Artificial Intelligence

[Pachipro]

If there were only a handful of cases over the years, it would be easy to dismiss, but when there are thousands, it does become hard to not take notice and think that there may be something to it. So why not do some serious research? It'll never happen in the near term as it will make "learned", established, entrenched people look not so learned.

No matter how many case histories they are presented, skeptics will still refuse to believe that something that is not "peer reviewed" cannot possibly be true when it is these same "peers" who refuse to look at the facts and the numerous people who have experienced cellular memory (or what have you).

If it goes against conventional "wisdom" or thinking, that is more than likely outdated, things like cellular memory, reincarnation, near-death experiences, etc will always be relegated to the back shelf, para-normal bookshelf until some years down the line, when these peers are long dead and a new wave of conventional thinking takes over. Then, and only then will it be considered normal as there is too much evidence and many case histories for it to be ignored much longer. Sooner or later (probably later) it will be accepted.

As abdalrasyid mentioned, you can read all about the much respected, late Dr Paul Pearsall here. If his degrees, awards, books, and research doesn't convince you, nothing will.

One can also read:

"Inherited Memories in Organ Transplant Recipients" here as alternate theories are also presented.

Cellular Memory on skepdic.com

And Cellular Memory fails memory test on Quackometer

If you want peer-reviewed articles, they won't be found as no one wants to upset the applecart of conventional thinking for fear of being ostracized by their peers and not receiving tenure, and the "peers" don't want to look like they were wrong. Sad but true, and it has been going on in history for hundreds of years, especially in the medical industry.

 

[Mars Man]

Greetings from the roof of Japan, there, Pachipro san ! As one would know without a word being spoken, I would have to inject moderation into the mere emotional aspects of any argument which tends to whirlpool up such, and work to keep reasoning intact.

For the purpose of better argumentative format, we must be careful to weed out misappropriate (and please do take note of the modifier) appeal to authority. We know, for example, that Graham Nash was a brilliant game theorist. It would be a fallacy, however, to argue that since, and only since, that is the case, we can appeal for any degree of validity in some of the statements and claims he had made during his schizophrenic period. This is the essence of the fallacy of appeal to authority. We would best keep in mind that we can appeal to authority, but we must take each item of data, evidence, argument, on its own grounds all the while weighing, testing, and verifying them.

If there were only a handful of cases over the years, it would be easy to dismiss, but when there are thousands, . . . It'll never happen in the near term as it will make "learned", established, entrenched people look not so learned.

Yep, sounds like the good ole Pachipro san I know !! I would object to the general area (above and below the) partially quoted just above due to a very likely overly extensive degree of emotional attachment mixed with generalization. I would very much suspect that we will have to go over each and every case, fully, before positing a new hypothesis.

No matter how many case histories they are presented, skeptics will still refuse to believe that something that is not "peer reviewed" cannot possibly be true when it is these same "peers" who refuse to look at the facts and the numerous people who have experienced cellular memory (or what have you).

. . . things like cellular memory, reincarnation, near-death experiences, etc

Again, we would want to maintain more secure argumentation, and a big jump can be seen in the above list (similar, in a way, to a conjunction fallacy). As far as I have studied and learned, it is well known that living cells function in certain ways. One of the known functions, for lack of any better presently used, and quickly communicated term, is called 'memory.' This, however, is often misconstrued with the common word memory as used in the case of what brain does, and that is a false connotation.

you want peer reviewed articles, they won't be found as no one wants to upset the applecart of conventional thinking for fear of being ostracized by their peers and not receiving tenure, and the "peers" don't want to look like they were wrong. Sad but true, and it has been going on in history for hundreds of years, especially the medical industry.

As you know, Pachipro san, I read a fair number of peer-reviewed, as well as democratically reviewed papers. What you have pointed out above, sadly, of course, does happen--we cannot deny. However, to present it as though it were the rule of the process, or the 'nature of the game,' is to simply appeal to emotion and little else. All one has to do to verify my objection here, is study medical procedural history in detail. I would lovingly encourage all to be more careful with what could be taken as possibly being 'mud slinging-like' tactics...in all due respect.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Do most heart transplant recipients adopt personality traits of the donor? Or are there just isolated reports?

What is the mechanism for this phenomenon? We know that the brain stores memories in certain neurons. Are there previously-undetected memory neurons in the heart?

Does a man's heart make a woman act like a man? How about a gay man's heart -- would it turn a straight man or woman gay?

Why would a heart pass on a preference for beer, but not preferences for other things? Are there only beer-memory neurons in the heart?

This theory bears all the hallmarks of pseudo-science.

 

[Haruspex]

Why would a heart pass on a preference for beer, but not preferences for other things? Are there only beer-memory neurons in the heart?

No, there's also football, car and diy neurons in the heart.

 

[abdalrasyid]

Do most heart transplant recipients adopt the personality traits of the donor? Or are there just isolated reports?
What is the mechanism for this phenomenon? We know that the brain stores memories in certain neurons. Are there previously-undetected memory neurons in the heart?
Does a man's heart make a woman act like a man? How about a gay man's heart -- would it turn a straight man or woman gay?
Why would a heart pass on a preference for beer, but not preferences for other things? Are there only beer-memory neurons in the heart?
This theory bears all the hallmarks of pseudo-science.

The changing behavior from recipients, that being known from the "before and after" comparison, with enough number of samples with constant effect results, from this fact we can state that the heart transplanted appear to have an effect or come as the only independent variable for the changing of recipients personalities trait.

We still can argue on the hypothesis but further several personality traits that appear the same as the donor, backing up as a prooves to Pearsall hypothesis.

I think claiming it as pseudo-science is a little bit too much Roland.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

What is the biological mechanism for these transplanted memories?

No, I'm not going to go read a bunch of links. The internet is full of bullshite, and I haven't seen enough credible information here to bother going further.

I'm not saying it's impossible. But until my questions are answered, I ain't buying it. I also consider claims for Bigfoot, alien visitors, para-normal powers, and creationism to be pseudo-science.

 

[Mars Man]

Still problems here. First of all, this line of debate has next to NOTHING to do with AI. Then, there are still argumentation fallacies happening. There is a tendency to blur data and facts, spread them over with ideologies which are quite demonstratively invalid, and try to propagate conclusions drawn from such fallacy-filled argumentation as proven fact. Dr. Pearsall has published much, not all related to this conclusion being pushed by some directly at all.

Here, I would strongly urge that a new thread be opened on that debate, and that more care be taken in dealing with it.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

If we talk about an artificial heart's memory, would that be on topic for this particular thread?

 

[Hamun]

Even I am no completely right,think big companies and universities should try to
find more about this,because it could be immortality.
I tried writing here and there,but almost no response,if you have any ideas how to tell
about this or have any connections,let's try to make it more popular.

 

[Pachipro]

Good response Mars Man and I would like to go further, but as you stated, it has gotten off topic and we should remain on topic in this thread.

 

[Navy Guy]

Back to the topic then...

While a computer with AI might mimic human brain functions it would lack one thing... morals. But wait there is more! I will agree we could program the AI with constraints which could amount to morals however have you ever gone against your morals because you believed that by doing contrary would bennefit you or someone else more? An AI with programmed morals would not be able to break them because it is a program.

I beleive that while we can get to 95 percent mimicry of the human brain and its functions that final 5 percent where we have free will and are able to go against what we know is right could not be instilled into an Artificial Intelligence.

In programming it all breaks down to 1's and 0's in the end....

 

[Mars Man]

While it is far more true than not, as I had pointed out here a little too, we are a somewhat far cry from getting a close copy of the average normal human brain. This is probably best couched as not being a matter of morals, per se, but rather a matter of robust executive function.

One big hurdle, and major catch, in AI appears (as I have so far learned, at least) to be the matter of the silicon-based 'brain' being able to reshuffle programing--in other words, we could say programing itself over and against a built-in program. It is at this point that I kind of loose track of what's coming out in that research; since I don't focus on AI much at all (I consider it greatly lacking in pragmatic value at this time). It could also be argued (as it is being argued by some) that we would have to have the threshold above that which we deem 'having a state of consciousness,' and that is nowhere near.

Five percent, as a baseball park figure, seems to set off an alarm bell in my head. I am wondering (not without due concern, of course) if it isn't somewhat less than that. The difference between EEG signature waves in the sleep walker (non-REM sleep stages), and that of REM, are not that so non-understandably different--the difference between third person observation of a 'consciousness-like state,' and first person accurate report of a consciousness state, is very large. Thus, we can conclude that while the actual activation processing is not so greatly different, the internal (intrinsic) effect is.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

An AI would presumably be programmed with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, therefore would have a kind of replica of a code of morality.

On the other hand, much of what we define as ethics and morality arise from our human ability to feel emotional attachment and empathy for others. Would an AI be able to acquire these feelings? I don't know, but we do know that some humans don't have them -- psychopaths make up about four percent of our population.

 

[Navy Guy]

While the three laws would be programmed into the AI and I agree would be a sort of "morals" I refer back to my earlier statement. Could the AI counter the morals it is programmed with or would it simply follow the program?

