[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 143 KB, 800x591, 1304400430660.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4189905 No.4189905 [Reply] [Original]

I know enough to create an artificial intelligence. I understand the neocortex to the point that I can unify neurobiology and psychology, essentially obfuscating the latter. I understand the dynamics of the entire cortical system (including every major mesencephalic and telencephalic structure) finely and clearly enough to build an artificial intelligence.

I'm about to bring in the post-human era. Not only will humans be deconstructed into meaninglessness, they will be obviated. I hope your assholes are ready.

>> No.4189907

...and yet you post on 4chan.
/thread

>> No.4189923

tard

>> No.4189930

this is good

>> No.4189932

Yet, instead of trying to explain anything or pose questions that may lead others to seek a higher understanding, you self-indulgently root in nonsense which will be cause for you eventually self destruction and inevitable downward spiral into oblivion.

>> No.4189934
File: 92 KB, 480x610, xzibit-yo-dawg-i-herd-you-like-functions-newton.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4189934

Ready and waiting.

Also, OP's pic.....ultimecia?

>> No.4189936

>post-human
>uses human brain for a model

eeew. just eeew.

>> No.4189939

>>4189932
I try and explain it and pose questions every day. 4chan is obviously not a good place to try and put the idea out. No one here has nearly enough neuroscientific understanding to grasp the idea. Not like I'd want to write ten thousand words here anyway. But trust me; this idea is an atomic bomb.

>> No.4189940

>>4189936
>implying higher functions don't make use of lower function
>implying a human brain is the same thing as a reptile brain because the human brain was built on top of it and came after

>> No.4189941

>>4189939
links, I am interested?

>> No.4189942

>>4189936
Clearly the AI researches who blindly rejected neuroscience as a model have succeeded. They shoved a Turing machine up their ass, squatted down and waited for true AI to drop out. We're still waiting...

>> No.4189943

>>4189905
And yet you completely misuse the word 'obfuscating'.
It's not a particularly obscure word, and with an entire internet at your fingertips, one expects better.

>> No.4189947

>>4189943
You're right, I misused the word. I previously understood it incorrectly.

>> No.4189952
File: 558 KB, 2464x1648, arch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4189952

>I know enough to create an artificial intelligence

proceeds to spew BS about neuroscience, nothing about programming.

>> No.4189954

>>4189952
I don't need to define the programming... When the system is well defined, the code writes itself. Any good programmer will tell you that. And I have defined the system extremely well.

>> No.4189959

>>4189905
>I understand the neocortex to the point that I can unify neurobiology and psychology, essentially obfuscating the latter.

Oh, so you've solved the hard problem of consciousness, then? Summarize the solution.

>> No.4189961

My verbose vocabulary will coerce you cretins to acquiesce your consciousness. Good day!

>> No.4189962
File: 46 KB, 400x518, devving.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4189962

>>4189954
1/10 for the chance that you're really that deluded

>> No.4189964

>>4189959
Gladly.

There is no consciousness. There are only neural systems. So shocking, yet so simple! And unless you're religious or something, it's pretty obvious. Why would a bunch of neurons be anything other then a clump of matter? We see because some neurons respond to certain EM spectra. We feel because some neurons to mechanical disturbance. Etc... Just because the question is being asked doesn't mean there is an answer, or that there needs to be one.

Please, think about it carefully. But if it isn't satisfying I'll try and explain in other ways.

>> No.4189965

>>4189954
>this is the ninth time we have defined the system
>and we have become extremely efficient at it
>.jpg

>> No.4189967

>>4189962
I don't mean to attack your discipline, it's not easy of course. But understand what I'm saying: a systems whose rules are perfectly defined, is essentially already coded. It just needs to be translated from concept to code.

Now, my idea is of course not PERFECTLY defined, but they are defined so lucidly that translating them into code would not be a serious obstacle. Nothing a modern programmer couldn't overcome, at least.

>> No.4189973

>>4189964
>There is no consciousness.

Wow, a total failure at both scientific observation and epistemology in the very first sentence alone. Yeah, your theories are meaningless, being grounded in a fantasy world as they are. Thanks for playing, though.

>> No.4189978

>>4189967
>implying programming is my discipline

seriously, you're getting nowhere in creating AI unless you're a fucking good programmer. The field already knows how the brain works, they don't need some angsty teen from 4chan to tell them that. what they need is better hardware & implementations, because surprisingly enough making a brain IS HARD

>> No.4189985

Isn't emulating neurons limited by current computer technology? My understanding is that current silicon can't behave like neurons and that simulation in software requires more computational power than currently possible to emulate anything near a human brain.

>> No.4189988

>>4189973
Think about it. It's actually pretty obvious.

Does an engine have "running-ness"? Not really. There are just a bunch of parts moving around. Outside of a being who can piece together spatial and temporal events, there is no running-ness. Just pieces moving. Similarly, there are just neurons firing. No "conscious-ness" to the system.

>> No.4189990
File: 138 KB, 320x800, dictator 5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4189990

>> No.4189992

>>4189985
You don't need to emulate the neurons themselves. You need to emulate the function of the neural structures. The neurons are just the medium used by the brain to execute algorithms. These algorithms can be translated into code without respecting the minutae of a neuron.

>> No.4190003

>>4189992
algorithm or gtfo

>> No.4190005

>>4189967

that a problem is defined doesn't mean it has a computationally feasible solution

ITT underage pothead biologist.

>> No.4190006

>>4189988
>Think about it. It's actually pretty obvious.

