Automation, AI, Transhumanism

Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 5 months, 3 weeks ago to Technology
43 comments | Share | Flag

Here’s a Podcast in which I cover the ground from driverless vehicles to the economics of automation to AI to transhumanism. Hope you enjoy it!
SOURCE URL: https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/in-the-tank-ep141--driverless-cars-automation-artificial-intelligence-transhumanism


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by jconne 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    Defining our terms - we need to correct a common misunderstanding reflected in our naming of AI. It's MUCH more accurate to see it as Augmented Intelligence, much as eyeglasses augment vision, as well as telescopes and microscopes, etc. This includes electron microscopes, night vision technology and astronomical visualization gear in all electromagnetic frequencies. And then there's ultrasound and sonar using the sound spectrum.

    It's all about automating information processing, including sensing, and translating information into a human consumable form.

    None of this is Intelligence, which is a distinctly human capability. To the extent we know things, we benefit by automating and speeding up that capture and processing. To the extent we don't, we need to experience the consequences of that aspect of the world or the consequences of our actions. That's where true intelligence come into the picture.

    If we don't appreciate what's uniquely human, we cant give it the respect it deserves. This becomes an important, practical philosophical issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no "vehemence with which [I] espouse the theory", I (and Efron) are not "philosophical writers with a tendency to treat other theories with scorn", and Efron's article does not "explain" any such thing. Shipley has repeatedly ignored what I have written and repeatedly misrepresented it. He is espousing a philosophical assumption of materialism while insisting it is "science". It is not. It is he who repeatedly and vehemently accuses and misrepresents rejection of materialism as "scorn", "faith", imagined "battles between gods", "making up explanations", and a "spiritual view of the mind". It is not serious discussion. His latest post continues the trend, not addressing what I wrote.

    The Efron article "Biology without Consciousness" has previously been recommended to him and he ignored it. He acknowledged at the time that he doesn't know much about Ayn Rand's philosophy, which he contradicts without understanding and without serious discussion, yet he assumes a pretentious mantle of 'above it all' -- in the name of 'science', as if philosophical basis of thought is irrelevant and whoever rejects his (philosophical) premises is only "commenting with scorn".

    Shipley's "presumption" that it "must be proved" that "some phenomena" may "not reduce to physics" is logically backwards. The burden of proof is on his "presumption". As Efron points out, reductionism assumes without proof a materialist premise adhered to with the dogmatism of any religion. Any science begins with and is based on the nature of its own subject matter, not an assumption that it reduces to physical laws about inanimate matter regardless of its own subject matter. The laws of physics themselves presuppose an understanding of consciousness and a proper epistemology. Efron did not "comment with scorn" that "chemical processes reduced to physics", as if that were a concession to materialism.

    Science is not split into two approaches, one which "produces a catalog of what exists and what it does", which Shipley calls "the naturalist view of the world", versus "determination of how these objects and phenomena happen, what are the causes and effects", which he says is with "faith" "that complete understanding of things down to the lowest components will be determined", like "creationism".

    Science is systematic knowledge of reality. All of it is "naturalist", as opposed to faith and the supernatural. It is not split into "catalogs" versus "understanding" with a goal of "complete" omniscience. All knowledge begins with and is based on concepts that categorize in terms of essentials what we observe, as the required base for abstract, objective understanding of interrelations. Concepts versus abstract explanation are not two different "approaches" to science; they are two integrated components of the same process.

    Understanding is always finite and therefore limited -- to what we know; it does not seek ominscience (Shipley's "complete understanding of things down to the lowest components"). Explanation is always, as Efron also describes, "to account for some aspect of reality which we do not understand on the basis of concepts which have already been validated". It "accounts for the unexplained in terms of the known". It does reduce its subject matter to an arbitrary assumption about what has not been validated. There is no explanation in terms of the unknown. "Seeking understanding" does not have a "component of faith" like "creationism".

    Richard Feynman, contrary to Shipley, knew that. There was no "clash between the naturalist and the physicist". He famously rejected (for example in the 'bird watching' episode) on principle the notion of just naming things as understanding of what is named. Biologists know better than that, too. Conceptual classification is required throughout our abstract theoretical understanding in an integrated process.

