The bee and the supercomputer

rahuldandekar · #1 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 04:10 AM

While reading John D. Barrow book "Impossiblity" , I saw a table, of 'information storage' versus 'processing speed', or something like that. And on it,the place of the supercomputer was higher (in both) than that of the bee. Made me rethink the question I always ask about Consciousness:

Can a supercomputer do all that a bee can? Exactly? If a supercomputer has greater processing speed and information storage that a bee, can it act like a bee, in a virtual environment ( maybe provided by another supercomputer ) ? If it is allowed to study a bee for several days, and then told to imitate it, can it do so?

And will it have consciousness? Does a bee have consciouness? Or is it just a machine?

#2 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 05:33 AM

A machine cannot have consciousness, because it is silicon-based rather than carbon based. If there was a society of machine individuals (as in the matrix) they yes I'd say they'd have consciousness.

And what separates humans from bees? Well, for one, humans unlike bees have an "education" system.

rahuldandekar · #3 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 09:51 AM

What does the chemical basic have to do with consciousness? The main thing is that both humans and computers function electrically.

Namit · #4 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 12:59 PM

Dear Rahul,
Read your email in the Questions and Answers coloumn.
You asked that what does chemical basics have to do with consciousness.
See even though both humans and computers function electrically,
it[the comp] will not work exactly as humans we see everyday.
It will still lack the HUMAN QUALITIES, even though it is made fully perfect.
The world is not a Terminator Movie.

Sp1ke · #5 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 02:20 PM

Although computers at the moment do not work in the same way as humans, I see no reason why they shouldn't.

The traditional programming approach is linear and rule-based. This is different from the process of learning and trial-and-error that humans use. But I'm with Rahul on this - neurons or circuits, it's all the same. If we can create a computer that learns and can understands its surroundings, I think it could be conscious.

GOURDHEAD · #6 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

But I'm with Rahul on this - neurons or circuits, it's all the same. If we can create a computer that learns and can understands its surroundings, I think it could be conscious.

Before we sink deeper into the semantical quagmire, a highly technical definition of consciousness is required. My personal choice would be well defined levels of consciousness from elemental self organization via fundamental tropisms through and including the highest human IQs with categories reserved for some higher levels that we may encounter.

ChromeStar · #7 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 05:57 PM

The Question:

Quote:

What does the chemical basic have to do with consciousness? The main thing is that both humans and computers function electrically.

And Comment

Quote:

A machine cannot have consciousness, because it is silicon-based rather than carbon based. If there was a society of machine individuals (as in the matrix) they yes I'd say they'd have consciousness.

I'm no expert, but chemicals (which build organs) are in a sense the code of a living thing here on earth, where as computers have silicon chips and circuits ( there organs if you like)

Without these components/organs to tell electricity both in humans and computers where to go to make such and such a thing happen ( i.e. think a thought or calculate something) consciousness can't exist, that is if computers have consciousness at all - for all we know it may or may not.

We could be programed to be humans, but being programed would mean that there isn't consciousness.

Correct me if i'm wrong!

Check out j0sephs Signature

#8 (**permalink**) 27-January-2005, 08:41 PM

Right Chromestar

, but remember that the human mind might function of electrical signals on a quantum level, much like computers may be.

Also everyone keep in mind that computers are not capable of self-organization. We have to program them, as Chromestar said.

Also while computers have processing, they do not have metabolism. Life can be equated with consciousness.

Quote:

- Our thoughts are nothing more than electrons arranged in a pattern, allowing them to acknowledge their own existence.

And now it's time to analyze the quote:

Electrons cannot "acknowledge" their own existence...but the behavioral concept of Spooky Actions At A Distance is still noteworthy.

And the idea that thoughts are electrons arranged in a pattern...is plausible.

rahuldandekar · #9 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 03:06 AM

I think that we humans, in a sense, are preprogrammed, to learn from our surroundings, and mistakes. Maybe we are preprogrammed to adopt a trial and error method. Maybe computers can be programmed too. Atleast to have a bee level learning technique.

