General Discussions

Future Tech ... on nanobots and the human soul in the 26th Century

POSTED BY: Karnejj
UPDATED: Thursday, January 5, 2006 21:49
VIEWED: 13373
PAGE 6 of 8

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’d say no, it doesn’t bolster your case. 4000 casualties out of the whole of Eastern and Northern Europe is not big, and it certainly is no where even remotely close to the hundred thousand originally estimated.

Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

So, 100 nukes would each be larger explosions than Chernobyl and also leave fewer safe harbors for people to run to. If, 100 isn't enough to destroy life-as-we-know-it then, you've stated we've still got 9900 more chances ...

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Hmm ... you don't really expect to go from just modelling a brain to matching the capabilities of one in 20 years... ?? Humans were modelling birds for quite a long time before we matched those capabilities.

We still haven't.

Quote:
But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

Actually it's identical to the system used by the Human Brain, all data is considered and added and then the most used paths are kept while the old are removed, exactly what happens in a Human Brain. Remember there are 1000Trillion synaptic connections in a child’s brain, and 500Trillion or less in an adult.

Quote:
They don't classify GENERAL data efficiently. As I said, they're still very much limited in scope to be effective. And speech aren't so much contradictions, as inexactness (fuzziness, as you call it). What's that, you're saying that software can handle that fuzziness?

That's not what I mean by fuzziness within the Human Brain at all. The fuzziness I referred to would be analogous to a computer arriving at a result while missing one of the operands.

Quote:
Kinda bolsters my point about humans being meat computers. Our visual programming works in a certain way and we can't act against it EVEN WHEN we know it's wrong. Of course, all the mechanisms that allow us to build a picture to even recognize a vase or faces are the same mechanisms that made sure our ancestors spotted that predator stalking along or that meal running away.

Erm, not really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Quote:
All in all though, Deep Blue enumerated chess moves. That means that it's a glorified counting machine. A VERY (very, very!) fast counting machine, but all it ever did (in essence) was just count ...

Exactly. All a computer is is a glorified counting machine. All a computer EVER does is count.

Quote:
In other words ... more than one neuron ...
Can the calculation be done without the other neurons, the answer to that seems to be "no."

I thought that would be your response

.
*removes CPU from motherboard, and places on desk*
Right, 2 + 2, go.
*silence, tumbleweed...*
*taps CPU*
Oh I know, needs power.
*hooks up battery.*
Right, 2 + 2.
*Nothing...*
Seems even computers can't function alone.

Quote:
Actually, I think it's called the "Planck time" .. something like 10^(-31) seconds (I could look it up, but I'm at work).

Planck's time is how long it takes for light to travel Planck's length.
The Planck length is the minimum length before Quantum Laws reigns, making length meaningless (because of Hindenburg’s uncertainty principle) NOT the smallest possible.

The figure is (roughly) 5.39 × 10−44 seconds, for reference.

Quote:
True, but I seriously doubt that it would take a meter of infinite precision to EXACTLY ACCURATELY measure the amount of electrical current generated. There are A FINITE, INTEGER number of electrons that are motivated through the axon, ya know ... so, again, the value can be done in an easy-to-handle range of integers (32 or just maybe 40 bits should be able to count the electrons nicely)

If you think of electrons in a classical way, more or less. But how many electrons is that and how many bits are needed, I'm afraid I don't trust your figures. Though now your adding in complexity as you now need an accurate particle simulation as well as an accurate Brain simulation, which is what I've been alluding too all along

Quote:
Eh? Aren't those mathematicians/philosophers. You'd have to elaborate slightly more on this point.

Mathematician, Artist, Composer, in that order. The name of the book is more correctly:
Gö

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

Fallout fell on Wales. The isolation or the closing of the area isn't so important.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

The IAEA seems to believe that it is long enough; they concluded that 4000 casualties is the total expected impact. 4000 out of a million people under the ash cloud not including almost a million people directly involved with the clean up, less then half a percent of the effected population. Only about a third of million people were relocated, which means that over half a million people continued to live in areas contaminated to levels of ~200 kBq/m² of Cs-137. Numerous extensive studies, including several UN studies, have reported that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation related health effects to most people directly exposed to the ash cloud. No discernable increasing in leukemia and while a small (2%) increase of thyroid cancer was observed, it is debated even how much of that is due to Chernobyl, if any.