    Efron's article has not been supplanted by MRIs imaging locations of brain activity, the Turing test is a Logical Positivist (philosophical) attempt to reduce human behavior to observed reactions without reference to consciousness -- like Skinner's behaviorism, and complexity of computer algorithms does not explain conscious awareness, let alone man's knowledge and ability (and necessity) to choose to focus his mind for his own purpose.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      Sounds pretty vehement to me, maybe I just have my volume turned up.

      It seems to me that you are insisting that I completely understand the world from subatomic particles to galaxies, to life, intellect and everything and can prove a physical cause before I adopt it as a working hypothesis? And how, pray tell, would this be possible even if it were true? Working out the details would/will take many lifetimes but as long as there is some aspect that is unknown you will cry that "I am just a materialist".

      You on the other hand accept no mantle of proof. You declare consciousness does not arise out of biology because of the very explicit proof that you say so -- and some others do too. You give no evidence that would show that is it not true, in fact you decry the need for evidence. I must prove it does.

      Clearly I can do many things to the physical brain that will affect consciousness. How does this observable fact support the idea that it is independent of the brain?

      And science is not only naturalistic. Chemistry is greatly concerned with creating substances that do not occur in nature based on the understanding of the underlying physical processes. Understanding the physics of atoms helps explain chemical reactions. It works.

      And, yes I did read Efron's article before making the last post. I find that he, like you, seems to rely heavily on declaring someone to be part of a philosophical group and then declaring the group to be invalid rather than actually making a case on the issue.

      I admit, I would really like the mind to be separate from the brain because it gives a lot more room for immortality. I just don't see any evidence for it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        Lecturing us on what chemistry is and that "it works" is not helpful. We all know that. No one said that consciousness is "independent of the brain". Shipley's accusation proclaiming "heavily relying on declaring someone to be part of a philosophical group and then declaring the group to be invalid rather than actually making a case on the issue" is a false, libelous smear completely ignoring what both Efron and I actually wrote, as anyone can read and see for himself. Shipley continues to misrepresent, refuses to address the content of what I write, and substitutes snide insults that do not belong on this forum at all. Discussion with such a person is not possible. He continues to appears to be either unable to follow the discussion or dishonest or both.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 2 weeks ago
    The challenge in creating an artificial intelligence that mirrors the way the human brain operates is to allow rapid autonomous reprogramming of the logic stream. We have only recently discovered that our brains have agent neurons that dynamically reroute neuronal pathways to enable modification of our reaction to a changing environment. What that says is that we have a lot to learn about how WE think before we can actually create a peer android.

    At one time, we thought of the human brain as a single processor system, but when we measured the speed of the electrochemical message transmission at only about 250 mph, we quickly realized that the single processor was wrong. Taking just one function, that of vision processing, it became obvious that the vision center in the brain couldn't interpret raw data fast enough. That led to the discovery that eyesight is the result of serial processing as the information flows down the optic nerve, finishing in the vision center. Even then, the process takes a number of milliseconds, which means we would be seeing images "in the past." That led to the discovery that the vision process is technically prescient, extrapolating information received to predict what the current picture is.

    An AI system doesn't have our limitations nor does it need the incredible "workarounds" we have, like muscle memory, to bypass thinking in order to react. In that sense, an AI being will not emulate us, but will be a unique creation, less complex than we have to be in order to function. That will have an effect on how it chooses to interact with us.

    Should we attempt to instill emotion into AI beings? Pure logic can seem heartless and dangerous in certain circumstances. We have the choice of trying to make AI beings make the same moral choices we would, or have them defer to a human when it determines an emotional/moral choice is to be made.

    I just jumped into this to illustrate that we may be attempting to cross a bridge too far, racing into developing artificial intelligence before we really understand the complexities involved.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    And this points to a future that even an innovator like Galt might have found hard to imagine but would welcome!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 3 weeks ago
      Thanks for posting. It's a discussion we must have. But a discussion that needs a much wider, more integrated and sober view.