It would be if you could think clearly, but you are blinded by ideology. The analogy to an engine is wrong, because we are not engines, and cannot know whether there is an essence to an engine beyond its objective presentation. We are, however, consciousness in brains, so we do know for an absolute and incontrovertible fact that there is consciousness. We know this because we are it. It is necessarily axiomatic. This is not up for debate, not matter how much you might wish it were. If you cannot get this straight, there is no hope for your theories. You're trying to build something on a foundation of logically self-contradictory philosophy.

>> No.4190008

>>4190005
If you knew the algorithm you'd know it was computationally feasible. It wouldn't even be a question. The obvious parallel is the evolution of the mammals neocortex. The more computational power you had, the large you could make the virtual cortex. The more intelligent the being would be. Once you have the system designed, expanding its ability is trivial.

>> No.4190011

>>4190006
Your thinking is extremely stale and narrow. I won't bother with this conversation because it is apparent that you are not intelligent enough to understand.

>> No.4190012

>>4190011
>2deep4u

>> No.4190015

well if it gets rid of psychology then I'm all for it.

>> No.4190017

>>4190011
>I won't bother with this conversation

You couldn't even if you wanted to, given the atrocious quality of thought you've demonstrated so far. Have fun being exactly like every other /sci/tard failure.

>> No.4190019

>>4189992
Isn't even emulating just the neural structures beyond current computers? The other issue you have is even if you get the computational power together you're going to be limited by the latency and bandwidth limitations that come with current supercomputing clusters.

>> No.4190040

May, is that you?

>> No.4190044

>>4190019
The algorithm honestly isn't that complex. And it is easily scalable, so you'd just make it big enough to use all the available power, no more. It must be massively distributed, but any latency on a supercomputer would be minuscule compared to the latency of neurons.

>> No.4190052

Die OP.

>> No.4190069
File: 39 KB, 381x500, sage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4190069

>>4190044
the only mind simplistic enough to model on modern computers is yours op.

fuck off and die.

>> No.4190116
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1266544457514.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4190116

the reactions will be completely different if op posted this on /x/

op is just venting his edgy personality because he is very kewl. if he really knew what he was doing, he wouldn't post such info on 4chan. this site is monitored by every possible government agency and i don't think op is behind 10 proxies & using VPN.

>> No.4190134

What OP fails to recognize is that "conscious" thought as we know it could not be...emulated on current computer architecture. You can argue that the brain is a deterministic machine (which is my belief as well) but ultimately we need new architecture if we want to develop intelligence that surpasses our own. The Von Neumann paradigm won't last forever.

Thankfully, that architecture is already in development, thanks to IBM and their SyNAPSE project. So, OP, if you have as much knowledge as you say you do, I suggest you join them.

>> No.4190140

>>4189959
Not the OP, obviously.

But I've always viewed the human consciousness as the 'program' running on the hardware that is our brain.

>> No.4190153

>>4190140
>I've always viewed the human consciousness as the 'program' running on the hardware that is our brain.

That seems like a pretty good analogy, but the important thing (as far as the hard problem goes) is that the software/program/application is still ontologically real. OP takes the lazy way out and ignores its existence.

>> No.4190155

>2012
>not believing in dualism

>> No.4190164

>>4190155
>2012
>not believing in evolution or natural selection

>> No.4190168

>>4190155
Dualism isn't strictly necessary to the situation. An idealist monism would work just fine, or a polysubstantialism. What definitely never works is any ontology that requires the subjective experience to not exist.

>> No.4190187

>>4190164
also evolution does not imply monism

>> No.4190188

>>4190116
>edgy
>implying not edgy for saying edgy.

>> No.4190192
File: 185 KB, 800x533, 9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4190192

>> No.4190195

>>4190116
>the reactions will be completely different if op posted this on /x/

Actually, /x/ is very much like /sci/ in this regard: those people with education tend to follow the same lines of thought and argument in both places. Interestingly, though, OP posted this on /r9k/, where there has been much more indepth discussion of the scientific issues at hand. IOW, /r9k/ out-sciences /sci/.

>>>/r9k/883152

>> No.4190240

>>4189988

Well done. You've successfully figured out what goat hurrdurrs figured out in 600BC. Now go sit under a tree and smoke some more weed.

>> No.4191736

guise, srsly. Srsly guise, he's right about the no consciousness-thing. 'Consciousness' is something we think we have.

But OP, please tell me more about your theories.

>> No.4191751

>I understand the dynamics of the entire cortical system (including every major mesencephalic and telencephalic structure)
ORLY?

Could you tell me if early cross-modal integration already occurs at the level of the cochlear nucleus and if the mechanism for widespread cortical perceptual binding of cross-modal stimuli is event related phase reorganization? If so, how do primary sensory thalamic nuclei contribute to this effect, and if they don't, which other thalamic structures (e.g. pulvinar?) mediate it?

I've been working on this problem for several years, but can't seem to figure it out.

>> No.4191781
File: 726 KB, 1280x1280, 1324176937130.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4191781

>>4191751
OK but then I'm giving you some of my homework to complete for me

>> No.4191785

>>4191781
I don't follow

>> No.4191820

Good luck programming that, or even coming up with the machine code and processing power that could even accomplish that.

>> No.4191846

I know enough to create an artificial flying machine. I understand the feathers to the point that I can unify neurobiology and aerial navigation, essentially obfuscating the latter. I understand the dynamics of the entire bird (including every the beak and the talons) finely and clearly enough to build an artificial flying machine.

I'm about to bring in the post-bird era. Not only will birds be deconstructed into meaninglessness, they will be obviated. I hope your assholes are ready.