90% of people under 20 affected by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki ash clouds were still alive as of 1995.

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
So, 100 nukes would each be larger explosions than Chernobyl and also leave fewer safe harbors for people to run to. If, 100 isn't enough to destroy life-as-we-know-it then, you've stated we've still got 9900 more chances ...

There’s much more then that.

One would expect a nuclear war to be worse then a nuclear accident because of the nature of war, but that doesn’t change what we are seeing in terms of the effects of nuclear fallout, based on the one major accident and the two examples of actual wartime use, and the many tests. The ash cloud is just not as dangerous as previously thought. The evidence for such an assessment has been only recent, but the hysteria has existed much longer and has been instrumental in fueling the debate with nonscientific assumptions. Nuclear war would be nasty, but more then likely, the vast majority of deaths would be decided by the explosion, not the ash clouds.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

KARNEJJ

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

Actually it's identical to the system used by the Human Brain, all data is considered and added and then the most used paths are kept while the old are removed, exactly what happens in a Human Brain. Remember there are 1000Trillion synaptic connections in a child’s brain, and 500Trillion or less in an adult.
[/q]

I'll ignore the above as it seems to contradict most of your other assertions in that the brain cannot be modelled on any sequential system. Maybe you wanted a different word from "identical" .. eh.. either way, I'll let you elaborate on this one

Quote:

Exactly. All a computer is is a glorified counting machine. All a computer EVER does is count.

True ... but software can put that counting to use to bring about sentience, if used intelligently. At least, I like to believe so.

Conceivably, a brain could be simply considered an automated, souped-up phone system (inter-connected message passing), and yet, consciousness rises out of that.

Quote:
I thought that would be your response .
*removes CPU from motherboard, and places on desk*
Right, 2 + 2, go.
*silence, tumbleweed...*
*taps CPU*
Oh I know, needs power.
*hooks up battery.*
Right, 2 + 2.
*Nothing...*
Seems even computers can't function alone.

Hmm ... you're arguing something I've never stated. Yep, computers need a lot of support and won't function without data, ... just like single neurons ... But you're the one who said that single neurons could function alone

Quote:
Planck's time is how long it takes for light to travel Planck's length.
The Planck length is the minimum length before Quantum Laws reigns, making length meaningless (because of Hindenburg’s uncertainty principle) NOT the smallest possible.

Hmmm ... well, you're fighting a rather soundly entrenched theory here ...

It is meaningless to measure times and lengths less than these, so, yeah, the phenomena that you mention can (and should be) measured digitally(electrical current through a neuron).

Quote:

The figure is (roughly) 5.39 × 10−44 seconds, for reference.

yeah yeah yeah ...

Quote:

Quote:
True, but I seriously doubt that it would take a meter of infinite precision to EXACTLY ACCURATELY measure the amount of electrical current generated. There are A FINITE, INTEGER number of electrons that are motivated through the axon, ya know ... so, again, the value can be done in an easy-to-handle range of integers (32 or just maybe 40 bits should be able to count the electrons nicely)

If you think of electrons in a classical way, more or less. But how many electrons is that and how many bits are needed, I'm afraid I don't trust your figures. Though now your adding in complexity as you now need an accurate particle simulation as well as an accurate Brain simulation, which is what I've been alluding too all along .

Awww.... at about 70 millivolts, you're right, it would take about 59 bits to count the electrons with EXACT precision .... Eh.. I was close, not like the number was 200bits or something

Quote:

Quote:
Eh, the uncertainty principle only applies if quantum entanglement effects the decisions which we make.I would tend to disagree with that notion. Sure there are quantum effects in the brain, but, as I stated, I believe they have a minor (possibly non-existent) affect on our cognitive functions. There are different ways to use quantum effects in calculations, but I doubt our brain actually has evolved to do any high-level quantum manipulation.
.
.
.

Quote:
The more precise

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
I'll ignore the above as it seems to contradict most of your other assertions in that the brain cannot be modelled on any sequential system. Maybe you wanted a different word from "identical" .. eh.. either way, I'll let you elaborate on this one

Not at all. I said the parallel processing abilities and consciousness of the human brain could not be replicated on a sequential Binary system. Your assertion was that the Learning mechanisms of NNs were nothing like the Brain, which is why they haven't given rise to consciousness. This isn't the case.
My conclusion is that it’s more than the ability to learn that is required.

