1
$\begingroup$

It appears to me that the thoughts in our heads or at least mine are a result of the language they know. I do not have any thought that is not a consequence of the information that is contained within the language I know. I have thoughts that occur as the words we use in language and are particular to my voice The structure of that language forms constraints as to the depth of thought that my mind can possibly come up with as far as I can percieve. Does this mean that an intelligence is limited to thoughts it's able to associate words with since the minds language is a result of an recursive association of words associated to those thoughts which depend upon a leap of faith between the observer and an undeveloped mind. Or is there simply a limit of conception bound by a language that is limited by its dictation and consequently a limit upon the perception of that so called intelligence. And thus a limit on any artificial creation or simulation of it bound by limits of dictation within that language and it's knowledge of it, and doesn't this mean that thoughts structure develops knowledge of language by association of the physical reciept of information external to it. So how do you approach an attempt at it's recreation through a formal language that allready has its own structure.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

First thing we were taught in AI: Humans didn't create airplanes by studying and mimicing birds, they studied aerodynamics and physics. Although difficult to articulate I've had very similar thought patterns to yours when I was thinking about AI and further I watched very closely the development of my child from being a newborn to where he is now, a year and a bit old. The human brain is far more complex than what we'll understand, it would take a multi-discipline team effort to even scratch the surface. So to create a human brain-like thought process and try to put it into a formal language box would be impossible. I think the breakthrough in AI isn't going to be someone putting together multiple complex algorithms or even a fancy NN running on a supercomputer. It's going to be something we haven't figured out yet. Still, fun to think about... I'd say it's more of a philosophical question than an AI one though... Just my humble opinion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Good answer I don't think it will be down to software running on a finite state machine because that imposes limits which I think the human imagination has not. I personally favour that it will be approached through genetic replication on a cellular level through cloning and a be controlled by this method and be a result of genetic modification of "artificial tissue" , my parents cousin is a genetesist and I should probably consult him but I'm considered the physicist in the family but I think we're at a loss at our current approach and likewise that's my humble opinion aswell. $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 24 '17 at 22:44
  • $\begingroup$ The physical world itself imposes limits on communication, another's grasp of what is being communicated and there interpretation is down to the language which is in part a function of the physics, its repeatable, reciprocated and able to be confirmed The human mind concieves things that don't belong to the physical but can equally be communicated and understood by the application of this language, can an algorithm transfer similarly and be able to process and use natural language to a human recipient concepts that transcend the physical with the same degree of humility and certainty. $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 25 '17 at 0:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are many examples out there like ALICE but in all honesty my dog has more intelligence :D $\endgroup$ – solarflare Oct 25 '17 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ yeah more intelligence and more humility I'll grant :) just takes a bit of faith in your interpretation of what you observe. $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 26 '17 at 20:44
1
$\begingroup$

Computers can interpret lanuguage but I don't believe it understands it. Also, it's interpretation is bounded by the algorithmic constructs like data sets and the routines that run against it. Consciousness on the other hand is an emergent quality and includes self awareness amongst other things and self awareness is a subjective experience. Computer language is far from being a human language but I believe it can be a close approximation. One challenge is non-linear learning and and ambiguity. But with an adequately large and fast computer that may also be approximated very closely. Some argue that the human brain works in some quantum mechanical way and experiences many possibilities with the one we choose to encode in our "minds' representing the collapsed wave function after having evaluated the stimuli. Only recently have scientist discovered that photosynthesis operates at a quantum level.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Surely the speed information is processed or an algorithm and the state's they are given are passed through by a computer will not result in anything other than the outcome determined by the algorithm any computer will output the same thing just with variing degrees efficiency. Quantum mechanics granted with Copenhagen int suggest indetermination and supports choice, the choice of which I'm not sure it's down to the particular human observation or determination by the event you think you chose and attempted to observe. But that's simply a composite of my consiousness determined or free. $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 26 '17 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ Thinking again a computers ALU will output information determined by the flow of instructions and data in the stream it subject to which is function of any formal language used and data from the "real world" and outputs a response. Humans are "programmed" $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 26 '17 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ Or learn by natural language and there response to "input" produces an "output". There is no interference by that language on the AlU of there mind and u do not communicate a method by which the associated data should be processed its down to the mind you communicate with, thinking that limits the method of simulation to physics and not the abstraction and use of language. $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 26 '17 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ I'm going round in circles here I've allready communicated that in the question l asked lol $\endgroup$ – Bobs Oct 26 '17 at 21:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.