Register to reply

Quantum thoughts

by illism
Tags: quantum
Share this thread:
ZapperZ
#19
Sep15-10, 07:52 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
Quote Quote by arkajad View Post
What you know, need not be the same as what other people know. What you do not want to fund - other people may want, and may be even funding right now, without you knowing it. It was always like that.
I'm sure that's the same argument those people who poured money into the Blacklight Power company is saying. People will pour money into dubious claims all the time.

What I described isn't what *I* know, but what is now generally the state of knowledge in that field. It doesn't mean it isn't going to change, but this is what it is now.

This is totally off topic. The OP isn't asking for such things.

If you have evidence that there are effects related to brain functions that can be explained only using QM, then show references to address the OP's question. Till then, this is idle speculation.

Zz.
DevilsAvocado
#20
Sep15-10, 01:05 PM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662
Quote Quote by ThePhysicsGuy View Post
Read Jeff Hawkins' book "On Intelligence". It covers many of those points.
Jeff Hawkins is a very smart guy, and I loved my Palm Pilot, which is still around in a drawer somewhere. And I think he has a much more realistic approach to AI than the Blue Brain Project:
Jeff Hawkins - On Intelligence

Can computers be intelligent?

For decades, scientists in the field of artificial intelligence have claimed that computers will be intelligent when they are powerful enough. I don't think so, and I will explain why. Brains and computers do fundamentally different things.

Weren't neural networks supposed to lead to intelligent machines?

Of course the brain is made from a network of neurons, but without first understanding what the brain does, simple neural networks will be no more successful at creating intelligent machines than computer programs have been.
This is what my silly "layman intuition" told me years ago, and it feels comforting that a much smarter guy has come to exactly the same conclusion.

Iíve skimmed through the paper and Hawkins main 'tools' are patterns and the memory‑prediction framework. To me, this looks like the right way to advance, especially when it comes to visualization. Pattern recognition has been around for awhile and seems to work just fine.



But then Iím not following Hawkins. All the wonderful things humans are capable of is just a result of a very big and "multi-connected" memory? And all that is human is predictions out of this memory??

Iím not buying this.

Also Hawkins makes it very easy for himself by stating consciousness doesnít exist, itís just a "magical sauce" that one pour over a brain made of cells...? Consciousness is just memories and Hawkins "don't feel anything special is going on"...?

I would love to hear Hawkins having a discussion with his wife about when they made love for the first time, and repeat this statement!! (= divorce? )

I think we can all agree that consciousness is something that is happening now, the subjective experience of being. There are people who had tragic accidence and lost all their short-term memory Ė if they go out to buy milk, they donít remember the way home. I donít think we can call these persons zombies without consciousness.

When it comes to qualia, Hawkins has no clue.

According to Hawkins, all we need is 8 TB (terabyte) of memory and a connectivity that reproduce that of a neuron that may connect to five or ten thousand other cells, and this can be achieved by small number of high-capacity "lines".

Then what?

I can buy eight 1TB HDD tomorrow and start simulating the multi-connect wiring. Is there anyone who thinks this stuff is going to emulate a human brain in the very near future??

I donít. Hawkins is probably on the right track, but there must be a lot more to figure out what the human brain does whit this large and multi-connected memory.

If anyone is interested in the paper, Google: Hawkins, Jeff - On Intelligence(UC)

And hereís a 20 min video from TED going thru the main idea:



(The thing that made me "jump" was when Hawkins at 20:03 says: "In the same way, this is like the fu*king brain science and these memories are going to be very fundamental technology" ... fu*king brain science!? )

Quote Quote by ThePhysicsGuy View Post
Lastly, I would also add that I think some of those points are simply imaginary (creations of the imagination).
Maybe so, but to me creations of the imagination is just what the human brain is all about.

Quote Quote by ThePhysicsGuy View Post
Human level AI is coming.
So they say, for 30 years now.

Quote Quote by ThePhysicsGuy View Post
And it's coming very soon.
This has also been the case for 30 years.

Quote Quote by ThePhysicsGuy View Post
So we'd better start accepting this and considering its implications, while we still have time.
Agree.
Galap
#21
Sep18-10, 07:18 PM
P: 137
Quote Quote by mrspeedybob View Post
I have a hard time accepting the idea of the brain as just a sort of computation device be it classical or quantum.

I am conscious, a light switch is not. putting 2 light switches together doesn't make them any more conscious then a single light switch. a million switches, a billion switches, or a trillion switches still don't make the leap from a thing, just following deterministic (or quantum) laws, to a consciousness.
I'd warn you to wait until we create an artificial conscious being before you start jumping do conclusions like that. We aren't quite sure how to do it, so who's to say that a trillion switches couldn't be conscious?

A machine can take measurements, process data, and produce an output. This is different then a living being experiencing something, contemplating it, and making a decision. It doesn't matter how sophisticated the machine.
You're a human, not a measuring machine. We have no real reason to believe that such devices don't have a consciousness of sorts, or at least something maybe a little similar. Do remember that consciousness sees to be a 'more or less' type of thing rather than an 'either or'. take animals and the like for example, or different states of consciousness that you experience throughout life.

I just think there is something metaphysical about consciousness. I don't know that, but that is what I think.

Edit: I type too slow. DevilsAvacado said the same thing first and better.
I think the problem here essentially comes from the fact that people treat consciousness as a pure thing, a pure state. that the line between the 'I' and the 'not-I' is sharp. it only takes good self diagnostics to realize that you are a composite, that there is really no 'consciousness', just the union of different elements. for example, tonight when you go to sleep, pay attention to what happens. you think about stuff for a few minutes, but then you kind of start to go wierd, hard to concentrate, random thoughts, nonsensical thought lines. things just get more and more messed up until eventually you feel your 'consciousness' essentially self destruct, different parts doing different things. in deep sleep all you feel is this kind of swirling or pulsating. not consciousness at all, but still some sort of 'first person experience'. this is what i imagine machines or simpler animals experience.

once i was badly poisoned by carbon monoxide. It does very strange things to your 'consciousness'. i can't really explain them due to the flaws of language, but they did clearly show to me that consciousness is a sliding scale, and multivariate, rather than being a binary 'yes or no' type of thing. so if it's not really a special state, why label it as such?
Slidingby
#22
Sep19-10, 01:30 AM
P: 5
Quote Quote by mrspeedybob View Post
A machine can take measurements, process data, and produce an output. This is different then a living being experiencing something, contemplating it, and making a decision. It doesn't matter how sophisticated the machine.
I think it's funny that so many people refuse to accept that we are just sophisticated biological machines. It might have taken millions of years to diverge from our ancestors and develop into what we are today but as we understand more and more about what we are on the physical level, why would it not be possible to create an artificial being that marvels at the complexity and mystery of the world and has dynamic patterns of thinking? I think it's possible and I think that I will see this before I die (assuming I live to be [at least] 80 years old)..


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Published paper in hep-th claims to solve quantum gravity & other problems. Thoughts? Beyond the Standard Model 4
Quantum Tunneling - some silly thoughts Quantum Physics 3
Quantum thoughts Quantum Physics 5
My Thoughts on Quantum Uncertainty Beyond the Standard Model 2
More thoughts on quantum eraser experiments Quantum Physics 3