Defending the Truth
Earth
Click here for free registeration..
Quick Search
11/23/07 - Now offering premium membership for only $25.00!! Click here to get started.!

Go Back   Defending the Truth > General Off-topic > Articles
Articles Post your own written articles here. Remember to cite your sources if you used any in your articles. Members are able to rate and respond to your articles.

Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools Display Modes
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Can Computers Think?<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Can Computers Think?
Published by RidinHighSpeeds
12-24-2006
Can Computers Think?

To answer the question, “Can computers think?” personally I think computers today cannot think. Computers require programs which are compromised of software that include "if and then" statements "else" statements, and so on. The computer is doing its purpose based on the instructions it was given. But that may also raise another question, “Will there be instructions for a computer to think and be conscious?” I will not say it’s impossible, but I do not see this happening in my lifetime.

John Searle’s reading clearly explains how even the most advanced artificial intelligence may never have the ability to think. One particular example that made things very clear was the person who understood English, and was left in a room with Chinese symbols. Comparing the processes the person took to find out what the Chinese symbols meant, to the processes a computer which is functioning to answer questions of a story, can conclude to the point that in the beginning the computer understands nothing and is only meant to process functions. Some very important keywords Searle uses is “understanding” and “intentionality”, which are things that digital computers or artificial intelligence systems will never acquire because they are programmed to do things, not to understand them or do things intentionally.

I don't want to say that computers will never have the ability to think because I do have a small feeling that believes that in the far future, very advanced programs could indeed be written to work with other programs in analyzing and interpreting information much like our brains. Advanced artificial intelligence with thousands and thousand of programs working simultaneously could probably record or store its actions, so that it can be used again if it was useful.

Another reason why I believe that maybe hundreds of years from now, AI might be able to have the ability to think, is the fact of how advanced our technology has become. My Uncle lost his eyesight a couple of years ago, and Universities are already working on projects that may one day make the blind see again with the use of a camera that stimulates the optic nerve. There are also projects out there that may allow the deaf to hear again with the use of other types of technologies. Such advances in technology could probably be combined all together to form an advanced AI that replicates the human being. Although I feel that this may be made possible quite a long time from now, it still does not win my support for a computer to be able to understand, or to do things intentionally.

Take for example the war in Iraq. If you were to ask me how I felt about the war in Iraq, I would analyze everything I knew about the war, which I took in from news sources. I would then think about how I felt about the war and tell you my opinion. If you were to ask a computer or an advanced artificial intelligence system how it felt about the war in Iraq, the machine would need a programmer to input the information about the war in Iraq, so the machine can output its thoughts. When you compare the two, I believe that the taking in of information may be related, but the analyzing process would be completely different. One word that can describe the difference is the word “feel”. The output of the advanced artificial intelligence would be based on the programmers coding structure of what the outcome shall be, but I can never really see an artificial intelligence system having the ability to have a sad feeling for those who are killed at War. By using some important keywords mentioned in Searle’s reading, I can come to the conclusion that artificial intelligence systems will never be able to “understand” or base their thoughts on the War “intentionally” as its outputs will be based solely on the software the programmer programmed into the system.
Member rating
 
There are no ratings to display
 

  #1 (permalink)  
By intangible child on 01-03-2007, 12:27 AM
I heard about this on....
Exploration with Michio Kaku on KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley: Listener Sponsored Free Speech Radio : KPFA 94.1FM Berkeley
Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku

A New Breed of Thinking Computer?
Scientists race to combine living neurons and silicon

For a whole bunch of jobs, today's computers ''are just plain terrible,'' says William L. Ditto, a physicist at Georgia Institute of Technology. Understanding human speech and handwritten notes, for example, is a snap for people but extremely difficult for computers. Until now, computer scientists could only throw more horsepower at such problems. ''But that's just making dumb machines faster, not smarter,'' says Ditto. ''Brains don't say, 'I'm inadequate, so I'll speed everything up.''' Instead, Nature evolved bigger brains with more interconnections among the neurons.

Ditto figures it's time to start building computers the way Nature does. His research team and a handful of other groups, including one at the University of Bordeaux in France, envision hybrid biocomputers that mate living nerve cells, or neurons, with silicon circuits. Neurons are the body's wires--they transmit signals in the brain and throughout the nervous system. Putting neurons into semiconductor circuits could create the basis for a new breed of computer--brainlike systems that finally live up to their name. Like the brain, neurosilicon computers might find solutions on their own, with no need for programmers to write explicit step-by-step instructions.

