. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > What about taking Nootropics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic )? > There are many plausible scenarios for making ourselves more intelligent, > or > more creative than our current state. Nootropics don't make you much more intelligent. More effective and concentrated, sure. You see, you talk of superficial intelligence. I don't argue that we can't increase this artificially. We already do. Look at the internet. One could argue it amplifies some part of our intelligence orders of magnitude. Yet, does it lead to singularity-like progress? Obviously, no. So I would argue this intelligence is not what's important. What's important is the intelligence that's deeply interwoven with the most basic layers of consciousness, that includes (deep) morality, spiritual awareness. I don't see any evidence that this can be engineered, or even be teached. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> >> I believe that it is inherently impossible to design intelligence. It >> can >> >> just self-organize itself through becoming aware of itself. >> > >> > >> > A few genes separate us from chimps, and all of our intelligence. >> I don't think our intelligence is reducible to genes. Memes seem even >> more >> important. And just because we can't really research it scientifically at >> moment, does not mean there are no subtler things that determine our >> general >> intelligence than genes and culture. Many subjective experiences hint at >> something like a more subtle layer, call it "soul" if you will. >> All of what we understand about biology may just be the tiny top of a >> pyramid that is buried in the sand. >> >> > Well we only have one sample of biology from one planet in one type of > chemistry. Throughout the everything, what we know is minuscule compared > to > what can be known about biology. That said, there is a finite amount > there > is to learn about the human brain and biology. There are information > theoretic limits established by the number of base pairs which set upper > bounds on how much there is to be learned about human biology. With this, > we confidently say the brain's design is not infinitely complex. This assumes the functioning of the brain can be reduced to (essentially classical) biochemistry. That may seem obviously true, yet it has not been demonstrated. Essential "magic" in the world may not be absent, just subtle. We have some evidence for that, like ESP. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > If we can >> > determine which, and see what these genes do then perhaps we can >> > extrapolate >> > and find out how our DNA is able to make some brains better than >> others. >> But this is not how intelligent works. You don't just extrapolate a bit >> and >> have more intelligence. If this were the case, we would already have >> superintelligence. > > > Vastly super-human intelligence requires vastly more powerful processing > capabilities. Our computers are still very far from that, and are more on > the level of insect brains. OK. I am not necessarily referring to our computers. If there was an easy way to increase intelligence, evolution would already have found it. But in reality, development of intelligence was a very slow and complex process. My argument also rests on a holistic understanding of the universe, that is, it is not a random accident, but is there to develop consciousness. If certainly wouldn't use so convoluted methods if it consists in linear extrapolation of some charateristic. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of >> the >> >> brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go >> >> beyond >> >> the brain, that may be essential to our functioning. The way that >> >> computational power of the brain is estimated now relies on a quite >> >> reductionstic view of what the brain is and what it does. >> >> >> > >> > As I've mentioned before on this list, neuroscientists have succeeded >> in >> > creating biologically realistic neurons. The CPU requirements of these >> > neurons is well understood: >> > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU&t=7m30s >> Biologically realistic neurons is relative. We certainly don't take >> quantum >> effects into account, and evidence seems to suggest this is important. > > > On the contrary, the simulated neurons behaved in the same ways as > biological neurons, and this is without including quantum effects. The just behave in the same way that we are able to analyze what about the behaviour of the neurons is relevant (they certainly don't behave in the same way physically, as we don't even simulate them on a molecular level). Our analysis of this may be very incomplete. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > It would > therefore seem that quantum effects play a negligible role in a brain's > function. That is circular reasoning. We don't understand how the function of neurons depends on quantum effects, therefore they play no role. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> At >> least I see no other way to explain ESP. >> > > I don't see how quantum mechanics could even explain ESP. Entangled > particles cannot be used to transmit information. But this is coherent with the results of ESP studies. ESP often seems to transcend time, which makes it suspect that classical information trasmission is involved. There is no need for information transmission in order for there to be an anomalous knowledge. If a particle on earth is entagled with a particle on the moon, and the particle on earth is measured to be a certain way, we have knowledge about the particle on the moon, even though there was no information transmission in the ordinary sense. Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> >> Even if we suppose that they are biologically realistic, neurons alone >> don't >> make up human a functioning brain. A neuron is like a transistor of a >> computer, and a transistor is not enough for a functioning computer! >> There >> are other type of cells that may be important in information processing. >> Also there are different kinds of neurons, and the way they are put >> together >> in different units is also important. Even if we were able to reproduce >> all >> of this, we would still need the software running on the brain. >> How would we do this? >> > > The software of the brain is represented by the manner in which the > neurons > are connected to each other, and how individual neurons respond to each > other. This design can be copied straight from the data provided by > serial > sectioning scanning. OK. But this presupposes that scanning will be good enough and that scanning is sufficient (there is no non-biological component to our intelligence). I am not convinced of either. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Turing-Machines-tp32259675p32279419.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