      I don't think so IMHO. AI, artificial intelligence, as I define intelligence as: Compartmentalized information. Meaning brain only, no integration, no wisdom; which I observe at this time is the best they will ever do.

      Self Driving cars for some people would be a blessing but has failed time after time...the technological issues are many.

      All of these technologies are Not hardened against EMP's, natural or otherwise, and don't forget about hacking...But to bank them with Human lives is a travesty.

      The makers of Compartmentalized machinery are themselves...Compartmentalized at this point in time; not to mention, transforming humans into what will effectually be a non human, much like what we see coming out of the leftest academia and governments right now,...just another brain in a body only...

      In the wider view, I don't think John Galt would be so impressed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 months, 3 weeks ago
        A wider discussion, for sure. As I say in the podcast, there are many questions concerning when an AI achieves the sort of cognition--integrated, self-aware--that is found in humans. But I see no fundamental reason why such consciousness cannot be manifest in something other than a human brain. After all, our brains developed over millions of years of evolution through natural selection and genetic mutations advantageous to survival. Would such a mind be based on some sort of nanotech-biohacked substance? Will it come about in 100 years? Sooner, with exponential tech advances? I don't know. But I don't see a fundamental reason why not.

        And on self-driving cars, they've been developed with remarkable speed and are quite good, better than many human drivers though not perfect. But I don't doubt they'll be pretty standard on our roads in the not-too-distant future.

        Cheers!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 3 weeks ago
          The discussion on whether AI can duplicate the function of the human mind, including becoming self-aware really depends on whether you have a mechanistic view of the mind or a spiritual one. If our minds are entirely made up of the physical components of neurons etc. and do not have a mystical component such as a "soul" then it is inevitable that we will be able to build hardware that duplicates that function. It is very complex, though.

          I do think that the complexity needed to implement human intelligence is sufficiently high that we won't quickly zoom past human level, that the 'smarter' machine won't instantly design a superhuman intelligence, it will creep up slowly.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            The materialist "mechanistic view of the mind" versus the "spiritual" with a "mystical component" is a false alternative. Conscious awareness is a fact. "Fact" does not imply a materialist philosophy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
              Conscious awareness is a fact. "I think, therefore I am" pretty much does that. But the question is where that consciousness comes from.

              My contention is that if it emerges from our biology, the construction and interconnection of our neurons then it will be eventually replicated.

              The only bar to replicating consciousness would be if it emerges from a non-physical source. Such sources have been called "soul", "spirit", "mind field". It implies that our consciousness does not lie within our biological structures. If this is the case then it's possible it will never be replicated.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is subjectivist primacy of consciousness. He was a rationalist trying to derive existence from his thoughts. So is claiming consciousness vaguely "emerges" from biology in order to rationalize materialism, rationalizing that anything else is "soul","spirit" and "mind field" because it has been "called that", rationalizing that non-materialism implies the 'soul-body' dichotomy' intrinsically prohibiting any connection of consciousness to our physical bodies, and rationalizing that anything other than a materialist premise 'must' be a 'bar' to every replicating consciousness.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                  It's not my contention that anything other than a materialist 'must' be a 'bar' to ever replicating consciousness.

                  Rather my contention is being a materialist guarantees the eventual replication of consciousness. If, on the other hand, you accept non-materialism, then the question remains open. The ability to duplicate something we cannot detect or measure directly is less certain than duplicating complex physical constructs that we can.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                    You wrote that "duplicating the function of the human mind, including becoming self-aware really depends on whether you have a mechanistic view of the mind or a spiritual one". That is a false alternative. Rejecting materialism is not "spiritualist view of the mind".

                    You have promoted materialism here previously. It is a false premise and does not make the success of any science inevitable or possible. Materialism is a philosophical premise, not science. Duplicating the function of the human mind does not "really depend on" a "mechanistic view of the mind".

                    Most modern science does not "measure directly". The kind of indirect measurements required and the inferences possible depend on the nature of the subject. Recognizing consciousness as a fact of awareness, to be studied according to its nature and not subjectively reduced to materialist mechanism (like Watson, Skinner and their behaviorism do), does not mean it "cannot be detected" or that principles and measurement of the kind required cannot be developed in the context of knowledge about both our awareness as fact and the physical functions of the brain. It is not "spiritualism" and does not suffer for not being materialism. There is no mind-body dichotomy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                      Well, I do plead guilty to materialism in that I believe the world is a real, physical place. I would love to believe that our consciousness is separate from our physical body because that allows for immortality without having to make that pesky body keep working. I just find it hard to do so, I guess I'm an agnostic.