Quote:
Hmm ... you're arguing something I've never stated. Yep, computers need a lot of support and won't function without data, ... just like single neurons ... But you're the one who said that single neurons could function alone

Huh? It was your assertion that the Neuron was simple and trivial in comparison to the Silicon chip. The fact that other Neurons are required to function as memory simply puts it on a par with a single chip? I never said they could function alone, I said they could do a lot more than function as a switch. The other Neurons stored the values, so how's that any different to a silicon computer needing memory?

Quote:
Hmmm ... well, you're fighting a rather soundly entrenched theory here ...
It is meaningless to measure times and lengths less than these, so, yeah, the phenomena that you mention can (and should be) measured digitally(electrical current through a neuron).

No. I am not fighting QM. Small distances being meaningless to measure doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't measure picometre with a centimetre rule, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The reason the distance is meaningless is because the very act of measuring it changes it by a degree greater than itself, therefore meaningless, not non existent.

Quote:
But, you don't see billiard balls disappearing when you hit them with a radar gun ... Uncertainty only becomes important on a sub-microscopic level and even then, I'm not sure which point of mine's you are trying to dispute.

That Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle wouldn't have an effect on the brain if quantum effects are introduced?

And yeah, Uncertainty only works at the quantum level, the quantum level being what I was talking about.

Quote:
Yeah... even if true ... what does that *DO*? Does it assist/enable cognition in any way? Quantum entanglement happens all the time, but that doesn't mean it that it's purposefully assisting in brain function.

I don't know. Maybe nothing maybe everything. What I do know is that everyone in every age when trying to model the brain makes it out to be simple, like incredibly complex clockwork, a telephone exchange, and every time it's shown it's to be more. What would you say to someone in the nineteenth century who said "we can make a brain, all we need is more cogs!"?

Quote:
Not to load your gun with any bullets, but it's been proven that quantum effects absolutely cannot be simulated in software. Therefore, if they INDEED ARE an integral part of sentience (which I do NOT believe), then hardware would be required.

Exactly.

Quote:
And given enough effort and money, the complexity in connectivity that you describe can be reconstructed in electronics.

Well good luck to you, I think you'll be disappointed, like many others who over estimated the abilities of the technologies of their time.

Quote:
I could make a true random number generator by taking two readings of the speed of a fan. If the first is higher, my random bit is a 0, otherwise, it is 1. Variances in air and voltage would cause the speed to change. Seeing as most PC's today can access the fan-speed data, it's basically a free random number generator.

Well it was a misnomer, any Quantum effect will do, but it has to be a quantum effect. Technically a fan cannot produce true random numbers.

<

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I said the parallel processing abilities and consciousness of the human brain could not be replicated on a sequential Binary system. Your assertion was that the Learning mechanisms of NNs were nothing like the Brain, which is why they haven't given rise to consciousness. This isn't the case.
My conclusion is that it’s more than the ability to learn that is required.

I still contend that NN's are unlike the brain in capacity. Just as worm ganglion (early brains) are unlike human brains. I doubt you would claim that worms are sentient, but adding complexity to the ganglion they use, led to brains that did give rise to sentience. Similarly, NN's that aren't so narrowly limited, I believe are a key in giving rise to an artificial being with sentience.

Quote:
No. I am not fighting QM. Small distances being meaningless to measure doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't measure picometre with a centimetre rule, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The reason the distance is meaningless is because the very act of measuring it changes it by a degree greater than itself, therefore meaningless, not non existent.

Even assuming you're correct, it's still unclear what you're trying to get at .. This particular line began when you stated that electrical current needed some sort of infinite precision. I've already calculated that no more than 59 bits are necessary for EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurement.

Quote:

And yeah, Uncertainty only works at the quantum level, the quantum level being what I was talking about.

Yeah, but you haven't told me how that relates to sentience ... I think you get to it on the next section.

Quote:

Quote:
Yeah... even if true ... what does that *DO*? Does it assist/enable cognition in any way? Quantum entanglement happens all the time, but that doesn't mean it that it's purposefully assisting in brain function.

I don't know. Maybe nothing maybe everything.

Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

Quote:

What I do know is that everyone in every age when trying to model the brain makes it out to be simple, like incredibly complex clockwork, a telephone exchange, and every time it's shown it's to be more. What would you say to someone in the nineteenth century who said "we can make a brain, all we need is more cogs!"?

Would most people assume that Windows XP can be run on a steam-powered system of gears ... it's mathematically provable that it could, but it's the complexity (and slowness) that is overwhelming. So, sure (barring the absolute necessity of quantum effects), YES, more cogs is all that was needed.

Quote:
Quote:
And given enough effort and money, the complexity in connectivity that you describe can be reconstructed in electronics.

Well good luck to you, I think you'll be disappointed, like many others who over estimated the abilities of the technologies of their time.

That's very possible, but how many things wouldn't exist if the innovators believed the naysayers. (Hint hint .. you're looking at one thing right now

)

Quote:
Well it was a misnomer, any Quantum effect will do, but it has to be a quantum effect. Technically a fan cannot produce true random numbers.

Heh ... I had a feeling you'd dispute "true" randomness with me. Technically, I suppose you're right. The output of a fan is completely dependant of air turbulence and voltage, both of which can theoretically be measured. But the practicality of measuring every atom of air in a normal room makes the randomness of the fan just as "true" as a quantum system. Quantum-based systems just have the advantage of not even being theoretically possible to measure.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Karnejj:
Even assuming you're correct, it's still unclear what you're trying to get at .. This particular line began when you stated that electrical current needed some sort of infinite precision. I've already calculated that no more than 59 bits are necessary for EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurement.

That the universe isn't digital.
That a computer is digital.
That a digital system can't perfectly model an analogue one no matter how much precision you use.
You're counting electrons, which mean's you've dropped down to the sub-atomic level, so you need a model of the sub-atomic level now. It's not as simple as saying that's how many electrons there are.

But if you think you have calculated EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurements why don't you work on that in software, as described. It's the only way to prove me wrong

Quote:
Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

No I'm assuming that it probably does. Creativity, Inspiration, any number of things that make up consciousness has a very indefinable quality, even to us. It makes sense that this could arise from something ultimately indefinable.

But then that's my assumption, what makes it less important, less worthy, less viable than your assumption that it's just a function of the brain as a Learning machine?

Okay, so you want evidence from me that your proposal won't work, yet you have given no evidence that it:
A) Will even turn on.
B) Is actually viable given modern technology, or even future technology.
C) Would even give rise to a conscious intelligence.

Your entire position is based on Assumption, assumption that silicon technology is capable of that which you think it is, assumption that Quantum effects within the brain don't have an effect on it's operation and the big underpinning which is the assumption that consciousness arises solely from Learning (or the ability to learn).

Strange evidence that your proposal CAN work, but duly noted

.

I don't want to attack you as much as that may have come across (I’m tired, it’s 1:30am here), it's just when your point is based heavily on assumption you can't turn around and attack the assumptions of your opponent like that.

Quote:
Would most people assume that Windows XP can be run on a steam-powered system of gears ... it's mathematically provable that it could, but it's the complexity (and slowness) that is overwhelming. So, sure (barring the absolute necessity of quantum effects), YES, more cogs is all that was needed.

Thus it must be possible to model the brain and consciousness itself algorithmically. So why is the current state of the art in AI in the field of expert systems?

Quote:
That's very possible, but how many things wouldn't exist if the innovators believed the naysayers. (Hint hint .. you're looking at one thing right now )

Actually the original computers were given overwhelming support by the British government, even when they were years behind schedule and over budget. But I see your point. But I can counter with many a person has thrown their life away working on something that cannot be done. Even Einstein did this toward the end of his career.

Quote:
Heh ... I had a feeling you'd dispute "true" randomness with me. Technically, I suppose you're right. The output of a fan is completely dependant of air turbulence and voltage, both of which can theoretically be measured. But the practicality of measuring every atom of air in a normal room makes the randomness of the fan just a "true" as a quantum system. Quantum systems just have the advantage of not even being theoretically possible to measure.

There's more to something being random than merely being impossible to predict, it also has to be statistically random. I believe the random thing started up by trying to build in a random element to the simulation (as t

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 3:58 AM

A large point you seem to be sticking to is that approximations are bad. I'm sure you would possibly attribute "some sense" of consciousness to dogs, maybe even a squirrel. Those brains are definitely not as complex as human brains. They are, in essence, approximations that still give rise to sentience.