#10 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 06:02 AM

Computers cannot teach other computers without a human directive. No artificial intelligence can be realized until computers can build themselves. This requires a robot programmed by humans to build other machines, hence we started the process originally hence AI can never be fully conscious. Our ancestors performed trial and error by themselves until nature and modern synthesis had to let them go, had to let them break free from the bonds from genetic evolution to behavioral evolution.

eburacum45 · #11 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 09:26 AM

On the contrary, computers are already being constructed that can learn for themselves; machines will eventually be constructed that can replicate every function of human consciousness. This stage will be very temporary, as once a human equivalent computer has been built, the next day someone will make one better.
As Vernon Vinge said, when asked if a computer would ever exist that was as intelligent as a human;
'Yes- very briefly'.

Meaning - once the human level has been reached, it is much easier to upgrade a thinking machine than a human brain- the brain is restricted to a few kilos of jelly- a machine can be the size of a galaxy.

GOURDHEAD · #12 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

the brain is restricted to a few kilos of jelly- a machine can be the size of a galaxy.

However the time required for signals to traverse galactic distances will become a major impediment. Anything larger than the Earth might not be worth the effort.

rahuldandekar · #13 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 01:56 PM

Maybe quantum computing can overcome that too. Many scientists have claimed that the brain too uses quantum effects.

wstevenbrown · #14 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 02:42 PM

Regarding the original question: We are ill-equipped to evaluate hive intelligences-- to compare them to our own organization scheme introduces distortions, as we have not even identified all their communication modes. (See Hofstadter: Godel, Escher, Bach)

Thus far we have identified dance (bees), tactile/chemoreception (ants, termites), flight patterns (probably all), various 'tropisms', such as light-seeking and avoidance. Calling something a tropism is merely a file-and-forget label. Labeling me data-tropic does not describe my information-gathering or processing capability.

Both bees and ants (and for all I know, termites) practice both farming and husbandry, with a built-in conservation ethic which in humans would be considered forward-looking and intelligent.

Would an alien intelligence viewing us be able to identify all of our intelligent behaviors (soap operas, wars, gridlock, internet viruses, etc.)? Or ascribe the correct interpretation to eyebrow-arch, nose-punch, or butt-pinch?

I don't want to rant here, but Rahuldankar's question runs deep-- hive intelligences are different in kind, and comparison in degree may not be advisable.

Best regards-- Steve

ChromeStar · #15 (**permalink**) 28-January-2005, 09:29 PM

think about this StarLab & anyone else.

Quote:

Computer require human imput to function

true, but once they're programed to think for themselves they're are on our level and no longer require human input. So for all we know it could have been similar for us but on an organic level rather then silicon and our creater could be the Universe or whatever floats your boat.

gavwvin · #16 (**permalink**) 29-January-2005, 12:31 AM

Quote:

programed to think for themselves

is easier said than done. It may not even be possible.

#17 (**permalink**) 29-January-2005, 02:13 AM

A fiscal machine is a corrpuptible machine.

Why?
Because Adam said to Eve, "give me that apple and I'll give you pleasure."

And actually, Eburacum, the same technique can be applied to humans (read a brief, repeated chapter of 3001: The Final Odyssey by Clarke).

What constitutes/defines a self-replicative species by engineered genetics?

eburacum45 · #18 (**permalink**) 29-January-2005, 08:26 AM

The intelligence displayed collectively by ant and bee colonies seems to be different in kind to that shown by mammals and other higher animals;
see this link about ant colony algorithms.
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/resear...hannf/ants.html

As artificial intelligence is developed over the next few hundred years, I expect a myriad diiferent kinds of intelligence to emerge; those types of AI based on hive mind algorithms will almost certainly be radically different to human or mammal intelligence.
There might well be yet other bizarre kinds of minds, perhaps based on search engines or iterative programs, or developed by genetic engineering, that are stranger still; but these minds are likely to be our companions into the future of the universe.

ChromeStar · #19 (**permalink**) 29-January-2005, 08:32 AM

Gavwvin might be right, i don't know i anyone has read my Thread "Universe book of records" , but it talks about that.

eburacum45 · #20 (**permalink**) 29-January-2005, 09:11 AM

I can't find it, actually; can you give a link please?

ChromeStar · #21 (**permalink**) 29-January-2005, 09:23 AM

sure give me a second