                      I think that science has to search for material answers. We don't say that Thor is hammering so we have lightning, we analyze electron flow.

                      We certainly can detect and measure consciousness, but to my knowledge we have yet to do so when there was no physical brain involved which tends to make me believe that it is an artifact of the physical brain. Damage to that brain can clearly reflect in the nature of the consciousness.

                      My original point was not that I believe in a material explanation but that if you do then it follows that consciousness is replicible.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                        Materialism is the doctrine that all of reality is matter, that minds are reducible to the motions of matter in motion. It is contrasted with idealism, which holds that everything is mind. They are a false alternative.

                        Rejecting the fallacy of materialism does not mean that the world is not a physical place. Recognizing that consciousness exists does not mean that it is "separate" from a "pesky body". We have an integrated mind and body. All evidence shows that the mind cannot exist when the brain dies. No evidence shows that everything, including mind, is matter.

                        A science identifies and explains its subject matter in accordance with the nature of the subject matter; it does not reduce everything to "electron flow" in contrast to the false alternative of "Thor hammering". It is not "scientific" to insist that biology and every other science, regardless of its subject matter, reduces to physics and chemistry.

                        It does not "follow" that if you reduce biology and psychology to "material explanation" then consciousness is replicable. If you accept a false materialist premise and insist in faith that science can only reduce everything to matter then you will get nowhere ignoring the nature of the subject matter.

                        You originally wrote that "duplicating the function of the human mind, including becoming self-aware really depends on whether you have a mechanistic view of the mind or a spiritual one". That is false. There is no mind-body dichotomy and objective recognition of consciousness existing as the faculty of awareness is not a "spiritualist view of the mind".
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                          Perhaps I was unclear. The nature of saying if A then B says that if A is true, then B is true. It does not say that A is actually true, just reflects upon the consequences.

                          So I repeat, if you believe that all life is matter (and energy = matter as we know), then I contend that consciousness is inevitably replicable. If you do not believe that all life is matter the question remains open since the A condition is not met.

                          Now my understanding of science is that you start with the premise that all reality is matter and try to determine how that matter creates the reality that we perceive. It might be that the premise is incorrect, but it's hard to do science if you imagine non-materialistic causes for events.

                          The hypothesis that we have an integrated mind and body where the mind is not actually a part of the body is hard to verify. We know that you can have both. We know that you can have a body without a conscious mind. We know that physical changes to the mind via accident, surgery or drugs can have profound effects on the consciousness. These are all strong indicators that consciousness is an attribute of the mind.

                          Do you have any observable evidence for arguing that it is separate -- other than the obvious we don't know how it works yet?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                            Science does not "start with the premise that all reality is matter". That is the false premise of philosophical materialism, as already explained, not science.

                            Science does not "try to determine how that matter creates the reality that we perceive". We perceive reality, not a Kantian phenomenal world inside us, "created" by something we can't perceive. We start by being directly aware of reality. Our senses are not unlimited so we do not directly perceive all aspects of reality, which is why much of modern physics, for example, must make inferences about theoretical entities such as atoms, electrons, etc. It does not mean that we do not perceive reality or that everything is "matter" required to explain everything else. That premise is unwarranted philosophical materialism.

                            Science has also made great progress in explaining how the sense organs work and function: how our perceptions depend on the object perceived, the mechanisms of physically transmitting effects (e.g through light or sound waves), the physical conditions of the medium and surrounding environment, and functions of the brain and nervous system. It does not explain the fundamental fact of awareness as such and does not reduce the mind and psychology to matter.

                            The false "belief that all life is matter" and nothing else does not imply that "consciousness is inevitably replicable". The premise is false and irrelevant, and you have no idea what is "inevitable" about future discoveries. All questions of future discoveries are "open". You do not achieve certainty by adopting false philosophical premises in the name of science, claiming that they are only hypothetical, and rationalistically manipulating modus ponens.

