Could It Be Possible to "Manufacture" Humans?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Cipher

So how can scientists "create" conscience?

How conscious, how self aware and how objective are you?

Its all in the patterns. We were programmed by the environment (actio-reactio). We have analog hardware and sensors. Technically we are bio-machines. It is not necessary to create conscience. Its already there, we just have to copy it.

[C.A.]

Not all machines can be switched off by will, the Mars rovers Opportunity and Spirit for example, they cannot be switched off. They were built and then born the moment they were switched on and their life began after that.

And the scientists didn't expect them to outlive their original operational time by more than 20 times. They were supposed to only work for 3 months, but they've still getting new missions now after 6 years. Being able to be switched on and off doesn't determine whether one is a machine.

Whatever personality a computer programmed like a human has, it will be just like a human. If you're talking about switching on and off, you can do that to a human brain. By passing electric currents through parts of the brain using electrodes for example, you can switch off body functions and thinking processes. Of course you can switch off the entire brain by giving a massive jolt. Even the so called 'conscience', can be switched off, which is what exactly happens in psychopaths. Psychopaths lack conscience and the sense of guilt, fear and risk, because they have an abnormal brain, they lack certain parts of the brain's wiring that makes them how they are.

Even for savants and such, their lack of certain functions in their brains give rise in an increased activity in other parts of the brain, something like using the RAM for other programs. Scientists have shown that they can turn one into an artistic or mathematical savant just by passing electromagnetic waves through the brain.

The human brain itself is just a machine.

[Kafriel]

Originally Posted by Cipher

So its like Dexter's Lab Computer(not meant to be humorous)? How would personalities be adjusted and distributed? Can their "life" be almost simultaneously switched on and off? sorry for the questions...don't answer if you don't want to.

"Personality" is just another algorithm, by using many different "sets" you would be able to switch between them as long as the initial conditions are met. It is more complex than it sounds because you'd have to take everything into account (and everything is really a LOT) for them to function properly at all times.
About the "life" question, most likely yes, but if you shut it down and then restart it, its "death" would be a mere pause, so having a fear of it is difficult, because machines do not have needs, they lack the basic drives of survival, instinct. How does one simulate instinct?

[roriconfan]

Machines will have free will the day we comand them to do something and they say "no".

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by C.A.

The entire human behavior is controlled by the brain through electrical nerve signals and chemical, hormone signals.

Translate all these signals into binary and you have a computer that thinks exactly like a human brain. Scientists have already been working on this for a long time. There are lots of experimental robots out there that can sense human emotions and respond accordingly. It is no different from a human, the brain responds by giving commands using electric nerve signals just like a machine does with wires.

Even genes, DNA, they are a form of chemical programming code. Each gene having a specific command that will decide what the final construction of the organism will have.

The human 'conscience', is just another set of programs in the brain.

Well I would differ. For one thing, the brain does not compute through normal deterministic means. New synapses require for learning are formed by thought, by voluntary, conscious decision and not automatically by the brain itself. And those neural connections are different everyone for the same idea (e.g. a problem can be understood correctly but differently by everyone).

In fact the physical brain's programming seems to be controllable or alterable by mind where in one case, Richard Alpert a Harvard professor and one of the earliest researchers on LSD, gave a huge dose of LSD to Neem Karoli Baba on two occasions, first with 900 micrograms and the second time with 1200 micrograms, 3-4x the usual amount to make you hallucinate for a day, were it had no effect whatsoever (which you can read about in his books "Miracle of Love" and "Be Here Now")

Ironically Alpert, fired after giving magic mushrooms to a student, became disillusioned with and actually quit the usage of psychedelics for consciousness research after his trip to India.

Originally Posted by Cipher

So how can scientists "create" conscience?

They can't. No one's even remotely close.

It's currently impossible to prove how we come up with mathematical proof i.e. create a theorem generator, which is what I would consider the milestone for consciousness research. In fact, I personally think truly understanding and modeling the mind would involve transcending Godel's incompleteness theorem (differing Penrose's work below).

I recommend the book The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose and it's sequel Shadows of the Mind (see also his response to criticisms here), or a more accessible summary in updated form in "The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind"

Penrose presents the argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer. Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function. (see why below)
...
The book attacks the claims of artificial intelligence using the physics of computing: Penrose notes that the present home of computing lies more in the tangible world of classical mechanics than in the imponderable realm of quantum mechanics.

Penrose argues that

1. Humans have abilities, particularly mathematical ones, that no algorithmic computer (specifically Turing machine) could have, because computers are limited by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. In other words, he believes humans are hypercomputers. (The argument was originally due to John Lucas.)

