276
04-25-2024, 12:18 AM
This is a subject I have actually researched... not the typical Google research, but actual academic research and some hypothesis testing.
I started with the simple question: is it possible for mankind to build an actual, functioning, organic brain? After all, we have successfully duplicated almost every system in an organic body, save three: reproduction, immunity, and the brain.Some would say (and in some ways ne accurate in saying) that we have developed some semblance of brain function in machines.
However, I cannot see the kind of intelligence in the most powerful computer as being even on the same playing field as organic human intelligence. So my first step was, of course, to define the problem. I came up with the following definitions to use in my work:
Pleasure: any series of sensory inputs that place the organism in a more favorable state.
Pain: any series of sensory inputs that place the organism in a less favorable state.
Intelligence: a set of responses to stimuli.
Instinct: a response to sensory input that is pre-programmed into an organism from birth.
Pavlovian: refers to a response that is learned through repetition and associated pain/pleasure responses based on the learned actions. Pavlovian intelligence can override instinctual intelligence.
Spiritual: refers to a response that exists independent of any pre-programmed or learned responses, except that the associated thoughts and actions can be triggered by instinctive or Pavlovian intelligence.
Social: refers to any type of intelligence (instinctual, Pavlovian, or spiritual) that can be utilized based on the observed actions or recorded records of others. For example, the learning of mathematic principles via repeated reading is a type of social Pavlovian intelligence, as is the knowledge that a predator is dangerous simply by watching it attack others and not oneself.
Consciousness: the ability to comprehend that oneself is alive and to consider the implications of one's actions.
Sentience: the ability to think and reason to solve problems.
Now, these may not be the definitions others use; one of the difficulties of this field is defining exactly what these terms entail. But that is irrelevant for my purposes here. All that is relevant is that the terms have been defined for the scope of my work.
My second step was to examine the evidence we know. For example, we know that a neuron has multiple inputs (dendrites) and only one output (axon). Both input and output use synaptic gaps to communicate with other neurons, and these communications can be multi-purpose using various neurotransmitters.The operation also appears analog instead of digital, based on the speed of operation and the single output.
Analog processors exist, but they are quite limited in their functions. The lowly Op-Amp can be considered an analog processor; it accepts analog inputs and produces an analog output based on those inputs. Unlike a digital processor, an analog processor can detect threshold levels, amplify, add, subtract, invert, etc. only. Therefore, the neuron cannot, by any known phenomena, be the source of intelligence. However, the arrangement of the neurons, and specifically the neural pathways, can account for Pavlovian as well as instinctive intelligence.
In instinctive intelligence, these pathways are formed at birth and are relatively unchangeable during the lifetime of the organism. For Pavlovian intelligence, the pathways develop due to continual use and the resulting pain/pleasure feedback. However, such a statement cannot be made for spiritual intelligence: the "gut feeling," the imagination, the dreams, the future plans. These things have no scientific explanation as yet, even within my theories.
Therefore, the concepts or consciousness and sentience, as I have defined them, require a certain amount of spiritual intelligence.we have little indication that animals other than humans possess such spiritual intelligence in a recognizable amount. Therefore, I conclude that it is likel that animals as a rule are not sentient, nor fully conscious. A few of the higher animals, like cats, dogs, pigs, dolphins, etc., may contain some small amount of consciousness (which would imply that they do have some small amount of spiritual intelligence), but not on the scale that humans do.
That's not to say they aren't special; they certainly can be! But it does mean that they don't have the ability to process and analyze information the way we do.
TheRedneck
I started with the simple question: is it possible for mankind to build an actual, functioning, organic brain? After all, we have successfully duplicated almost every system in an organic body, save three: reproduction, immunity, and the brain.Some would say (and in some ways ne accurate in saying) that we have developed some semblance of brain function in machines.
However, I cannot see the kind of intelligence in the most powerful computer as being even on the same playing field as organic human intelligence. So my first step was, of course, to define the problem. I came up with the following definitions to use in my work:
Pleasure: any series of sensory inputs that place the organism in a more favorable state.
Pain: any series of sensory inputs that place the organism in a less favorable state.
Intelligence: a set of responses to stimuli.
Instinct: a response to sensory input that is pre-programmed into an organism from birth.
Pavlovian: refers to a response that is learned through repetition and associated pain/pleasure responses based on the learned actions. Pavlovian intelligence can override instinctual intelligence.
Spiritual: refers to a response that exists independent of any pre-programmed or learned responses, except that the associated thoughts and actions can be triggered by instinctive or Pavlovian intelligence.
Social: refers to any type of intelligence (instinctual, Pavlovian, or spiritual) that can be utilized based on the observed actions or recorded records of others. For example, the learning of mathematic principles via repeated reading is a type of social Pavlovian intelligence, as is the knowledge that a predator is dangerous simply by watching it attack others and not oneself.
Consciousness: the ability to comprehend that oneself is alive and to consider the implications of one's actions.
Sentience: the ability to think and reason to solve problems.
Now, these may not be the definitions others use; one of the difficulties of this field is defining exactly what these terms entail. But that is irrelevant for my purposes here. All that is relevant is that the terms have been defined for the scope of my work.
My second step was to examine the evidence we know. For example, we know that a neuron has multiple inputs (dendrites) and only one output (axon). Both input and output use synaptic gaps to communicate with other neurons, and these communications can be multi-purpose using various neurotransmitters.The operation also appears analog instead of digital, based on the speed of operation and the single output.
Analog processors exist, but they are quite limited in their functions. The lowly Op-Amp can be considered an analog processor; it accepts analog inputs and produces an analog output based on those inputs. Unlike a digital processor, an analog processor can detect threshold levels, amplify, add, subtract, invert, etc. only. Therefore, the neuron cannot, by any known phenomena, be the source of intelligence. However, the arrangement of the neurons, and specifically the neural pathways, can account for Pavlovian as well as instinctive intelligence.
In instinctive intelligence, these pathways are formed at birth and are relatively unchangeable during the lifetime of the organism. For Pavlovian intelligence, the pathways develop due to continual use and the resulting pain/pleasure feedback. However, such a statement cannot be made for spiritual intelligence: the "gut feeling," the imagination, the dreams, the future plans. These things have no scientific explanation as yet, even within my theories.
Therefore, the concepts or consciousness and sentience, as I have defined them, require a certain amount of spiritual intelligence.we have little indication that animals other than humans possess such spiritual intelligence in a recognizable amount. Therefore, I conclude that it is likel that animals as a rule are not sentient, nor fully conscious. A few of the higher animals, like cats, dogs, pigs, dolphins, etc., may contain some small amount of consciousness (which would imply that they do have some small amount of spiritual intelligence), but not on the scale that humans do.
That's not to say they aren't special; they certainly can be! But it does mean that they don't have the ability to process and analyze information the way we do.
TheRedneck