                            There is no mind-body dichotomy. Consciousness is not "separate" from the body. That does not make it reducible to matter..
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                              You seem very confident in your certainty that something other than matter is involved. That's fine lots of people have faith.

                              Yes, you can do analysis of perception and decide the the storms you see are the battles between the gods. As long as you don't have to point to any physical cause you can make up any explanation for the phenomena you perceive.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                                Shipley's sneering non-response has ignored and misrepresented everything I have written. There is no excuse for it. Recognition of conscious awareness as a fundamental fact distinct from inanimate matter is not "faith", imagined "battles between gods", "making up explanations", or a "spiritual view of the mind". He seems, at best, unable to follow the discussion and the repeated misrepresentations are, at worst, dishonest.

                                Conscious awareness is a fundamental fact of reality that cannot be avoided. It is obviously not "matter". It is an observable fact that distinguishes man from inanimate objects. Those who insist that consciousness is nothing but matter, attempting to reduce every science to the laws of physics as a matter of a priori principle -- as if no other science with different subject matter (like biology or psychology) were possible -- do so on faith in a false philosophical premise of materialism. That is not science despite the rhetoric masquerading in the name of science -- including the misrepresentations of the actual science and meaning of physics and the rhetoric smearing as "spiritual" anyone who rejects philosophical materialism, in the usual false alternative of the mind-body dichotomy..

                                For those who do want to understand these issues in more detail and who recognize the meaning of the axiom of consciousness in Ayn Rand's philosophy can read her essay "The Stimulus and the Response", on the philosophy of B.F. Skinner's behaviorism, in Philosophy Who Needs It, and Robert Efron's article "Biology without Consciousness", on biological reductionism and the philosophical fallacies behind it, in The Objectivist Feb-May 1968. The evolution of philosophical materialism as one thread in the history of philosophy can be found in histories of philosophy, including Leonard Peikoff's lecture course.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                                  Thanks for sending me off to read Biology without Consciousness. It helps me understand where you are coming from and the vehemence with which you espouse the theory. Philosophical writers have a tendency to treat other theories with scorn that may not be as common in other fields.

                                  I would have to place myself clearly in the category of soft reductionist. I agree that there may be some phenomena which does not reduce to physics, but am proceeding on the presumption that this will have to be proven and not simply assumed. And, as Efron points out there is no limit on how long this process should be allowed to proceed.

                                  As to science, it seems to me that there are two approaches to science which both have their value.

                                  One is in the identification, classification and measurement of objects and phenomena. This is the naturalist view of the world. The scientist endeavors to produce of catalog of what exists and what it does.

                                  The other is is in the determination of how these objects and phenomena happen, what are the causes and effects, with the presumption, faith if you would call it, that complete understanding of things down to the lowest components will be determined.

                                  An interesting example of the two differences came when Dr. Richard Feynman took a 'sabbatical' from Physics. He had done some studies on rat muscles and was giving a talk to biologists. He started by naming the muscles and was interrupted by the audience who said "we know all that" He was astonished that they would trouble to learn the names of all the muscles. This was a clash between the naturalist and the physicist.

                                  Now you could take the view that the naturalist view of science is the only valid one. That we can only validly look at what exists, classify it, and determine the character of its actions; that we can not reduce those actions to simpler causes. This is the "What hath God Wrought" school. It looks at existence without solving the problem of creation.

                                  When you look at the problem of creation, of what is the source of the natural world then there is a component of faith that such a source actually exists and can be identified and understood. Unlike observable phenomena, underlying causes are less evident. While there is much to understand, this process has yielded a vast degree of success where phenomena that were previously understood via the naturalistic approach have been identified as chemical processes, and as Efron comments with scorn, chemical processes reduced to physics. It works. The more we study these things the more we understand them. And we’ve learned a lot since the 1960s.

                                  But we may one day fail. We may find phenomena with no physical cause. Nevertheless, unless we are going to limit ourselves to the naturalistic approach and simply observe and classify, we have to have a tool for analysis and that tool is the expectation that there are identifiable causes. Anytime you seek understanding there is a component of faith that understanding is possible.

