Turn on thread page Beta

Does inteligence imply consciousness? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Not necessarily; read my previous post. It all depends on how much leeway we allow the computer to reprogram itself.
    Ok, let me put it in another way then.

    Is it possible to create a computer withthe same learning capabilities of a human, without at the same time allowing it to reprogram itself?

    Basicly, the idea is that in order o give a computer inteligence comparable to a human you would have to allow it to reprogram itself enough to gain consciousnes. If you did not, it would simply not reach the same level of inteligence as a human being...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So suppose I threw in a couple of dice in themachinery making teh computer act slightly randomly and not just purely deterministicly? Would that give it "free will" ?
    that would be free will on our terms though - the machine would not truly be free to do as it pleases - to develop as it pleases and think its own thoughts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    my brain is far too advanced for mine own body; i say and think things i more than often regret,


    i'm in a constantly pensive mood and i get aggressive towards people who chat inanely, perhaps i'm just of a bizarre disposition.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kurdt Morello)
    that would be free will on our terms though - the machine would not truly be free to do as it pleases - to develop as it pleases and think its own thoughts
    So then the question that springs into mind follows: Does humans have free will? Or is our "free will" merely on our DNA's (Evolution's) terms ?

    After all, the DNA does indeed determine the structure of the brain to some extent. It is because of teh DNA we have the ability to learn the way we do, and errors in it can give us mental diseases disabling some functions of the brain. To what extent do we have free will?

    The interesting part of this topic I find to be that we are moving in a direction where psychology and information technology will eventually meet. Perhaps sufficiently complicated computers would have to be supervised by psychologists rather than programmers
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I think the reprogramming function is essential for true intelligence to develop. My point is that we could just confine it to compartmentalised areas; we don't allow it to reprogram itself entirely, just certain parts. This would be possible: its easier to visualise if you view the 'brain' program as running in a kind of runtime environment which is itself another piece of software which cannot be reprogrammed and will not allow the 'brain' software to perform certain functions like reprogram the parts we dont want it to.
    That is fair enough, but could such a computer display a large level of inteligence? Perhaps the reprograming function is also a crucial factor in order for inteligence to develop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So then the question that springs into mind follows: Does humans have free will? Or is our "free will" merely on our DNA's (Evolution's) terms ?

    After all, the DNA does indeed determine the structure of the brain to some extent. It is because of teh DNA we have the ability to learn the way we do, and errors in it can give us mental diseases disabling some functions of the brain. To what extent do we have free will?

    The interesting part of this topic I find to be that we are moving in a direction where psychology and information technology will eventually meet. Perhaps sufficiently complicated computers would have to be supervised by psychologists rather than programmers
    ah but then dna is not controlled unless you wish to discuss the existence of god - but i agree that psychology and i.t. could eventually meet
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    On a physical level we don't have free will really, even if the brain is not entirely deterministic; I believe consciousness just gives us the illusion of free will, when all along its the underlying chemical and electrical signals deciding what we'll do.
    I take it that you are more or less of a determinist then.

    What do you think of quantum mechanics? After all, the works of Heisenberg and Schrödinger sugests that the physical world is not completely deterministic but that everything is probabilities. Roger Penrose has even gone so far as to sugest that this is teh cause of consciousnes, that the strange behaviour of quantum mechanical interactions cannot be fully understood and that this is the rise of the human consciousness ( I dont think I agree with him here, but its worth mentioning that a physical system is not completely deterministic in nature). What do you think? Is randomness and free will two sides of the same thing?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kurdt Morello)
    ah but then dna is not controlled unless you wish to discuss the existence of god - but i agree that psychology and i.t. could eventually meet
    I disagree, natural selection controls which DNA survive and not according to Darwins theory of evolution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I disagree, natural selection controls which DNA survive and not according to Darwins theory of evolution.
    natural being the operative word - our control over the machines will be artificial - therefore where can free will come in
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kurdt Morello)
    natural being the operative word - our control over the machines will be artificial - therefore where can free will come in
    I dont quite see the difference between our DNA being selectively picked out and the memory of a computer being programmed. Also, if you include an element of chance then the computer does not neccesairily follow any determinable path. If you then give the machine the possibility to use this randomness as feedback for reprogramming itself the element of randomness will be introduced to the algorithm as well, and so the machine is no longer limited to our programing. It is not possible for us to determine where it ends up and eventually our coding may disapear in favour of the one created by the machine itself (this code is not determined by our original programing because of the element of randomness introduced)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I haven't read Penrose and nor do I really know that much about quantum mechanics, so I will only say on that that I believe it contributes to our brain processes as a random factor which is necessary in all systems that are indetermnistic, but I believe the indetermism comes on a larger scale than the quantum mechanical level.