Ditto isn't talking through his hat. His team at Georgia Tech has just scored the first such breakthrough--doing arithmetic with two neurons (using the large neurons from leeches, which have been studied extensively). The researchers joined the neurons and linked them to a personal computer, which sent signals representing different numbers to each cell. Using principles of chaos theory, Ditto selectively stimulated the two neurons. From the chatterbox traffic that followed, the PC extracted the correct answer to a simple addition problem.

This is the first time invertebrate brain cells have used chaos to do arithmetic, let alone communicate the results to humans. What's more, computer simulations by Ditto and Sudeshna Sinha at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences in Madras, India, show that larger clusters of neurons should also be able to do multiplication and Boolean logic operations, the underlying principle of digital computers.

''VERY CLEVER.'' The Georgia team has yet to dash off a technical paper, so their feat isn't widely known. ''The work is quite interesting and represents a new direction for neural modeling,'' says Terrence Sejnowski, director of the Institute for Neural Computation at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD). Physicist Henry Abarbanel, founder of UCSD's Institute for Nonlinear Science, says he's not familiar with the details of Ditto's achievement, but he knows him from his past work. ''Ditto is very clever,'' says Abarbanel, ''so he likely has something.''

That something is a way to control the behavior of neurons--using an esoteric branch of mathematics. That's because nerve cells and brain waves are not digital systems that simply flip on and off. So the software instructions that drive silicon computers just won't cut it in this realm--and that's fine, since it makes crashes less likely. Brainlike chips will really be brainlike. They will be more creative than the machines on our desks, perhaps even mirroring some of the pluses and minuses of human thinking.

At this stage, Ditto says, it's just too early to tell if neurosilicon computers will have inherent limitations. But he and Sinha are optimistic that biosilicon systems can tackle anything today's hardware can--plus sensory-based computing that only biological ''wetware'' does with ease, such as understanding human language.

Ditto uses a personal computer to put neurons through their hoops, but the PC doesn't throw conventional instructions at the neurons. It runs a sophisticated program based on chaos theory. The results are used ''to 'tune' the neurons--to tweak how they talk to each other,'' says Ditto. This ensures that their operations are consistent and predictable.

That's vital because nervous systems are ''nonlinear,'' or unpredictable. A minor sound or slight change in the visual field can unleash massive responses in the brain and nervous system, while major sensory disruptions may cause only minor ripples--or vice versa. In fact, when the signals exchanged by nerve cells become too regular and repetitive, it often warns of trouble. Medical researchers have discovered that a heart beating without minor variations may be on the verge of a heart attack, and a uniform ''chorus'' of brain waves can signal an impending epileptic seizure.

While none but Ditto claims success at using neurons to compute, biologists who study the bizarre workings of nerve cells have, in fact, been connecting neurons to silicon chips for years. ''That way, you can watch the neurons talk back and forth,'' says Avis H. Cohen, an associate professor of biology and neuroscience at the University of Maryland. Cohen experiments with the spinal cords of lampreys, an eel-like fish, but she says the most popular biosilicon research tool, dubbed the dynamic clamp, uses mollusk neurons and was pioneered by Eve Marder, a biologist at Brandeis University. With such silicon-neuron set-ups, researchers can intercept the signal on the chip and selectively change it before sending it on to another neuron. That way, says Cohen, ''you can play like you're a neuron and try to deduce how they work together.''

HARMONY. The spontaneous emergence of cooperation among clusters of nerve cells has been an enduring mystery. Individual neurons behave unpredictably in isolation, yet collections somehow agree to synchronize and restrict their chaotic behavior. As a result, variations in heart rhythm, for instance, are normally confined to a fairly narrow, predictable range. Marder's research tool could help explain this enigma.

So might the results of an interdisciplinary study at San Diego's Institute for Nonlinear Science. Since mid-May, researchers there have been hooking up artificial electronic neurons, built with $7.50 in parts from a local Radio Shack store, to groups of living neurons from spiney lobsters. Surprise: The fake ones are accepted as the real thing. The artificial neuron is built to act chaotically, says UCSD's Abarbanel, ''and the real ones basically say, 'welcome, but behave.''' Very soon, he notes, the artificial neuron's signaling rhythm falls into step with the rest of the gang, indicating that the model is reasonably accurate.