                                  Now we move to consciousness and the mind. In the intervening years since the cited essays our understanding of the mind its link to consciousness has continued, through experiments with brain stimulation, much deeper understanding of the chemistry and how conscious processes can be chemically effected. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is increasingly able to tie conscious activity to electrical processes in the brain. Understanding of consciousness in the 1960s was mostly a matter of observation. Increasingly we can “get under the hood”.

                                  How could consciousness arise from inanimate matter? That's, of course the big question. My answer, and other's as well, is complexity.

                                  I've spent the last 50 years working with computer programming. Developing software starts with very simple functions and building more complex ones. Then building more complex ones on top of those, this process can continue without limit.

                                  But it's still just following set rules, isn't it? Yes and no. Back in the 1970's I spent a couple of weeks working on a simple chess playing program. It was primitive by the standards of the day, let alone today. It was easy to beat. But it was hard to beat by trying to predict the result of the algorithms, they were too complex. You had to play chess to win. The ability to build a device that that level of unpredictability so easily gave me a glimpse of what could be done if you increase the complexity by many orders of magnitude. As the algorithms become increasingly complex the ability to predict outcomes increases. And we actually put great effort into deliberately making our constructions predictable. But that’s slipping away.

                                  We are on the edge of passing the Turing test, introduced in 1950 which set a level for artificial intelligence that it could interact with a human and the human couldn't tell the difference. Would it be conscious? Now we are back to the problem of whether we are more than simply complex algorithms running on vastly parallel processors. It there is no way for an observer to detect a difference, does a difference exist?
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • ewv replied 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          • Posted by 5 months, 3 weeks ago
            The point made above by olduglycarl about compartmentalization is important here. A self-conscious mind or one with volition (a difficult concept, I know) must be integrated, not just isolated sub-units. Pinker in his discussion of mind speaks of modules that are, ultimately, integrated. AI researchers appreciate this issue.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 3 weeks ago
              I was addressing the question of the limits of AI, not the techniques. My view is that if we consider human intelligence a mechanistic process, no matter how complex the mechanism, it will be eventually duplicated and probably improved upon.

              Certainly there is a need for highly integrated processing. There does seem to be the use of relatively complex sub-units such as neurons which fire based on detecting specific patterns.

              It does seem like the brain deals with data that's summarized at the sensory level rather than a fire-hose of stimulation.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 3 weeks ago
            It's been shown that the neurons are compartmentalized. A new one must be engaged for even slightly different conditions. It's either A or B; no combination or anything inbetween., Proving, in my view, that the brain itself can only hold compartmentalized information.

            Unicameral, left and right brain synchronization seems to be the key that leads to the mind which doesn't seem to be "in" your head.

            I shy away from spirits and souls thus far because they are unseen and unmeasurable concepts, whereas the Mind field can be measured...one day soon we will see the minds interaction with the quantum field and the brain decoding that interaction.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 5 months, 3 weeks ago
          I just hope these cars are not forced upon everyone and that they have safety features that one can take control when they fail...and they will fail if not electronically hardened.

          The best AI can achieve is an imitation of conscious awareness...kind of like a super ego but I can't see it obtaining a independent identity recognizable within the quantum field.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 months, 3 weeks ago
    First I must say this tech and discussion is seriously fascinating to me, the stuff of science fiction (emerging reality).

    Skynet
    Christine
    Maximum Overdrive

    Caution dictates that when you construct something based solely on logic, reason and experience and grant it peer or superior status over yourself that you run the risk of growing obsolete, less than useful OR something's thermal battery.

    Very interesting broadcast.

