Artificial Intelligence

Hamun

後輩
Joined
13 Oct 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I think this idea's value can find place here

. People I think it is possible
. An artificial brain to be made and rest is simple


. It is assumed that the brain is very complex, but according to me it is not such a difficult device to be made, the heart is just a pump.
What does the brain do, what comes to my mind is:



1) By its senses perceives the environment and reacts according to its knowledge
2) Regulates functions of the human body organs3)Process the information it has
3) Processes the information it has
4) Collects information by its senses
5) Remembers
The available technologies, I think, already are capable of achieving this.
I am not a programmer, an electric engineer or a medic, or any other profession, just like other people
Collect and associate things
It will not be a robot, just healthy and immortal J
I hope I have not wrote many fantastic things
 
What is actually self-aware?
What does it do?
Isn't it just another of the philosophical confusions?
 
I agree with Roland, that is a very important trait of a brain, the unfortunate thing is we can never be sure if something is truly self aware, because of the "I think therefor I am" dilemma. Though you may not want to admit it, we can not truly be sure that computers are not already self aware even, and if we create them to be self aware, we cannot be sure they actually are.

You may be able to create a program that remembers everything it has done, and sensed, or even the things that have happened to it, and act in a logical manner based on those memories, But one of the wonders of a brain is its ability to think illogically, and to have a personality that is not monotonous, and can change through self reflection.

Another big thing that makes the brain so hard to simulate is creativity. Some people may be more creative than others but a some point in most everyones life, they have some kind of innovative thought. A program is not capable of original thinking. You can sometimes simulate original thought with a database of unoriginal thoughts that can be combined using an algorithm to pick certaint pieces at random. but in the end someone had to think of these ideas to give the program, even if they were all original ideas of the programmer.

I ams sure there are other things that make the brain hard to simulate, however I feel I explained thoroughly enough for now, if think of anything else I will be sure to mention it.
 
Can not understand why people do not understand how important it is
and think they do not believe it is possible.

The heart is just a pump (by funcionallity and instead of millions of cells
(we still do not know how to produce them)which build the heart, ,we can use some of the materials we know-plastic etc.,and this material will endure much more),so what will
be the problem with recreating the brain.

Creativity can be learned,it is just various of approaches to a problem.
 
The heart is just a pump (by funcionallity and instead of millions of cells
(we still do not know how to produce them)which build the heart, ,we can use some of the materials we know-plastic etc.,and this material will endure much more),so what will
be the problem with recreating the brain.

I do not believe the problem is physically creating a brain, but rather how the brain thinks.

Creativity can be learned,it is just various of approaches to a problem.

Your statement is true to an extent, things with the capacity for creativity can learn creativity. Computers however, as far as we can tell, do not have a capacity for creativity, as they can only think what has been programed into them.

The other problem, of sentience, is much more complex. The reason for this is the only way you can know whether or not you are sentient is if you are sentient. Also, being that you can only think your thoughts, and nothing else, this means that you can only be sure that you think, as you have no evidence of any other thought having taken place anywhere at any time.
Also, seeing has how you cannot prove something does not have sentience, there is not scientific test for sentience.
 
guys , nice topic , .
i want to say something but please don't laugh at me
i heard that the brain save the memories and the events of the day , but the heart thinking and do all other things

eyes see , brain Save , heart think .


please see this link
 
guys , nice topic , .
i want to say something but please don't laugh at me
i heard that the brain save the memories and the events of the day , but the heart thinking and do all other things
eyes see , brain Save , heart think .
please see this link

Many people still do believe that people think with there heart. However this has been disproven with science, all thinking occurs in the brain. Also, as Hamun said, it is possible for humans to make artificial hearts. Some people have had their entire heart replaced with an artificial one, and still there have never been reports of major personality changes in these people.
 
About the people with transplanted
hearts I have heard their personalty
has been changed.Their personality
has gotten closer to one of the donor-
in some cases it is like putting engine
from an ordinary old car to a sport one
it changes its "abilities" and from this
is changed its "behaviour"-driver's
behaviour.
As far as I know, heart reaction is a
result of what someone has sensed
and how the brain interprete this
signals and tunes the body to meet
with the sensed situation.

Thank you about the artical, I shall
think about it.
 
Last edited:
Hamun said:
As far as I know, heart reaction is a
result of what someone has sensed
and how the brain interprete this
signals and tunes the body to meet
with the sensed situation.
This is the closest answer to reality and scince.
 
1st Article
http://www.lostartsofthemind.com/2006/11/can-your-heart-think-and-feel.html

2nd
http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/StudentJournal/volume2/kate.pdf

3rd
http://www.ikosmos.com/wisdomeditions/essays/mw/bennett01.htm

Lots more. Its being debate before, because its becoming mockery that Quran said heart can reasoning, they related it with an early Aristotelian theory which heart function the cognitive, and brain only as a cooler. According to this ayah :

Al-Quran022:046] Have they not moved about in the land? They are endowed with hearts to reason, and the ears to hear. Indeed, their eyes are not sightless. Rather, what is blind are their hearts within their chests.

Now its becoming hot topic, they even try to add another branches in the discipline because of the discovery.

Im not responding it, because im dont want to appear preaching and stimulate debate. But they found it. Good for them.

Continue, i will not brother.

Note : Yes Quran said heart have contribution, but it's doesnt state that brain appear only as a cooler as Aristotole did. Both may take some portion of the cake to contribute with cognitive, afection or psychomotoric activity.
 
Last edited:
Hope we discuss threads like this one without religious views because...you know what i mean :)
 
Please disclose evidence or proof in support of the claim that the donee begins to behave like the donor. Even with my very limited knowledge of medicine, it seems like bollocks created through false accounts and self-deception.
 
About the people with transplanted
hearts I have heard their personalty
has been changed.Their personality
has gotten closer to one of the donor-
in some cases it is like putting engine
from an ordinary old car to a sport one
it changes its "abilities" and from this
is changed its "behaviour"-driver's
behaviour.
As far as I know, heart reaction is a
result of what someone has sensed
and how the brain interprete this
signals and tunes the body to meet
with the sensed situation.
Thank you about the artical, I shall
think about it.

So that would mean that people with artificial, mechanical hearts will act like robots?

The ancient Egyptians also believed the heart was the center of personality and thinking. Their reasoning was based on the fact that the heart beats faster when we are emotionally aroused. So, when preparing mummies, they carefully removed the heart and preserved it in a jar.

They thought the brain was just useless gunk, so they used a hook through the nose to draw out the brain, and threw it away.

Can you imagine all those Egyptians roaming the other world, brainless and unthinking?
 
It always amazes me how people can so easily call something bollocks or bullsh*t without first checking it out for themselves as it is so easily done these days with search engines.

Derfel said:
Please disclose evidence or proof in support of the claim that the donee begins to behave like the donor. Even with my very limited knowledge of medicine, it seems like bollocks created through false accounts and self-deception.

Here's a few:

This is an amazing story and one you should read.

Woman craves beer after heart transplant from young man.

There is a phenomenon that sometimes occurs when a person gets an organ from another person. It is something a little spooky and a little strange…

Remarkable Organ Donation Stories

And here is forum discussing the subject

It has happened and is documented in medical journals. If you care to find more "evidence", please look it up yourself before you claim something is bollocks. You can call it self-deception, but why would someone do something so against their nature and personality before the transplant?
 
Some reasoning

"There are 40,000 nerve cells in the heart as well as neurotransmitters such as noradrenaline and dopamine (known emotional mediators), that the heart synthesizes and releases. "With every beat of the heart, a burst of neural activity is relayed to the brain," Martin explains. "The heart senses hormonal, [heart] rate and pressure information, translates it into neurological impulses and processes this information."
- Pam Montgomery

other...

Completely independently of such heart transplant experiences, Dr Andrew Armour Ph.D. is a heart specialist who had noticed the presence of neurons in the heart – he noted a sophisticated collection of these and learned that the heart contains a complex nervous system of its own. He soon realised that there is a more intimate connection between the heart and brain than had previously been known or understood. Indeed, the doctor claims that the heart actually sends more information to the brain than the other way around! Dr Armour has written a pamphlet called, Anatomical and Functional Principles. His publisher makes the following comment about this writing:

'Groundbreaking research in the field of neurocardiology has established that the heart is a sensory organ and a sophisticated information encoding and processing center, with an extensive intrinsic nervous system sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "heart brain" .... Armour discusses intriguing data documenting the complex neuronal processing and memory capabilities of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system, indicating that the heart brain can process information and make decisions about its control independent of the central nervous system. By providing an understanding of the elaborate anatomy and physiology of the cardiac nervous system, this monograph contributes to the newly emerging view of the heart as a complex, self-organized system that maintains a continuous two-way dialogue with the brain and the rest of the body.(source: http://www.heartmath.org/research/e-books/index.html)