    I would say free will is just a name we give to the decision making processes of our brain over which we do have control through consciousness, but since consciousness is a product of our brain, do we really have control over that? Its a bit of a paradox. I need to think about it a lot more!
    Ok guys, it has been interesting debating this with you. Specially since I am planning to hold a TOK presentation on the subject soon. However, right now I have to shut down some high level conscious functions and defragment my memory for some eight hours or so. I will be back as soon as I have reporgrammed myself sufficently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I dont quite see the difference between our DNA being selectively picked out and the memory of a computer being programmed. Also, if you include an element of chance then the computer does not neccesairily follow any determinable path. If you then give the machine the possibility to use this randomness as feedback for reprogramming itself the element of randomness will be introduced to the algorithm as well, and so the machine is no longer limited to our programing. It is not possible for us to determine where it ends up and eventually our coding may disapear in favour of the one created by the machine itself (this code is not determined by our original programing because of the element of randomness introduced)
    but chance is artificially created by us - DNA is not programmed by someone - that is chance in my opinion
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I dont quite see the difference between our DNA being selectively picked out and the memory of a computer being programmed. Also, if you include an element of chance then the computer does not neccesairily follow any determinable path. If you then give the machine the possibility to use this randomness as feedback for reprogramming itself the element of randomness will be introduced to the algorithm as well, and so the machine is no longer limited to our programing. It is not possible for us to determine where it ends up and eventually our coding may disapear in favour of the one created by the machine itself (this code is not determined by our original programing because of the element of randomness introduced)
    41 replies from 42 views, very impressive
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWolf)
    41 replies from 42 views, very impressive
    Now it is 42 of 43
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Now it is 42 of 43
    how does it suddenly come to 156 views :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Determinism refers to the part of causality as humans we can predict. The issue of chance and chaos is an artefact of the limitations of our abilities in modelling and measuring phenomena in order to provide a prediction. Evidence suggests all events are causalistic, but obviously not all are deterministic.

    Free will is therefore an artefact as a consequence of our inability to model our own behaviours, not a result of our behaviours being unpredictable. Free will is also limited; we are not free to do as we please nor to 'reprogram' our minds as we please. We are constrained by physical influences, such as the genetic and environmental influences on the mind.

    The idea of introducing a randomising function into AI in order to turn it into a brain is a little limited. The concept of creating a system with significant intelligence automatically makes it non-deterministic. By definition, any system of intelligence equal to an average human could not be completely modelled by an average human as it is beyond their capacity. Once a system cannot be modelled, it becomes functionally unpredictable and hence non-deterministic. Introducing 'randomness' is superfluous if not non-functional.

    The proposition that the non-determinism of the brain is due to the randomness of chemical interactions, I think is also quite limited. In reality, the randomness of chemical interactions only produces unpredictability when the number of molecules involved is very small. On a large scale with large numbers of molecules (as you find in organisms), the most probable state becomes increasingly more likely and the system actually becomes more predictable. If you look at the structural arrangements of multipolar neurones in the CNS it becomes apparent they are designed to minimise the influence of chaos on the overall response, rather than maximise it. Each neurone receives many inputs which must sum spatially and temporally in order to produce a response. The effects of 'random' potentials in neurones is thereby minimised as no one neurone is likely to produce an overall response. I think it is more likely that the non-determinism of brain function/human behaviour is related far more directly to the wide variety and range of inputs received and the non-deterministic nature of these inputs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In response to the question, I think the two are different facets of the same concept and so can not exist independently. Intelligence without memory is meaningless, such as consciousness is also meaningless without memory. But, as definitions of the words in language are vague and interpretations are more specific, it can be abstracted that the two can exist independently.

    For example, you might define a 'bot' in an FPS game (e.g. UT) as being intelligent, but not conscious. However, I think such a definition is inaccurate, because the bot can also be perceived as having a very limited consciousness and a degree of intelligence. The first definition is arrived at from assuming (without any evidence) that consciouness is either present or not and is not gradeable, thus in such a situation as the consciousness of the bot is very limited compared to human consciousness it can be approximated to being non-existent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I would say no, consciousness and intelligence are entirely separate. Consciousness is a phenomenon appearing in beings that happen to be intelligent. One can be conscious without intelligence (think of someone with absolutely no memory but a little knowledge), or intelligent without consciouness (AI).
    I would second the views above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    An intelligent system which cannot be modelled by humans would still be deterministic. Presumably another system or the system itself could model the system providing it had introspective abilities. Any software system is completely deterministic unless a random factor is introduced. Without a random factor, two identical systems would behave in exactly the same way until a random factor was introduced, or differing input given.
    So, essentially you are of two positions. That human behaviour is non-deterministic; that a software system without a 'random factor' is deterministic. The latter you qualify with the supposition that provided the same input, the same output would be obtained. There's no evidence this qualification doesn't apply to human behaviour - it is just more difficult to experimentally show.

    The ability of a system to be modelled is hardly a qualifier for determinism, because that is not limited in scope. For example, if I were to hypothesise that all universal phenomena could be modelled by 'beings' beyond the universe, then instantaneously all phenomena would become deterministic. This causes the word to lose value and isn't really tennable.

    The reason I suggest that human ability to model a system is the definition of it's determinism can be considered in an example. If it were possible to experimentally trace the path of 1 gas molecule in a sample of fixed volume and fixed pressure over time, and after a relatively long time period, the position of the molecule were to be calculated using only the initial positions of all other gas molecules and their initial velocities, then in most circumstances the result of such an approximation would suggest the system is chaotic. It is then described as being non-deterministic because of the limits in resolution of measurements of the initial displacements and velocities. Yet this is not the same as declaring the system beyond predictability, only so at the level of our abilities (and possibly limitations of the universe).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    conciousness IS intelligence. if we could create a computer in the same structure as our brains, then it would have 'conciousness'. read ian m. banks, use of weapons
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 20, 2004
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.