Tachyon Shield,
Huh?
Robert Maxwell,
I just explained in reply #19
Huh?
Robert Maxwell,
I just explained in reply #19
Are We On The Brink of Creating a Computer With a Human Brain
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
You didn't "explain" it at all. Why shouldn't we build a synthetic human brain?
If you built a device that functioned like a human brain it would have all the properties of a human brain including consciousness, sentience and such.
Turning it off permanently would be considered murder, performing experiments on it would be morally no different than performing experiments on actual non-consenting humans.
Turning it off permanently would be considered murder, performing experiments on it would be morally no different than performing experiments on actual non-consenting humans.
That's an enormous "if". We could learn massive amounts about the way the brain works even with the attempt.
And if we did by some miracle actually manage to exactly model the brain, then that model would be an invaluable tool for medical science.
All mammal brains function pretty much the same. Unless you're certain what you've created mimics a human in every conceivable way, turning it off is no more murder than killing a cow or a rodent would be.
If we did recognize it as conscious and intelligent like a human being, I agree, it would be wrong to turn it off. But, in that case, why would we want to? "Turning it off" wouldn't necessarily be killing it, anyway. If it stores its state in some permanent fashion, it would be like putting it to sleep, or into a coma, if you will.
Lindley,
I don't think it's really a huge assumption. I don't see any good evidence to suggest that there's anything about a human brain that gives it sentience that would not come down to a neurological basis.
With that said a simulation of a brain and all it's neurons would act just like a real brain with all it's properties which logically would include sentience.
With that said, an attempt to create such a simulation would create a sentient being which would be totally unethical. Even if it had a benefit to neuroscience, it would be so unethical it would not be worth it.
Plus we have all sorts of research and scientific tools for the purpose of neuroscience, that are already in the process of unlocking the secrets of the human brain.
I don't think it's really a huge assumption. I don't see any good evidence to suggest that there's anything about a human brain that gives it sentience that would not come down to a neurological basis.
With that said a simulation of a brain and all it's neurons would act just like a real brain with all it's properties which logically would include sentience.
With that said, an attempt to create such a simulation would create a sentient being which would be totally unethical. Even if it had a benefit to neuroscience, it would be so unethical it would not be worth it.
Plus we have all sorts of research and scientific tools for the purpose of neuroscience, that are already in the process of unlocking the secrets of the human brain.
Oh. Well I'm glad you got that Nobel Prize for proving that then.
Lindley,
It's basic sense
It's basic sense
No, it isn't.
Would it be sentient if the brain had no knowledge? I.E. it was a blank slate?
Sentience does not equal function but is more of a sum of the whole.
At what point does the accumulation of knowledge in a human brain lead to sentience?
Sojourner,
Well, when the simulation was done of the rat's brain they did detect what would be considered thoughts, so logically a simulation of a human brain would have similar results...
Well, when the simulation was done of the rat's brain they did detect what would be considered thoughts, so logically a simulation of a human brain would have similar results...
"Thought" is not the same as sentience. A mosquito has "thoughts," but we don't feel bad for slaughtering them by the millions.
"Brain and brain, what is brain?" Sorry...
I think if we ever do develop "conscious" AI, however we'd determine that, it will be the end result of a learning process. We'll never program intelligence, but we might be able to create a framework which would allow learning to begin and develop and grow.
I do think that it's important to have these discussions and even make laws about this before (if) it actually happens.
Robert Maxwell,
Well, considering the simulated rat-brain experienced thoughts and was thinking, it's logical to conclude that it is acting like a real brain
FordSVT,
I personally also think it is important for laws (national and international) to be created regulating this practice before it happens.
CuttingEdge100
Well, considering the simulated rat-brain experienced thoughts and was thinking, it's logical to conclude that it is acting like a real brain
FordSVT,
I personally also think it is important for laws (national and international) to be created regulating this practice before it happens.
CuttingEdge100
It's logical to conclude that the scientists saw some patterns which they were able to draw parallels to "thoughts" with in order to get more funding.
First rule of research: Nothing ever works as well as the authors try to make it sound. And the simplifications of the results which are presented by the lay media tend to exaggerate even further.
Lindley,
Actually from what I remember about the blue-brain project it worked remarkably well from what I remember...
Actually from what I remember about the blue-brain project it worked remarkably well from what I remember...
Thoughts do not equal sentience on their own. What kind of "thoughts" can any brain have without some knowledge to pull from? Considering we still don't know how to encode knowledge/memories into the brain, I am skeptical that the simulated rat brain was having "thoughts".
"Impulses" might be a more accurate term. Now, if they provided the brain with sensory input and let it run for a while, these impulses might start to organize into something resembling thoughts and eventually consciousness based on the input it receives. Assuming of course that they properly model the ability to build memories.
Last edited:
Exactly. "Simulated thoughts" are not consciousness. At some point, a large enough mass of such simulated thoughts, evolving over time, you might cross a barrier at which we could say it is sentient. But we are nowhere near that point.
Maxwell,
If you produce an exact copy of a human brain you will cross that point.
CuttingEdge100
If you produce an exact copy of a human brain you will cross that point.
CuttingEdge100
An exact copy of a human brain would be a biological human brain grown in a vat, which wouldn't be very useful outside of medicine. Otherwise, it's not identical, not superior, and has all the strengths and weaknesses of our own brains. You might as well pull one out of a hobo. Human brains are not circuit boards and logic gates, there are many chemical, electrical and quantum-level processes going on in our brains that do not directly relate to things you can do with silicon, aluminum, gold and copper.
Which is a good point, if there is something innate about the unknown biological factors at play in our minds that creates "consciousness" we might never create truly sentient beings, merely ones who can simulate it. Not that there would be a way to tell, and not that there could be anything but a philosophical discussion about it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
But computers intelligence doesn't necessarily need to be identical to human intelligence and sentience in order to be what we would consider outwardly sentient and perhaps superior to ourselves at many or even all mental functions. The possibilities of being able to view a million different possible outcomes to a situation while relying on a myriad of data inputs in only a single moment of time would lead to startling intellectual outcomes.