Professor Paul Pearsall Ph.D. has also made a contribution to the new discussion of the intelligence of the human heart. After interviewing nearly 150 heart and other organ transplant recipients, Pearsall proposed the once staggering concept that cells of living tissue could have the capacity to remember.
"...Paul Pearsall is one of many researchers who has observed that transplant patients who receive an organ from another person's body may also receive much more -- what he calls their "cellular memories." Recipients have reported inheriting everything from the donor's food cravings to knowledge about his murderer -- information that in one case led to the killer's arrest. As a result of these and other researchers' findings, Pearsall is now convinced that the heart has its own form of intelligence, that we are only rarely aware of in modern life. In his view, the heart processes information about the body and the outside world through an "info-energetic code" -- a profuse network of blood vessels and cells that serves not only as our circulatory system but as an energy information gathering and distribution system, much like a complex telephone network. What's more, he believes that the soul, at least in part, is a set of cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. Predictably, such views have met with opposition in the medical world. But in his view, the implications of his theories -- that the heart "thinks," cells remember, and communication can therefore transcend the boundaries of time and space -- are too important for him to dismiss."

Of course, much of mainstream science remains sceptical about the newly discovered powerful links between the brain and the heart. Why is this? This is largely because mainstream science mostly works through a system of theories which have been proposed, whereas this new line of research has mostly (though not entirely) come about because of the sudden production of enormous and unanticipated evidence from recipients of donated organs. Despite this, more scientists are regularly joining this exciting new area of research and even Britain's foremost heart transplant doctor, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub (in the televised channel 4 programme), while being guarded in his comments, nevertheless welcomed the new area of research, although, of course, the professor is typical of a long line of heart specialists who have only seen the human heart as a pumper of blood.

However, the extensive research of Armour and others show that there can now be no going back – we can all now state quite dogmatically that the relationship between the heart and brain has been hugely underestimated and that the heart contains more brain-like capacities than anyone would have thought just a very few years ago. There is an inter-change between heart and brain with the brain actually receiving more information from the heart than vice versa. No one would have believed this only 5-10 years ago! Armour's separate and unassociated area of research to the 'transplanted memory' phenomenon has shown that there is no biological reason why the heart cannot store memories, thoughts and passions.

This means that the biblical concept that the heart is the seat of one's soul , intellect and character can no longer be taken as a purely poetic/romantic writing idiom.
Robin A. Brace, 2006.
 
"It has happened and is documented in medical journals. If you care to find more "evidence", please look it up yourself before you claim something is bollocks. You can call it self-deception, but why would someone do something so against their nature and personality before the transplant?"

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question. Maybe you should ask why the behavior of some transplant recipients has changed.

And there are other questions, too. Like, is the behavior-change phenomenon present in all or most organ recipients, or just in a tiny minority?

If you gather enough good data, perhaps you can start formulating an answer to the first question. Come up with a theory of causation, and figure out good ways to test your theory. You can't prove your hypothesis with anecdotal evidence.

You'll have other possible causes to isolate and eliminate in your testing. For instance, perhaps there are certain hormonal changes resulting from the operation. It's well-established that hormones alter behavior.

Your anecdotes don't convince me, sorry. Show us some reputable articles or some sound, peer-reviewed work. If there were anything to your theory, methinks, such work should be easy to find.
 
It always amazes me how people can so easily call something bollocks or bullsh*t without first checking it out for themselves as it is so easily done these days with search engines.



Here's a few:

This is an amazing story and one you should read.

Woman craves beer after heart transplant from young man.

There is a phenomenon that sometimes occurs when a person gets an organ from another person. It is something a little spooky and a little strangeツ…

Remarkable Organ Donation Stories

And here is forum discussing the subject

It has happened and is documented in medical journals. If you care to find more "evidence", please look it up yourself before you claim something is bollocks. You can call it self-deception, but why would someone do something so against their nature and personality before the transplant?

I would have to agree with Roland. Your first source is an article from the Daily Mail with a woman claiming to have noticed these changes in her behaviour. She was a dancer, not a medical practitioner and it is an article dealing with her views.

Your second source, too, is a very casually written article with no references to medical literature.

The third one is a forum, which puzzles me, as I really don't want to think of forums as convincing sources of information in their own right. It doesn't boost the credibility of the thread that some people are going on about spirits and so on and that most comments are very short in length and contain no references.

It is not for me to argue your point. If you maintain that the donee can take on characteristics of the donor, it is for you to establish that your claim is true.

Medicine is a very sophisticated field and especially matters relating to behaviour and thus to the brain to a great extent. It really isn't a field where laymen, such as the dancer in the first article, can draw persuasive conclusions from what they observe.
 
And there are other questions, too. Like, is the behavior-change phenomenon present in all or most organ recipients, or just in a tiny minority?
If you gather enough good data, perhaps you can start formulating an answer to the first question. Come up with a theory of causation, and figure out good ways to test your theory. You can't prove your hypothesis with anecdotal evidence.