As humans we can and do counter our morals in situations that demand it.

For example you may find it moral to never kill... however if I put a gun to your head and handed you a loaded gun, told you I was going to count to ten and then pull the trigger would you kill me first since you would have the time to make that decision?
Would your insticts of self preservation take control and over ride your morals? Or would you chose to let me kill you because it would be immoral of you to take anothers life?

In order for a computer to be a true AI it would need to have the freedom to answer that question for itself and not be reliant on a program that has a determined outcome. In otherwords multiple AI's with the same programming should have random outcomes; some would choose to shoot me while others would be shot.

☝

 

[Hamun]

Actually,does it matter much, if we think with with brain or heart,we do it,computer also does it.

 

[Mycernius]

To be pedantic, but we don't think with our heart. It is just a muscle. All thinking takes place within the brain.

 

[FrustratedDave]

AI,

No computer has the capacity to learn and then act upon what has been learned. Even Quantum computers with quantum neural networks can't do this although it is theoretical for them to learn like a human brain would.
Other problems still remain like reasoning ,planning and not to mention perception of itself and its surroundings. Also learning through experience is a concept that has barely been touched on.


Hamun, you are taking the common understanding that the CPU is the brain of a computer to simply. In reality all a CPU and does is plow through large problems one step at a time and if that is upset it either starts again or fails. That is not even close to being called inteligent, it is performing duties assigned to it by programs, which in turn are inflexible and have very limited amounts of processes that they can do. Even super computers are very limited, the only advantage is that they are faster, but the fact remains that they are limited to what program is available.

But then, there are many different levels of what is considered artificial intelligence, obviously you are one of those who believe in lower levels?

 

[Hezam]

To be pedantic, but we don't think with our heart. It is just a muscle. All thinking takes place within the brain.

Love,Sadness,Happiness,Courage,and more feelings take a place within the heart not the brain !

 

[Hezam]

More further,The computer is a program made by human brain,And day after day we make that program more intelligent...But still it's very limited.
Even animals,They learn from human brain just like the computer,So there are many questions about human brain and i was thinking "Are we like computers programming by someone else ?

 

[Hamun]

Reasoning and planning can be represented by choosing between two possibilities,for examle- fruits-we compare the prices of the two same fruits and chose the lower price (depends on how we have decided(programmed) to search),if we are more clever we can use photoshop options to find best fruit(possibility) by colour which matches best for the specific type of fruit.Aboout plannig-GPS can chose the shortes distance to our objective again by comparing, so it will plan our route.
Perception of oneself is individual,for surroundings(if they are people),we basicly are looking about there attitude toward us-we are to run or fight,or start chatting, for example,if surroundings are objects there is already vacuum cleaner with sensors by which can orientate about its way.
Experience can be attained by programming before the action by someone who has the experience or again by choosing what to do after you are to repeat some action and calculate what it has "costed" you and if there is a better option.

 

[Haruspex]

Love,Sadness,Happiness,Courage,and more feelings take a place within the heart not the brain !

By the same token the feeling of bodily lust originates from the knob. The scrotum houses countless horny neurons.

 

[FrustratedDave]

Reasoning and planning can be represented by choosing between two possibilities,for examle- fruits-we compare the prices of the two same fruits and chose the lower price (depends on how we have decided(programmed) to search),if we are more clever we can use photoshop options to find best fruit(possibility) by colour which matches best for the specific type of fruit.Aboout plannig-GPS can chose the shortes distance to our objective again by comparing, so it will plan our route.
Perception of oneself is individual,for surroundings(if they are people),we basicly are looking about there attitude toward us-we are to run or fight,or start chatting, for example,if surroundings are objects there is already vacuum cleaner with sensors by which can orientate about its way.
Experience can be attained by programming before the action by someone who has the experience or again by choosing what to do after you are to repeat some action and calculate what it has "costed" you and if there is a better option.

All that is very well and good, but as I said before and as you said yourself, they will still be governed by programs. It still does not show intelligence only the appearance of intelligence. Thats what you can't seem to understand.

Lets use your fruit example. The only reason why it will choose the best colored fruit or lowest costing fruit is b/c you are telling it to, whether it be in a learning program. Like I said before, they will just plow through information one process at a time until a calculation is complete, no intelligence required to do that.

As for your run or fight comment, what governs that? Fear, do computers have fear? Sure you can program one to recognise what is dangerous and what is not, but does it actually have fear?

Maybe you should go and re-lookup the word "intelligence" . Here you go, Click