Not yet, because we don't currently have the technology to emulate a brain.
Artificial Intelligence thinks mushroom is a pretzel
- Thread starter William Parcher
- Start date
Not yet, because we don't currently have the technology to emulate a brain.
Cheetah
Master Poster
No, not what you would consider a 'brain'.
As a body has many organs, a brain has many bits.
Some bits have been done in elementary ways.
As a body has many organs, a brain has many bits.
Some bits have been done in elementary ways.
Last edited:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Then I'll believe it's possible when someone proves it by doing it. That seems to be the fairest distribution of the burden of proof, after all.
Would you have a similar burden of proof for the idea that a bicycle made by someone wearing gloves would function in the same way as one built by someone not wearing gloves?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
That seems to be a less extraordinary claim than "I can create a thinking brain out of nonbiological components". Since we're being juvenile, do you think there should be a very low burden of proof for "there is an afterlife"?
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
"proof" yeah.
I'm only one step away from TM's opinion. I believe that a computer will someday achieve consciousness. I won't consider it to be proven until it actually happens. (I'll accept a Turing test, just like I do for humans now).
I'm having a hard time understanding what you think is the difference between biological and non-biological components here. Both are made of atoms following the laws of physics.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The Andromeda galaxy is made of atoms. So is a photograph of the Andromeda galaxy. I don't understand why I can touch the photo, shouldn't I be torn apart by the gravitational forces?
While you're building your anything-you-can-imagine-because-belief-is-magic-Disney things out of atoms, why not built a car that can go FTL? I mean, cars are real? They're made of atoms! They work! Therefore just build one that can go faster than light. Go ahead, I'll wait!
It seems conceivable to me that the brain is doing something other than computation. I don't think it is, but there's enough we don't know about the brain that I think it's possible. Whatever that thing is, it's still a physical process following the laws of physics. As such there's no reason that we can't build a machine that does that too.
I don't think we fully understand consciousness. But whatever it is, it's an emergent property of brains. Brains are physical systems. If we build another physical system with those same properties it will also be conscious. Which properties those are isn't certain, though I think there is good reason to believe that what brains do is information processing.
Different assemblages of atoms will have different properties. Those properties are based on what the atoms are doing.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. It should be possible to build a FTL car because... ?
I think the fact that birds can fly demonstrates that heavier than air flight is possible. This is necessarily true unless there is some magic in biology. That analogy to the argument that machines capable of thought are possible should be obvious.
I'm not arguing that anything is possible. I'm arguing that things that are possible because we see them being done are necessarily possible. I don't think there's something magical about biological systems such that the things they do can't be replicated by other means.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
We agree that demonstration is the best proof of a thing's possibility!
Therefore in light of this:
I invite you to build a living thing. You don't think it requires magic, you believe biological systems can be replicated by other means, and you agree that demonstration is proof. So go ahead. Make a living thing, from nonliving parts. It doesn't have to be fancy. I'll accept an insect. Just video the construction from the raw materials, and explain how you assembled it and gave it life. Bonus points if you use a Frankenstein lightning table!
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I've made a living creature. I can't show you video of it, though I'm sure you can find plenty of videos of simulations of the process on the internet.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I suspect you used already living parts, though. Which is cheating. It will only count if assembled from nonliving components.
Sure, demonstration is proof, but that doesn't mean that lack of demonstration is proof of impossibility. There are plenty of things that we haven't done that we know are possible.
That work is actually being done. Synthetic biology is an active field. We're still working on building bacteria from molecular precursors. Some would claim that artificial life has actually been achieved, though it depends on your definitions, but there is certainly a lot of work going on in the field.
For instance Craig Venter's team synthesised a bacterial genome, put it into a cell, and that cell functioned.
I recently listened to this podcast featuring synthetic biologist Kate Adamala who:
There is an interesting question, I think, along the lines of how similar to the biological systems found in nature will our technology need to be if it's going to replicate the things that those biological systems do?