Dont you read article that i gave you above? I think professor Paul Pearsall have contribute both data and his hypothesis,

Professor Paul Pearsall Ph.D. has also made a contribution to the new discussion of the intelligence of the human heart. After interviewing nearly 150 heart and other organ transplant recipients, Pearsall proposed the once staggering concept that cells of living tissue could have the capacity to remember.

its answering part of your question, about the subject quantity and assesment of the sample through population.

This is his observation and basic logic for his hyphothesis,

・..Paul Pearsall is one of many researchers who has observed that transplant patients who receive an organ from another person's body may also receive much more -- what he calls their "cellular memories." Recipients have reported inheriting everything from the donor's food cravings to knowledge about his murderer -- information that in one case led to the killer's arrest. As a result of these and other researchers' findings, Pearsall is now convinced that the heart has its own form of intelligence, that we are only rarely aware of in modern life. In his view, the heart processes information about the body and the outside world through an "info-energetic code" -- a profuse network of blood vessels and cells that serves not only as our circulatory system but as an energy information gathering and distribution system, much like a complex telephone network. What's more, he believes that the soul, at least in part, is a set of cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. Predictably, such views have met with opposition in the medical world. But in his view, the implications of his theories -- that the heart "thinks," cells remember, and communication can therefore transcend the boundaries of time and space -- are too important for him to dismiss.・

He met the over-all the requirement on scientific method requirement. He have solid data with enough quantity, he have hyphothesis who later being support by the data and he is a professional on the discourse.

Corect me where do i go wrong about this. Where the anectdotal part?
 
Dont you read article that i gave you above? I think professor Paul Pearsall have contribute both data and his hypothesis,
Professor Paul Pearsall Ph.D. has also made a contribution to the new discussion of the intelligence of the human heart. After interviewing nearly 150 heart and other organ transplant recipients, Pearsall proposed the once staggering concept that cells of living tissue could have the capacity to remember.
its answering part of your question, about the subject quantity and assesment of the sample through population.
This is his observation and basic logic for his hyphothesis,
・..Paul Pearsall is one of many researchers who has observed that transplant patients who receive an organ from another person's body may also receive much more -- what he calls their "cellular memories." Recipients have reported inheriting everything from the donor's food cravings to knowledge about his murderer -- information that in one case led to the killer's arrest. As a result of these and other researchers' findings, Pearsall is now convinced that the heart has its own form of intelligence, that we are only rarely aware of in modern life. In his view, the heart processes information about the body and the outside world through an "info-energetic code" -- a profuse network of blood vessels and cells that serves not only as our circulatory system but as an energy information gathering and distribution system, much like a complex telephone network. What's more, he believes that the soul, at least in part, is a set of cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. Predictably, such views have met with opposition in the medical world. But in his view, the implications of his theories -- that the heart "thinks," cells remember, and communication can therefore transcend the boundaries of time and space -- are too important for him to dismiss.・
He met the over-all the requirement on scientific method requirement. He have solid data with enough quantity, he have hyphothesis who later being support by the data and he is a professional on the discourse.
Corect me where do i go wrong about this. Where the anectdotal part?

Don't be silly, your stuff originates from Yes, the Heart Really Can "Think", which isn't a trustworthy source for the purposes of medicine, or really anything, apart from theology, perhaps. You have probably encountered it here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/mahir/brain_heart_miracle_2.htm

It isn't even a medical report.
 
Don't be silly, your stuff originates from Yes, the Heart Really Can "Think", which isn't a trustworthy source for the purposes of medicine, or really anything, apart from theology, perhaps. You have probably encountered it here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/mahir/brain_heart_miracle_2.htm
It isn't even a medical report.

Derfel, because its being use by both Muslim and Christiany refrence it doesnt mean that his works are totally negate and got a "unvalid" stamp from you. Everyone can understand why both Muslim and Christian are bring attention on that new discovery. But the problem is, not about the media being trusworthy or not, but its about the content and the method.

If we negelct his authenticity only because his theory are being used by those website, we can be call prejudice. To be fair, we must negate the statement to be valid or not valid with evidence, like he use weak sampling, or there are important independent-variable that being neglect, or there are faking data on his research and assesment.

As a person who dont know much about medicine, how can you said, man like Paul Pearsall, PhD, who is a Clinical Professor at the Department of Nursing : University of Hawaii. And author of over 200 articles and write 15 international best-selling books, as a untrusworthy? and what make you conclude that his report not a medical?

be fair
 
Let me just squeeze this in here, please (and get back, maybe, sometime down the road, when I actually have to time to do so). Some points in this post (the information obtained and presented) are true. Others, such as the conclusion offered (most likely by the editor?) are false.
 
Back
Top Bottom