    Side note: In Tempe Az testing was suspended because the Car did not see a woman crossing in the middle of the road...the vehicle had a driver who wasn't paying attention and it plainly did not see her. Tech should see and track everything around it regardless of trees, fog, buildings, smoke and other vehicles yet it clearly didn't and never even slowed down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 2 weeks ago
      The media isn't telling the whole story about the Arizona incident. The woman had a significant drug level in her system, which probably led her to make the very poor decision to cross the road nowhere near a crosswalk. The car's sensors did detect her, but only about one second before she was hit. It was very likely that she would have still been hit, even if the car's emergency braking had not been disabled. Darwinism in action.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 months, 2 weeks ago
        She could have been plastered and it would not be acceptable. What the point of having AI if its not to extend mans senses to make things safer? Intoxicated or not it should have at least hit the brakes the moment it detected her action. The video shows it should have detected her and prepared by at least slowing out of caution.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTXd5...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 months, 2 weeks ago
          It was a human failure. The automated braking had been turned off, and the "safety" driver was too busy with her smartphone to do what she was there for. If the users had allowed the machine to do what it was designed to do, the victim would have had a chance of survival.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 months, 2 weeks ago
            Well that makes absolutely no sense. Even so, was any attempt to avoid the woman made? No. As mentioned before AI should be tracking and plotting courses for contacts well before they intersect. Even if the braking was turned off (makes absolutely no sense) the AI still should have seen a walking person with ample enough time to avoid collision. To AI normal visual detriments do not apply.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
              I can't figure out what anyone would find objectionable about your comment. +1
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                On reason could be that It is speculatively oblivious to the facts. Guessing from what he thinks it "should be" doing to claim it "makes no sense" is irrelevant. There are no autonomously self-driving cars intended to operate independently of a driver yet. The driver wasn't watching where she was going, did not see the victim suddenly appear out of the dark in time to do anything, and had reportedly turned off the automatic braking. The technical report on the actual configuration, it's limitations, and what else may have gone wrong, including discrimination between a bicycle and normal traffic, has not yet been released. Most of us would like to know, we don't pronounce that it "makes absolutely no sense" in a vacuum, subjectively based on what we proclaim "should be". This accident has been discussed at length previously on this forum.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                  It doesn't make sense to turn off the automatic braking while testing a self-driving car and avoidance is an important algorithm.

                  His comments were valid. Yes, further facts may emerge but is it objectionable to comment on what we do know. Must all discussion wait for the "official report"?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 5 months, 2 weeks ago
                    It was reported, so far, that she turned it off. Ashinoff said that DrZarkov99's report of that potential human failure and the accident itself doesn't make any sense. Ashinoff doesn't know anything about the system or what actually happened with its operation, confusing the high resolution short time span real time discriminations in complex environments and automatic immediate responses with radar detecting large objects 25 miles away at sea.

                    Understanding what actually happened technically with this system in the circumstances of the accident and what the driver actually did is what the investigation is for and what rational people wait for to find out what happened. One thing it might tell us is whether or not there was an algorithm design failure versus an inability of the sensor systems to discriminate in that kind of environment in a particular circumstance.

                    Such knowledge is not obtained by speculating in a vacuum of knowledge based on what he thinks "should" have happened and declaring in advance that it makes no sense. Everyone knows that the sensor system together with the requirements for the driver to remain focused are generally expected to avoid a collision. The question is why it did not. Vacuous pronouncements with claims that it "makes no sense" are not a substitute and not a comment on "what we do know".
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 months, 2 weeks ago
              So much for rational conversation, I guess. Honestly, even if the action were futile a human would have hit the break or attempted to swerve. I would expect no less from AI with its enhanced ability to detect and track objects that could come into its path. Even with the braking disabled the vehicle could have slowed as it approached sensing something moving on a much slower on intercept course (she was walking her bike).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 months, 3 weeks ago
      y the way, I think I mentioned in the podcast the problems in AZ. But I suspect it's really just a matter of time and perfecting the technology that will have driverless vehicles on the road as a regular thing!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 months, 3 weeks ago
        Agreed. I do think their use will be inevitable in time. Still, this was all over local news here, it, the AI, should have detected and tracked that woman, determining her course, long before it struck her. Most bothersome was that it never slowed even when she was in in line of sight. The driver, confident in the computer, wasn't paying attention. A woman is dead,
        In the Navy our ships tracked dozens of contacts from miles away, ensuring ample time to adjust course. While 25-50 miles of discovery and tracking in any direction isn't necessary, surely 300 yards of detection and tracking should be easily doable.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo