Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?

[Write4U]

So? That means natural intelligence has a common origin.
What's any of that got to do with an artificial intelligence? Chances are, whatever the basis of AI's processing function, all of its descendents will work on the same principle.

Natura Artis Magistra (nature is the teacher of arts and sciences)
So far all human inventions are artificial imitations of natural values and functions. That's all there is. If it works in nature, it will work for humans. Why look elsewhere for unknown solutions?

The difference is, in a couple of thousand years, those future generations of AI won't assume that their way is the only way, because something different went before. They won't know what comes after, any more that we do.

Huh? That means we should look for "unnatural" solutions, because we do know what came before, but we don't know what we are looking for in the future?

 

[billvon]

You touched on the problem but you are not looking deep enough. You are missing the most important part, electrical wires don't do anything at all.

Wires in an electrical system are designed only for transport of electric information. But electrical wires do not do anything other than transport binary information, and you cannot replace neurons with electrical wires. They do not have the same function.

Neural networks (implemented in silicon) perform the same functions as biological neural networks.

Neurons are not wires and they do a lot on their own.

Right. And computers are not neurons; they can do a lot more than a neuron.

 

[billvon]

True and all current AIs run on electricity.
But that does not make them capable of emotion.

Agreed. But biological systems run on neurotransmitters AND electrical potentials; that does not make them capable of emotion. Planaria, for example, have neural networks, but no emotion.

 

[Jeeves]

If it works in nature, it will work for humans.

No, it won't. We know fish can breathe water, but that doesn't work for us, so we invent underwater gear which is wholly artificial.
We know flapping their wings works for birds and butterflies, but it doesn't work for us, so we invent a wholly artificial mode of flight.

That means we should look for "unnatural" solutions,

We use unnatural solutions to most of our challenges. For that matter, most of the challenges we set for ourselves are already unnatural.

because we do know what came before, but we don't know what we are looking for in the future?

No, because there is nothing natural about concrete, jewellery, cannons, internal combustion engines or GPS satellites.
In all purposeful activity, we do know what we're looking for. What we don't know is how the things we make will evolve when we're gone.
I said:
"The difference is, in a couple of thousand years, those future generations of AI won't assume that their way is the only way"
as a reaction to your assumption that the way it's been is the only way it can ever be.

 

[Write4U]

So? That means natural intelligence has a common origin.

No, that means the common denominator of everything is mathematical or quasi-intelligent in essence.

 

[exchemist]

Natura Artis Magistra (nature is the teacher of arts and sciences)
So far all human inventions are artificial imitations of natural values and functions. That's all there is. If it works in nature, it will work for humans. Why look elsewhere for unknown solutions? Huh? That means we should look for "unnatural" solutions, because we do know what came before, but we don't know what we are looking for in the future?

BINGO!

 

[Write4U]

Agreed. But biological systems run on neurotransmitters AND electrical potentials; that does not make them capable of emotion. Planaria, for example, have neural networks, but no emotion.

I disagree, the combination of electro-chemical reactions allow for the bio-chemical experience of emotion.
That does not mean all biological system can experience emotion, but it is the apparent template for emotional expression.

 

[Write4U]

No, it won't. We know fish can breathe water, but that doesn't work for us, so we invent underwater gear which is wholly artificial.

First, fish do not breathe water. They breathe oxygen extracted from water. But you are still looking at this much too narrowly. Spiders already use "diving bells" . Mammals roam the oceans and are able to dive to astounding depths. Aquatic mammals originated in the oceans and evolved to oxygen breathing land mammals. Most likely the reverse happened as well for some species which returned to water.

Gills are tissues that are like short threads, protein structures called filaments. These filaments have many functions including the transfer of ions and water, as well as the exchange of oxygen, carbon dioxide, acids and ammonia. Each filament contains a capillary network that provides a large surface area for exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide.

Wiki

We know flapping their wings works for birds and butterflies, but it doesn't work for us, so we invent a wholly artificial mode of flight.

No we didn't. Gliding (aerodynamics) was the first attemp at flight in nature. Ever seen a flying squirrel?

We use unnatural solutions to most of our challenges. For that matter, most of the challenges we set for ourselves are already unnatural.

All attainable challengs are natural in essence. Even tool making is not exclusively human.

No, because there is nothing natural about concrete, jewellery, cannons, internal combustion engines or GPS satellites.

Concrete; termites. Jewelry; many birds like to collect and entice females with trinkets, "pretty stuff".

Cannons (combustion); ever heard of the Bombardier beetle? Ever had a squirrel hit you with a nut? GPS; Migrating birds use a form of GPS (orientation) or the earth's magnetic fields to navigate. The animal world is full of the use of chemistry. It's the major ingredient in the love-life of all mating species.

In all purposeful activity, we do know what we're looking for. What we don't know is how the things we make will evolve when we're gone.

Right, all living things have puposeful activity. "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" is a universal imperative. But that law also includes entropy. That's why inert materials do not evolve, they devolve.

A freshly-cut apple turns brown, a bicycle fender becomes rusty and a copper penny suddenly turns green. What do all of these events have in common? They are all examples of a process called oxidation.

That's what happenes to both to living and inert objects, including artificial machines which use energy in order to function.