Penrose, however, built a further and highly controversial argument on this theorem. He argued that the theorem showed that the brain had the ability to go beyond what can be demonstrated by mathematical axioms, and therefore there is something within the functioning of the brain that is not based on an algorithm (a system of calculations). A computer is just a system of algorithms, and Penrose claimed that Gödel's theorem demonstrated that brains could perform functions that no computer could perform.

2. This would require some new physics. Penrose postulates that the currently unknown process underlying quantum collapse supplies the non-algorithmic element.

The random choice of, for instance, the position of a particle, which is involved in the collapse of the wave function was the only physical process that Penrose could find, which was not based on an algorithm.

But Penrose went on to propose that when the wave function did not collapse as a result of a measurement or decoherence in the environment, there could be an alternative form of wave function collapse, which he called objective reduction (OR). ...

Penrose further proposes that OR is neither random nor governed by an algorithm, but is 'non-computational', selecting information embedded in the fundamental level of space time geometry.

The modeling of the brain, or of mind itself (especially if you believe that mind is not an emergent property of the brain) is really less about computational tractability--even if computation of thought occurs non-deterministically, if you can find non-deterministic finite automata for it it can still be modeled but using exponential time (after reducing NFA to DFA to run on real computers)--and more about computability. Too many people just assume that mind/brain functioning is turing machine computable which is hardly the case.

He posits a theory about the Quantum mind. While it's not mainstream, many notable persons in physics subscribe to that idea including David Bohm, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, the atomic bomb and contributor to neuropsychology:

David Bohm took the view that quantum theory and relativity contradicted one another, and that this contradiction implied that there existed a more fundamental level in the physical universe[3][dead link]. He claimed that both quantum theory and relativity pointed towards this deeper theory. This more fundamental level was supposed to represent an undivided wholeness and an implicate order, from which arose the explicate order of the universe as we experience it.

Bohm's implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness, and he proposed that it could explain the relationship between them. Mind and matter are here seen as projections into our explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order. Bohm claims that when we look at the matter in space, we can see nothing in these concepts that helps us to understand consciousness.

In Bohm's scheme there is a fundamental level where consciousness is not distinct from matter. Bohm's view of consciousness is connected to Karl Pribram's holographic conception of the brain [4][5][dead link]. Pribram regards sight and the other senses as lenses without which the other senses would appear as a hologram. Pribram proposes that information is recorded all over the brain, and that it is enfolded into a whole, similar to a hologram. It is suggested that memories are connected by association and manipulated by logical thought. If the brain is also receiving sensory input all these are proposed to unite in overall experience or consciousness.

Using Bohm's Implicate and Explicate Order, based on Holographic principle, Stanford neuroscientist Karl Pribram and Bohm together came up with the Holonomic model in the 1980's which drastically departs from standard biochemical based theories on brain functioning with regards to consciousness.

The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms).

...
Karl Pribram and colleagues have presented evidence which indicates that memories do not in general appear to be localized in specific regions of brains

In fact, the implicate order may extend beyond just regions of the brain (really onto matter as the theory suggests). For example there is very interesting precise evidence about organ transplant recipients having "new" memories and thoughts unique to the donor!

You can read more about the theory in Bohm's book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

Machines will have free will the day we comand them to do something and they say "no".

Does your PC always do what you want? (I am asking this to show you a flaw in your argument).

@npcomplete,

David Bohm and Co. experienced too much binary in their life . They do not seem to comprehend the complexity that is possible when using analog circuits instead of digital ones. It is not as accurate as digital computing. But that fuzziness actually helps in pattern based solution finding.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

Machines will have free will the day we comand them to do something and they say "no".

they won';t say no, just that they have a headache.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Does your PC always do what you want? (I am asking this to show you a flaw in your argument).

@npcomplete,

David Bohm and Co. experienced too much binary in their life . They do not seem to comprehend the complexity that is possible when using analog circuits instead of digital ones. It is not as accurate as digital computing. But that fuzziness actually helps in pattern based solution finding.

I think a good bashing with "complexity theory" and how complex behavior blossoms out of large systems of simple feedback and adaptive circuits would be a good thing here

Penrose's book is a bit dated but still an excellent read -- it hasn't kept up with developments in quantum computing for example and he isn't on top of neural systems research as he might think . Basically, any deterministic system based on classical computing concepts will probably fail to achieve consciousness. It has to be self-modifying and... the basic unit of decision gate in the brain is the neuron... a critter with an average of 50 connections versus the 3 in a simple transistor. Just modeling a single neuron properly is hellishly complicated... and remember it has to be self-modifiable - changing which other neurons it connects to.
Quantum computing offers a possibility of "cheating" to achieve this result but we're still getting excited when we can get one simple qubit to hold together.