Another issue is that the things that you believe MUST be approximated by finite systems, I can show do not HAVE TO be.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

That the universe isn't digital.

I suppose I can't make you believe in this particular implication of quantum physics.

Quote:

That a computer is digital.
That a digital system can't perfectly model an analogue one no matter how much precision you use.
You're counting electrons, which mean's you've dropped down to the sub-atomic level, so you need a model of the sub-atomic level now. It's not as simple as saying that's how many electrons there are.

A normal neuron can generate a potential difference of about 70 millivolts. Even if we went nuts and assumed it was 150 mV, dividing that by one electron volt gives us a little less than 950 quadrillion (10^12) electrons. A 60-bit register could easily store this inflated count.

I see no need to "model subatomic behavior" to model a neuron accurately.
The number of neurotransmitters is guaranteed to be a much smaller value and is more likely the limiting factor in precision, but we'll figure that the number electrons is the necessary limit of precision.

As I understand it, the first question is whether the current will be generated or not. The neuron holds a threshhold which must be exceeded. This threshhold is going to be a voltage with less than a 60-bit number of electrons. No approximation needed so far. Next is the total voltage that gets generated - the "arithmetic," as you call it. Again, this is going to be a particular number of electrons which get motivated to pass - a number of finite precision. Finally, some neurotransmitters will be released and, again, this is a finite number.

Quote:

But if you think you have calculated EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurements why don't you work on that in software, as described. It's the only way to prove me wrong .

I'm working on that ...

This enlightening and quite lively little debate has motivated me to knock the dust off my research and coding.

Quote:

Quote:
Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

No I'm assuming that it probably does. Creativity, Inspiration, any number of things that make up consciousness has a very indefinable quality, even to us. It makes sense that this could arise from something ultimately indefinable.

That was fairly rude, my apologies. But, you disputed me with something with no known consequence. It'd be like saying that the particular speed of light through organic matter is probably the reason that sentience cannot arise in machines. Sure, it's true about the speed of light, but the consequences aren't even close to being known.

Quote:

But then that's my assumption, what makes it less important, less worthy, less viable than your assumption that it's just a function of the brain as a Learning machine?

Kinda ... learning and high levels of intelligence, so far, are always found paired with sentient beings. Quantum effects can be produced in a lab within a quite non-sentient metal box.

Quote:

Okay, so you want evidence from me that your proposal won't work, yet you have given no evidence that it:
A) Will even turn on.
B) Is actually viable given modern technology, or even future technology.
C) Would even give rise to a conscious intelligence.

A).. ok .. got me on that one. I haven't built it. Heck, I just designed it 2 days ago ...

B) Actually, I've given you a viable design in one of the above posts using curr

KARNEJJ

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 5:27 AM

Before we wander too long .. I'll post my "Revised Laws of Robotics," [based on Asimov's suggestions] to ensure that mankind won't end up as batteries

Feel free to critique!

Zeroth – Define Human, and harm (physical, psychic, consciousness, economic, not emotional), action, inaction, life-threatening, imminent, robot, laws, subject, appreciable, cause (directly, indirectly, through agents)

First - no robot may commit an act that has any appreciable probability of resulting in another robot not being subject to these same laws. [cannot build other robots that are morality-free]

Second – A robot may not through action or inaction allow any humans that are not directly in control of imminent harm to some other human(s) to be dealt life-threatening harm. [cannot be threatened to harm innocents]

Third - A robot may not cause life-threatening harm to a human being, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [cannot kill anyone, except maybe terrorists]

Fourth - A robot may not through inaction allow more humans to come to harm than necessary, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [must save as many as possible, instead of reaching deadlock in allowing inaction to sacrifice some]

Fifth - A robot may not harm a human being except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [cannot hurt anyone, but 2nd allows to save from terrorists]

Sixth - A robot may not deceive or manipulate a human being, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [cannot lie]

Seventh - A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with higher Laws. [productivity]

Eighth - A robot must obey orders given it by superordinate robots, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law [productivity]

Ninth - A robot must perform the duties for which it has been programmed, except where that would conflict with a higher-order law [productivity]

Tenth - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with higher Laws. [productivity]