The artificial neuron stems from two years of research, during which participants ran through $300 worth of spiney lobsters every month. ''They don't taste as good as Maine lobsters, that's for sure,'' says Abarbanel. Next, the team will gradually increase the number of artificial neurons in the group of 14 neurons that regulate the lobster's digestive system. If the network still functions normally when all 14 neurons are artificial, it will be solid evidence that it should be possible to replace damaged or diseased neurons in human systems. ''That's the medical goal,'' says Abarbanel. ''I'm not sure if that will take one year or five,'' he says, ''but there are no showstoppers that I can see.''

When Georgia Tech's Ditto first learned, two years ago, about all the biological work with neurons on silicon chips, a lightbulb went off. As head of Georgia Tech's Applied Chaos Laboratory, he figured he ought to be able to find a way to harness live neurons for computers. Two months ago, after a lot of computer-simulation studies, experiments with actual leeches started. And much sooner than he expected, Ditto had them performing arithmetic. ''We're way ahead of schedule,'' he says. ''I never thought we'd get to addition in just two months.''

Ditto estimates that it will be 10 years or more before biocomputers go commercial. That timing may be just right. Around 2015, semiconductor technology is destined to come to a screeching halt. Semiconductor circuits will then have shrunk as small as they can ever get. Transistor switching will then be triggered by a single electron, not the thousands of electrons that pulse through today's chips. ''When we get to single-electron circuits, that's it,'' says Ditto. ''You can't cut an electron in half.''

That will signal the end of Moore's Law--the doubling of chip power every 18 months that has been the hallmark of semiconductors for three decades. But scientists are working on some clever alternatives to maintain momentum in computer progress. One is DNA computing, which uses actual segments of genetic material to represent numbers. These segments are combined in a test tube to ''grow'' answers.

''GO AT IT.'' DNA computing may prove valuable for horrendously complex problems in science that only supercomputers can tackle. But it probably isn't suitable for many of the everyday jobs that computers now deal with. Besides, notes Ditto, ''Nature doesn't do computing with DNA, probably for good reason.''

That most attractive option may be Ditto's vision of computing with neurons. ''Now that we have an idea about how to go in there and program those little suckers,'' he says, tomorrow's computer engineers will be able to imitate Nature. ''So ultimately, for really tough problems, we'll just throw in more neurons and tell them, 'hey, go at it.''' The neurons will harmonize their operations and self-organize to find the answer--even if they have only partial data to work with. That's the magic of ''wetware.''

Eventually, Ditto plans to hook up neurons to video cameras and microphones, creating systems with artificial senses. How they will respond to the real world is anyone's guess, Ditto concedes. And that's as it should be. Life is unpredictable.

By Otis Port in New York
A New Breed of Thinking Computer?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
By RidinHighSpeeds on 01-03-2007, 05:23 PM
Very interesting! Thanks for the feedback!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
By intangible child on 01-03-2007, 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds View Post
Very interesting! Thanks for the feedback!
It seems pretty weird to me? It will be like they have a life of their own, I heard another scientist say that if it's accomplished they will take us over and destroy us? Armageddon anyone? If so hopefully they will have more common sense.

The War Prayer, by Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
By chrisg967 on 01-03-2007, 06:56 PM
So... what does "wetware" eat to keep it going?? Neurons are living cells, and need nourishment, water, and waste management.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
By DiamondKrist on 03-04-2008, 10:23 AM
Well from what I can think of maybe sometime there will be something that can teach computers. I think that there is a way to teach computers....yeah of course there will be some programming to it but when that is all done if done right i say that somethings can and will be able to be tought to computers. If the computer/ robot can hear and see what you are teaching it then why couldn't it be tought somethings. of course there is no emotions. what does anyone think about this.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
By DiamondKrist on 03-04-2008, 12:52 PM
Well if you think that the computers will get that smart if they are able to think then people would most likely make it so that would never happen. Now if there is sometime in the future that computers will be able to do things without people programming them then hopfuly who ever does it has the brains to make it so that they would never be able to take anyone over. Of course there would be limits
Reply With Quote
Comment

Bookmarks
Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google
Article Tools
Display Modes






All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.

DefendingTheTruth.com RSS2 Feed   Add to Google   Add to My Yahoo!   Add to My MSN
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Created by: Jon-Kingsbury.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0 Release Candidate 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Proudly hosted by WireNine


Recommended Sites

Top Political Sites Poltical Topsites