To get modern computers has required a great deal of miniaturisation. To reach something approximating the power of the human brain will require more miniaturisation. So certainly we're going to have to be working on the same scale. What about component materials? Modern computers use silicon, but I wonder if the carbon based system, or even the protein based system that life uses is simply better for such small scale technology? All life that we know of requires water. Will we end up using a similar technique with complex molecules in water using enzymes to catalyse reactions?
So, TM, I think you do have a valid point that we don't yet know fully which aspects of biological systems are necessary to achieve the functions that they are achieving. It seems possible to me that our technology could achieve the same functions in very different ways, but it's also possible that anything that achieves the same functions as biological systems will tend to look a lot like biology because the constrains imposed simply require certain solutions. Those constraints include working on the nano-scale for instance, and the issues imposed by quantum mechanics that are related to that.
But while I can see that there may be many similarities necessary between technology and biology, there are also many constraints imposed on biological systems that won't be imposed on our technology (I went into this in an earlier post in this thread). This will come into play in the process of design1, the process of manufacturing2, and the actual implementation3.
1. The design of living things is constrained by the process of evolution.
2. The manufacturing of living things is constrained by the process of reproduction and the necessity to be manufactured by a system similar to the system being produced. It's further constrained by the energy and materials available. Both of these constraints will have analogues in technology, but will be very different.
3. The actual form of living systems is again constrained by the necessity to reproduce, by the availability of energy and material in the environment, and other factors (preditors and parasites for instance). While our technology will also have constraints, again these will be different.
To get modern computers has required a great deal of miniaturisation. To reach something approximating the power of the human brain will require more miniaturisation. So certainly we're going to have to be working on the same scale. What about component materials? Modern computers use silicon, but I wonder if the carbon based system, or even the protein based system that life uses is simply better for such small scale technology? All life that we know of requires water. Will we end up using a similar technique with complex molecules in water using enzymes to catalyse reactions?
So, TM, I think you do have a valid point that we don't yet know fully which aspects of biological systems are necessary to achieve the functions that they are achieving. It seems possible to me that our technology could achieve the same functions in very different ways, but it's also possible that anything that achieves the same functions as biological systems will tend to look a lot like biology because the constrains imposed simply require certain solutions. Those constraints include working on the nano-scale for instance, and the issues imposed by quantum mechanics that are related to that.
But while I can see that there may be many similarities necessary between technology and biology, there are also many constraints imposed on biological systems that won't be imposed on our technology (I went into this in an earlier post in this thread). This will come into play in the process of design1, the process of manufacturing2, and the actual implementation3.
1. The design of living things is constrained by the process of evolution.
2. The manufacturing of living things is constrained by the process of reproduction and the necessity to be manufactured by a system similar to the system being produced. It's further constrained by the energy and materials available. Both of these constraints will have analogues in technology, but will be very different.
3. The actual form of living systems is again constrained by the necessity to reproduce, by the availability of energy and material in the environment, and other factors (preditors and parasites for instance). While our technology will also have constraints, again these will be different.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
Would these artificial neural networks react to say, testosterone? If not, what would be the artificial equivalent of that consciousness altering hormone?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
This is why I don't think physical simulation of a brain's neural structure will produce a conscious entity. We aren't naked brains. Our brain extends throughout our body. It includes many nerves specialised for sensory input. It survives in a bath of neurotransmitters. If we were to create a conscious entity by pure simulation of physical properties, we would have to simulate an entire body, not just the brain.
The depends on how they are constructed. If we make them out of the same stuff as human brains, then yes. If not, then we might have to include a different system of stimulus that has the same effect on their information processing as testosterone has on ours.
Similarly modern jets, unlike birds, don't have mitochondria, but they do have a system by which chemical fuel is used to enable flight.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Not an entire body. People without limbs are conscious. I don't know why you couldn't have, in principle, a head alone being sent artificial signals from a computer simulating the type of signals it usually receives from the body.
So we don't know how much we would have to simulate to produce a conscious entity.