puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1618418:date=Apr 2 2007, 06:33 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Apr 2 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]1618418[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> It's interesting about the whole love and self preservation stuff. There's also some theorists out there who think that maybe intelligence as we know it is nothing but a very high level of abstraction of basic commands or principles. Swarming is one area where this concept is realized.
Bugs or birds, each knowing which other one it follows, move in precise patterns that seem to indicate some higher order of complexity or control when really there is none. I can't find a good link for this, but another idea (tested I think) involved setting up a set of instructions: "if one black square is beside me, I am white; if two are beside me, I am gray." By running this, it was possible to produce highly complex three dimensional structures, like a human ear or something. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are talking, I think, about 'Emergent Behaviour'. Simple rules can produce extremely complex systems over numerous insignificant iterative changes. It is a catch-all description for the many system that can develop complexity from simplicity. It is often confused with design based complexity. Behaviour is not emergent if there is coordination above the level of the individual unit. For example, building with lego is not emergent behaviour, but birds flocking is.
To assume that love is somehow not a manifestation of some physical property of our evolved brain is to get into the whole debate on whether consciousness lies in the physical brain or the metaphysical mind. If you <b>believe</b> that it is <b>impossible</b> for AI to experience love, you subscribe to this duality.
<!--quoteo(post=1620735:date=Apr 13 2007, 11:46 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Apr 13 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]1620735[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You are talking, I think, about 'Emergent Behaviour'. Simple rules can produce extremely complex systems over numerous insignificant iterative changes. It is a catch-all description for the many system that can develop complexity from simplicity. It is often confused with design based complexity. Behaviour is not emergent if there is coordination above the level of the individual unit. For example, building with lego is not emergent behaviour, but birds flocking is. To assume that love is somehow not a manifestation of some physical property of our evolved brain is to get into the whole debate on whether consciousness lies in the physical brain or the metaphysical mind. If you <b>believe</b> that it is <b>impossible</b> for AI to experience love, you subscribe to this duality. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, exactly. Emergent Behavior is what it's called, huh?
No one controls the individuals neurons in your brain. They fire based on simple rules about which inputs are move valuable. So, thought is a product of these neurons firing. Does that mean thought is an Emergent Behavior?
You'd think that in the process of learning (the process of each neuron adjusting which inputs should be more important) there would be some higher order or intelligence which directs the neurons. When training a neural network for software, one method would involve a set of inputs mapped to outputs. The inputs are fed into the network, and if what comes out isn't right, the learning agent adjusts the weights on the neuron inputs.
It's kind of weird to think of a teacher or parent or yourself "changing" the way your mind works.
Actually, I think there's ample evidence that thought is emergent behaviour. Think about drugs: They muck up our brain chemistry, causing all sorts of strange things to happen. Once in our system, our minds are slave to the drugs and the changes they cause. You can't, for example, take LSD and then choose not to go on a "trip."
I could also zap your head with a 100 Amp, 20k Volt jolt and your brain can't choose to ignore that either? I don't get your point in how it pertains to the topic lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1622195:date=Apr 20 2007, 04:30 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Apr 20 2007, 04:30 PM) [snapback]1622195[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I could also zap your head with a 100 Amp, 20k Volt jolt and your brain can't choose to ignore that either? I don't get your point in how it pertains to the topic lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what he's saying is that such an influence can alter your state of mind (intelligence). If altering your brain leads to changes in intelligence, then intelligence may just be an emergent behavior.
I found the link I was looking for before: <a href="http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html" target="_blank">http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html</a>
Comments
It's interesting about the whole love and self preservation stuff. There's also some theorists out there who think that maybe intelligence as we know it is nothing but a very high level of abstraction of basic commands or principles. Swarming is one area where this concept is realized.
Bugs or birds, each knowing which other one it follows, move in precise patterns that seem to indicate some higher order of complexity or control when really there is none. I can't find a good link for this, but another idea (tested I think) involved setting up a set of instructions: "if one black square is beside me, I am white; if two are beside me, I am gray." By running this, it was possible to produce highly complex three dimensional structures, like a human ear or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are talking, I think, about 'Emergent Behaviour'. Simple rules can produce extremely complex systems over numerous insignificant iterative changes. It is a catch-all description for the many system that can develop complexity from simplicity. It is often confused with design based complexity. Behaviour is not emergent if there is coordination above the level of the individual unit. For example, building with lego is not emergent behaviour, but birds flocking is.
To assume that love is somehow not a manifestation of some physical property of our evolved brain is to get into the whole debate on whether consciousness lies in the physical brain or the metaphysical mind. If you <b>believe</b> that it is <b>impossible</b> for AI to experience love, you subscribe to this duality.
You are talking, I think, about 'Emergent Behaviour'. Simple rules can produce extremely complex systems over numerous insignificant iterative changes. It is a catch-all description for the many system that can develop complexity from simplicity. It is often confused with design based complexity. Behaviour is not emergent if there is coordination above the level of the individual unit. For example, building with lego is not emergent behaviour, but birds flocking is.
To assume that love is somehow not a manifestation of some physical property of our evolved brain is to get into the whole debate on whether consciousness lies in the physical brain or the metaphysical mind. If you <b>believe</b> that it is <b>impossible</b> for AI to experience love, you subscribe to this duality.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, exactly. Emergent Behavior is what it's called, huh?
No one controls the individuals neurons in your brain. They fire based on simple rules about which inputs are move valuable. So, thought is a product of these neurons firing. Does that mean thought is an Emergent Behavior?
You'd think that in the process of learning (the process of each neuron adjusting which inputs should be more important) there would be some higher order or intelligence which directs the neurons. When training a neural network for software, one method would involve a set of inputs mapped to outputs. The inputs are fed into the network, and if what comes out isn't right, the learning agent adjusts the weights on the neuron inputs.
It's kind of weird to think of a teacher or parent or yourself "changing" the way your mind works.
I could also zap your head with a 100 Amp, 20k Volt jolt and your brain can't choose to ignore that either? I don't get your point in how it pertains to the topic lolfighter. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what he's saying is that such an influence can alter your state of mind (intelligence). If altering your brain leads to changes in intelligence, then intelligence may just be an emergent behavior.
I found the link I was looking for before: <a href="http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html" target="_blank">http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html</a>
Try it out!