[SaintessHeart]

A human conscience CAN be switched off, so I don't get what exactly Cipher means. Otherwise, how can SpecOps operators kill hundreds despite knowing that these people have wives and children?

When logic pervades (in this case getting the job done, being it setting an example against an invasion or incursion), the human being makes it so. It is a matter of choice, so C.A is right, conscience is just another "program" for the human brain.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I think a good bashing with "complexity theory" and how complex behavior blossoms out of large systems of simple feedback and adaptive circuits would be a good thing here

Penrose's book is a bit dated but still an excellent read -- it hasn't kept up with developments in quantum computing for example and he isn't on top of neural systems research as he might think . Basically, any deterministic system based on classical computing concepts will probably fail to achieve consciousness. It has to be self-modifying and... the basic unit of decision gate in the brain is the neuron... a critter with an average of 50 connections versus the 3 in a simple transistor. Just modeling a single neuron properly is hellishly complicated... and remember it has to be self-modifiable - changing which other neurons it connects to.
Quantum computing offers a possibility of "cheating" to achieve this result but we're still getting excited when we can get one simple qubit to hold together.

We could do random output and put in a variable of,

IF achieve negative results, remember not to do it again.
Result = All aspects of negative emotion and action
Negative emotion = Heart rate, facial and general physical muscle expression, whatever physical features defining emotion taken into factor.
Negative action = Acts of violence and attempted violence

it could work out, because neurons connect randomly too, and if undesirable result is achieved, the brain never does it again.

I don't think there should be much of a problem as long as we do not insert "retailiate with extreme prejudice".

[Vexx]

Heh, you realize that every single word in that pseudo-programming represents an entire tier and library of subprograms, fuzzy logic, evaluations based on previous evaluations, etc.

You might take a look at Kalman Filtering if you're interested. Its used in almost all avionics for smart navigation systems and more recently in neural systems research (as more neural researchers arrive with engineering and physical sciences degrees).

Spoiler for Summary Description of Kalman Filtering:

The Kalman filter is an efficient recursive filter that estimates the state of a linear dynamic system from a series of noisy measurements. It is used in a wide range of engineering applications from radar to computer vision, and is an important topic in control theory and control systems engineering. Together with the linear-quadratic regulator (LQR), the Kalman filter solves the linear-quadratic-Gaussian control problem (LQG). The Kalman filter, the linear-quadratic regulator and the linear-quadratic-Gaussian controller are solutions to what probably are the most fundamental problems in control theory.

Part of my career was spent working on flight avionic systems modeling for B-52 and Shuttle systems (same flight computers) which I later used in the early '90s as a descriptive model to help neural researchers at a research lab get comfortable with modeling the brain's balancing and locomotion systems. One of those 'multi-discipline' moments of serendipity (looks like he's done very well since then).

Spoiler for Summary Description of fuzzy logic:

Fuzzy logic is a form of multi-valued logic derived from fuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is approximate rather than precise. In contrast with binary sets having binary logic, also known as crisp logic, the fuzzy logic variables may have a membership value of not only 0 or 1. Just as in fuzzy set theory with fuzzy logic the set membership values can range (inclusively) between 0 and 1, in fuzzy logic the degree of truth of a statement can range between 0 and 1 and is not constrained to the two truth values {true (1), false (0)} as in classic propositional logic.[1] And when linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be managed by specific functions,

Used fuzzy logic and recursive feedback as the basis of a smart inertial stationkeeping system to run on the MMU ("jet backpacks") astronauts use for outside work on the Space Station.

The 1980s and 1990s were an interesting busy time for me...

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I think a good bashing with "complexity theory" and how complex behavior blossoms out of large systems of simple feedback and adaptive circuits would be a good thing here

Penrose's book is a bit dated but still an excellent read -- it hasn't kept up with developments in quantum computing for example and he isn't on top of neural systems research as he might think . Basically, any deterministic system based on classical computing concepts will probably fail to achieve consciousness. It has to be self-modifying and... the basic unit of decision gate in the brain is the neuron... a critter with an average of 50 connections versus the 3 in a simple transistor. Just modeling a single neuron properly is hellishly complicated... and remember it has to be self-modifiable - changing which other neurons it connects to.
Quantum computing offers a possibility of "cheating" to achieve this result but we're still getting excited when we can get one simple qubit to hold together.