I said: "The difference is, in a couple of thousand years, those future generations of AI won't assume that their way is the only way"

Because they will know that natural values and functions are the primary source of evolutionary processes and if they are smart, they will heed the dangers of wanton use of resources, like humans do. Parasitic behaviors run the risk of killing the host unless the behavior is mutually beneficial and then we have symbiosis.

as a reaction to your assumption that the way it's been is the only way it can ever be.

Oh, and there was a time things were not natural and there will be a time where things are not natural? Careful now.......

 

[Write4U]

BINGO!

Read it again. I think you missed the message. Look for the question mark.

 

[billvon]

I disagree, the combination of electro-chemical reactions allow for the bio-chemical experience of emotion.

Right. But I see no reason that biochemical emotions are the only 'real' emotions.

 

[Write4U]

Right. But I see no reason that biochemical emotions are the only 'real' emotions.

I keep my mind wide open, but understanding one (natural) functionality may help in devising artificial substitutes.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Neurons are not wires and they do a lot on their own.

OMG !
you are such an independent neuron !

 

[Write4U]

OMG !
you are such an independent neuron !

The deeper into the life of neurons you go the greater the surprises

Centriole.
In cell biology a centriole is a cylindrical organelle composed mainly of a protein called tubulin.[1] Centrioles are found in most eukaryotic cells. A bound pair of centrioles, surrounded by a shapeless mass of dense material, called the pericentriolar material (PCM), makes up a structure called a centrosome.

Centrioles are present in the cells of most eukaryotes, for example those of animals. However, they are absent from conifers (pinophyta), flowering plants (angiosperms) and most fungi, and are only present in the male gametes of charophytes, bryophytes, seedless vascular plants, cycads, and ginkgo.

Cellular organization,
Centrioles are a very important part of centrosomes, which are involved in organizing microtubules in the cytoplasm.[14][15] The position of the centriole determines the position of the nucleus and plays a crucial role in the spatial arrangement of the cell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centriole#Role_in_cell_division

Neuron,
A neuron is a nerve cell that is the basic building block of the nervous system. Neurons are similar to other cells in the human body in a number of ways, but there is one key difference between neurons and other cells. Neurons are specialized to transmit information throughout the body.

These highly specialized nerve cells are responsible for communicating information in both chemical and electrical forms. There are also several different types of neurons responsible for different tasks in the human body.

Sensory neurons carry information from the sensory receptor cells throughout the body to the brain. Motor neurons transmit information from the brain to the muscles of the body. Interneurons are responsible for communicating information between different neurons in the body.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-neuron-2794890

 

[Jeeves]

Oh, and there was a time things were not natural and there will be a time where things are not natural?

I don't know where you get that. While endlessly fascinating and educational, none of the little anatomy lessons are relevant to the subject to hand. No, there was never a time before nature; time is part of nature. But we are now well into the era when man-made things are artificial - the making of those things has departed from the natural pattern.
You disagree. That's fine.
I believe this horse has had enough punishment for one death.

 

[Write4U]

But we are now well into the era when man-made things are artificial - the making of those things has departed from the natural pattern.
You disagree. That's fine.

I don't disagree, I merely posit that nothing man can do is unnatural and as such must comply with natural laws. No magical shortcuts.

 

[Jeeves]

I don't disagree, I merely posit that nothing man can do is unnatural.

What, then, is your definition of "artificial"?

and as such must comply with natural laws.

Comply with natural laws - i.e. of physics - and imitate biology are two very different propositions.

No magical shortcuts

Who proposed any?
I said intelligent design might be more efficient than evolution, by taking a faster, more direct mechanical route - nothing more.

 

[Write4U]

What, then, is your definition of "artificial"?

Something that is made by a living organism for "movement in the direction of greatest satifaction".

A bird's nest is an artificial construct. A spider's web is an artificial construct. Get it?

Comply with natural laws - i.e. of physics - and imitate biology are two very different propositions.

Not at all. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. There is nothing that is not physical, including biology.
a) all physical events have to answer to physical laws.
b) all imitations are merely variations on a theme.

W4U said.
No magical shortcuts.

Who proposed any?
I said intelligent design might be more efficient than evolution, by taking a faster, more direct mechanical route - nothing more.

Intelligent design is merely design in accordance with natural law. There is only natural intelligent design, not magical intelligent design. To the universe, time is not a factor, as long as evolution and natural selection are nothing more than a dynamical chronology of deterministic events.

 

[Jeeves]

Sure, whatever.

 

[Write4U]

Intelligent design is merely design in accordance with natural law. There is only natural intelligent design, not magical intelligent design. To the universe, time is not a factor, as long as evolution and natural selection are nothing more than a dynamical chronology of deterministic events.

Sure, whatever.

Correction;
What is identified as Intelligent Design is merely a design in accordance with natural mathematical laws, a quasi intelligent function, not by any form of magic or free will which replaces natural mathematics.

 

[Jeeves]

Correction;
What is identified as Intelligent Design is merely a design in accordance with natural mathematical laws, a quasi intelligent function, not by any form of magic or free will which replaces natural mathematics.

Nobody said one word about magic, or circumventing mathematical and physical laws or any of that nonsense. You dragged that in, just like you dragged in the birds and bees and squirrels. I have no idea why you did that, as it was all irrelevant,
We - some of us - were talking about mechanical vs organic arrangement of materials to achieve similar functions.
If you want to talk about every other damn thing under the sun, have at it!
So - what ever: you have the podium.