h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Mathematics. Where'st shall I begin?

So in developing the navigation system for the beer bot, I realized something. Take the human condition. We have smaller systems controlling sub functions of a human algorithym. Temperature balance, white blood cells, blinking, digestion, secretion, absorbtion, rejection on a chemical level. All of these things, automata. We take no notice, nor head when we are functioning with in normal parameters, but when we fall below or move above, the system alerts and communicates third person-like to tell our higher system what is going on. Now, we, from birth can not decode the lower system functions messages. We need doctors, and education to tell us and give us the language of the system, so that we can go due coarse to fix or adjust to the conditions. I am speaking of illness and the movment of aging, etc...

So other creatures on earth react the same? In same cases ,I would say yes, due to observations of my cats and how they deal with certain things, but, do they have a better understanding of their smaller subsystems?

Maybe it is a trade off. We leave the decisions to fight germs, and repair damage to our lower functions, not lesser, just not as aware, fuinctions which in turn allows us to focus on more philosophical and outwardly physical functions, relieving us of the constant need of self monitoring. What a f*****g genious biological mechanism we are and other creatures on this mud ball.

So, can we not, eventually, have the exact same design in our robotics? can we not have a multi layered system with highr and lower functions monitoring and thinking?

Is it a trade off? our conciousness? have we, some how in the past, made a bargin, we shall give up the remedial tasks of the minute and focas on the larger task of awareness?

My point is this, can we design an intelligent system that can monitor all functions of its being and yet be sentient? We are the most advanced biological machines thus far in the universe that we know of and we have not the ability, though i say this with tongue in cheek knowing full well that through meditation and pratice we can learn to control the bodies smaller functions, to control the smaller functions.

Now, is this telling us anything? We have learned physics by observation. Mathematics was brought by commerce and observation. All things can be define using mathematics, save for our very soul of thought. Thus, it is my statement, my postulate, that, not that it is impossible, but highly imprabable that we will be able to design a sentient system that will be able to think and feel, and dream, and love, and hate, like us, and retain its ability to control all aspects of its being. So basically, we are going down the wrong path with current AI.

We need to focus on small subsystems messaging a lorger core, and allowing the larger core to focus on larger things. Module replication from microscopic to macroscopic leaving only communication from the smaller to the larger, but not barring the ability to learn with respect to needed control of the system subfunction.

So what is the path to true AI? we have computers that can think, but can we get one to dream?

So do that, we need the separation, the exact model of ourselves.

If you think back, were we not created in Gods image (if one buys into that)? Then it is only fitting to create our children in that image.

As thinking machines, we are on the right path, but not truley sentient machines. We need to rethink our thinking...

Indeed.

This entry deserves much commentary. Right now, I lack the time to address it adequately. But a few quick thoughts.

Evident sentience takes on an organic form. Life doesn't seem to presuppose sentience, but does sentience presuppose life? My response: it depends upon your definiton of life.

Organic life makes use of the model that you propose. But many forms of 'proposed' inorganic life do not. I agree that this is a weakness to the design.

Perhaps a cellular design would produce more success than the holistic approach. A functional hierarchy could be emplaced to address the obstacles that need to be overcome in order to more closely approach a true intelligence.

My main insight into this: functionality should be encased into the design. This is the basis for organic life, and consequently, organic intelligence. That which makes up the actual entity dictates how that entity functions. Composition of base components separates individual independence.

The final component, the metaphorical 'inner eye', that which looks into itself. The human counterpart known as consciousness. I would agree that this component should be kept separate from those components that process the 'raw' or unrefined input.

We see this structure everywhere in the physical world. This is why the mathematical correlation is so strong.

Very open-ended...