Good explanation. But I want to add something important to it (at least I think it is important). While a digital circuit will handle signals as either on or off, a neuron can react to different "shades" of on and off. Like almost off or almost on or half on or anything in between. Neurons can exhaust. When neurons are signaling for sustained periods they will need to recover before they can signal again. This and other things makes the matter even more complex. Neurons are basically metastable n-state deciders. That the whole thing (brain) works so well is really astonishing.

[roriconfan]

This is going too far into wackyland. Most lonely people treat their pets as humans and some pets, especially dogs, learn really interesting tricks to pass for almost of human inteligence. It is not hard to clone a human either. So, yes, you can manifacture and you don't need fuzzy logic for that.

[Kafriel]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Good explanation. But I want to add something important to it (at least I think it is important). While a digital circuit will handle signals as either on or off, a neuron can react to different "shades" of on and off. Like almost off or almost on or half on or anything in between.

Can't the same be said about digital systems depending on the waveform and value of a pulse? (positive-negative/high-low). Not that it covers the rest of the post, thought I should add it anyway...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

Can't the same be said about digital systems depending on the waveform and value of a pulse? (positive-negative/high-low). Not that it covers the rest of the post, thought I should add it anyway...

Fuzzy logic can be used to simulate the shades (with some undetermined number of defined states) but I'd have to do some research myself to get a handle on just what sorts of values such a code fragment might need to contain ... one can build fuzzy blobs that depend on other fuzzy blobs but nothing I've done had to build too deep of a pyramid to see how that might play out. Analog circuits are just naturally 1:1 with organic circuits whereas digital emulations have that finite-state issue (see Z-transforms versus S-transforms). Digital emulations using s-transforms often "blow up" without some nasty duct-taping and min/max locks.

[Clarste]

This was brought up earlier in the thread, but people are using the word "human" in more than one way for no particular reason. In philosophy, we distinguish between "human" and "person" where "human" refers to the kind of animal we are and "person" refers to the intelligence and self-awareness we have, but other things could theoretically have, if only hypothetically. I think using this terminology would help us a lot in this discussion.

Robots cannot be humans. This is an obvious, physical fact. They could potentially be persons, but I doubt we'll create one for quite a while. The brain is absurdly complex, and modeling something on that scale would be difficult. However, I don't believe that there's any compelling reason to believe it would be impossible. Even if it turns out that microchips or even quantum computers are somehow insufficient for whatever reason, there's no reason we couldn't synthesize a brain using some absurdly complex chemical processes. I mean, that's exactly what happens whenever a baby is conceived. Although I suppose at that point you would be synthesizing a human, in addition to a person.

On the subject of identification as human or not, I'd say that's completely irrelevant. People identify with things they're not and fail to identify with things they are all the time. Identification is a subjective feeling that doesn't really have anything to do with our natures. A crazy person could think he's a dog, but that's not really evidence of anything.

On the subject of mind transplants, it's interesting to consider it from another perspective. Fiction has shown us plenty of examples of people magically switching bodies, and we accept it as something conceivable, even if it's physically impossible. But what does that mean exactly though? Are the persons actually switching places in their bodies, or are they both simply being brainwashed into believing that they're someone else? Suppose I was some mad scientist with two prisoners. If I told them I was going to switch their minds with some magical machine, would that be less terrifying than if I told them that I'[d erase their memories and personality while implanting fake memories? Is it somehow different if the other person gets fake memories that resemble your own memories? How can what happens to someone else affect who you are causally? What defines the person in a measurable way, especially given that we change over time anyway?

[Rickketik]

In 2050 there will be 9 billion of us on this already screwed planet, now why the hell would you want even more of 'us'?

[Vexx]

heh.... usually I'd call troll but yeah... attrition to get back down to about a billion total seems more prudent. But this thread really just a thought experiment brainstorm.

[Cipher]

I just asked a few questions and this is what I get: a headache . Making a "person" somehow feels like its the closest thing to defining the universe's origins---something I'm looking forward to.

[roriconfan]

Does anyone remember that scene from Exo Squad?

"Good bye Drakonis... And hello!"

In that series, manifacturing humans and creating new species was easy as changing a shirt. And it was scary.

[Vexx]

@npcomplete: I love reading Penrose's commentaries and those of his opponents and analysts. I don't know that I agree with Penrose's ideas of consciousness (especially his "quantum computation lurking in the neuron microtubules" idea) but his propositions are forcing everyone in a variety of fields to *think* about how to address them.

Hey, that's part of what science is supposed to be about.