[Skynet]

Brain Cells learn faster to play pong then state of the art AI-chips.

I can understand researchers do such experiments to create brain-computer interfaces but where is the red line???

Baby Brains in PCs ?


Where is your red line?

[late]

When my IQ gets to about 2,000.

[Puffer Fish]

Baby Brains in PCs ?

There certainly are plenty of aborted babies to harvest.

[Wellsy]

Interesting as there is the claim that AI researchers have been negligent jn their replication of the brain.

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/30/why-artificial-intelligence-research-might-be-going-down-a-dead-end/

Relatedly, Colin Hales, an artificial intelligence researcher at the University of Melbourne, has observed how strange it is that AI scientists have not yet tried to create an artificial brain in the same way other scientists have made artificial hearts, stomachs, or livers. Instead, AI researchers have created theoretical models of neuron patterns without their corresponding physics. It is as if instead of building airplanes, AI researchers are designing flight simulators that never leave the ground, Hales says.

This does go a step further than Neuromimetics in at using brain cells rather than simulating the brains processes.

[Saeko]

What makes you think there even is a red line?

[Rancid]

What makes you think there even is a red line?

Exactly, so long as there is money to make, or people to enslave with technology, we will always push forward towards our technological based demise.

[late]

Interesting as there is the claim that AI researchers have been negligent jn their replication of the brain.

Long story short, they can't.

What they can imitate they've been working on for decades.

[Potemkin]

Exactly, so long as there is money to make, or people to enslave with technology, we will always push forward towards our technological based demise.

[Rancid]

Creepy.

[Potemkin]

The future will contain hells beyond imagining.

[late]

The future will contain hells beyond imagining.

Ahh!

So it will be just like the past?

[Rancid]

Ahh!

So it will be just like the past?

I think we will realize we didn't know what hell was.

[Potemkin]

Ahh!

So it will be just like the past?

No. It will not at all be like the past.

[late]

No. It will not at all be like the past.

One of the things I love about The Expanse is they blunder from crisis to crisis, each one worse than the last.

But they eventually find a way to get through it.

[Potemkin]

One of the things I love about The Expanse is they blunder from crisis to crisis, each one worse than the last.

But they eventually find a way to get through it.

It's nice to imagine that our fat will always be pulled from the fire at the last moment by some hero. But reality seldom works out like that....

[late]

It's nice to imagine that our fat will always be pulled from the fire at the last moment by some hero. But reality seldom works out like that....

In one of the books, Earth is attacked, and over 20 billion are killed. Usually it's the entire human race that's threatened.

Perversely, I find that reassuring.

"Nature is always recovering from the last disaster." The Expanse..

Dr Okoye was talking about a war; not just nature.

[Wellsy]

Long story short, they can't.

What they can imitate they've been working on for decades.

Well I somewhat resonate somewhat of the notion that in even trying to replicate the brain, that the difficulty of consciousness won't be limited to it's physical parts alone. There is perhaps still great strides to be made in which AI can take over the monotonous and routine with some adaptability but still a long way from human consciousness and it's adaptability.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/les-treilles-talk.htm

3. The brain does not ‘cause’ consciousness. A working brain is the essential pre-condition for consciousness, but how do we move from possibility to realised possibility?

If we consider a system from the point of view of how a given possibility can be realised, we hypothetically insert ourselves into the system in question, asking what intervention is needed to realise the relevant possibility. ‘Cause’ can be understood in a practical way only by this kind of thought-experiment. To say that something is a cause is to point to how a given possibility could be realised by a hypothetical intervention in a system. To say that consciousness is caused by the brain is to say that an intervention in the nervous system can bring consciousness into being. As John Searle has pointed out, such interventions can be shown only to change consciousness, but not to bring it into being.

From the phylogenetic point of view, Merlin Donald and others before him have shown convincingly that it was development of culture and behaviour, which introduced consciousness into a pre-human hominid species, not the other way around.

The ontogenetic evidence is that under all but the most adverse conditions, human infants with healthy brains will develop language and consciousness. However, no answer has yet been given as to how consciousness could be introduced into living tissue which was not already capable of consciousness. Thus, the ‘cause’ of consciousness has no coherent meaning in the ontogenetic context.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/phylogeny.htm

Extended Mind
The key concept which comes out of at the end of Donald’s enquiry is the concept of ‘extended mind’ – the combination of material artefacts and mnemonic and computational devices with the internal cognitive apparatus of human beings who have been raised in the practice of using them. Human physiology, behaviour and consciousness cannot be reproduced by individual human beings alone; we are reliant for our every action on the world of artefacts, with its own intricate inherent system of relations. Theory is the ideal form of the structure of material culture. Every thought, memory, problem solution or communication, is effected by the mobilisation of the internal mind of individuals, and the external mind contained within human culture. Taken together, the internal and external mind is called ‘extended mind’. This is what Hegel called Geist, an entity in which the division between subjectivity and objectivity is relative and not absolute.

Humans are animals which have learnt to build and mobilise an extended mind. This has proved to be a powerful adaption. Individuals in this species stand in quite a different relation to the world around them than the individuals of any other extant species.

https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/the-philosophical-disability-of-reason

As Ilyenkov often repeats, philosophical and dialectical phenomena are spiral-like or snowball-like – constantly on the move and hence indiscrete as selves. The common good, labour, reason or culture are, as such, not autopoetic, but realise themselves as ‘other-determined non-selves’. Autopoiesis implies that the organism remains the self, even in the surrounding of an environmental outside and in exchange with it, whereas the above-listed phenomena – common good, labour, reason, culture – presuppose one’s positing as non-selves. ’The other self’ in this case is not simply an outside of the self, but the formative principle of the self as of the non-self, of non-identity. From this perspective, it is impossible to algorithmicise thought, since thinking is not confined to the moves in a neural network, or within the brain alone, but evolves externally including the body with its senses, its involvement in activity, engagement in sociality, and other human beings of all generations and locations. Consequently, if one were to emulate an artificial intelligence or thought digitally, one would have to create an entire machinic civilisation (one that would, additionally, be completely autonomous and independent from the human one). 35

[Rugoz]

This is pointless.

We cannot build brains or rather biological neural networks effectively (to my knowledge) and they would be limited by their biology.

[Negotiator]

Okay.

I dont get whats the problem with braincells in computers, other than the trouble to keep them alife and well.

You DO know that there is this thing called animal and that theres a LOT of them and that they have perfectly workable braincells, too ?

We humans dont even have the largest or heaviest brain on the planet. Not even CLOSE. IIRC we're spot #4 ? After sperm whale, elephant, and dolphin.