Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

What is you IQ?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

What is your IQ?

160+ (Wile E. Coyote is my uncle)
6
No votes
140-160 (I'm wicked smart baby)
30
No votes
120-140 (Smarter 'n most)
36
No votes
100-120 (Better than average!)
3
No votes
80-100 (I think IQ tests are inherently biased)
2
No votes
 
Total votes : 77

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby JustinFrankl » Mon 16 Oct 2006, 08:55:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'B')ut what if you were to replace all the neurons in the brain with something that would conduct impulses as quickly as an electrical circuit? This is about a million times faster than brain neurons conduct impulses. Ray Kurzweil is fond of pointing this out.
And then, of course, the human brain, being an evolved thing, is designed to outsmart fish and get alot of pussy and stuff like that.

The very concept of intelligence that we'd like to simulate on a computer through AI, or augment through cybernetics, falls apart the farther we get from what it means holistically to be human. Outsmarting fish, writing sonnets, chasing pussy, loving, defending, lying, fighting, killing, these are all things that humans do, are sometimes driven to do, all of which engage intelligence. But what happens to the drives for surivival, expression, sexuality, compassion when a person can be kept alive indefinintely? Why would a computer want to find a cure for cancer or save a drowning child?
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby entropyfails » Mon 16 Oct 2006, 12:46:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')The very concept of intelligence that we'd like to simulate on a computer through AI, or augment through cybernetics, falls apart the farther we get from what it means holistically to be human.

But what happens to the drives for surivival, expression, sexuality, compassion when a person can be kept alive indefinintely? Why would a computer want to find a cure for cancer or save a drowning child?


We are delving a bit off topic but I’ll give my answer.

As far as "What does it mean to be a human?" I’d answer, "Being human has no meaning." Maybe life has a purpose, but we won’t "know" anything about it so we can never ascribe it "meaning". It is for this reason that our "picking the winners and losers in life" causes so many problems. "Life’s purpose" if any such thing can be said to exists, lies far outside the domain of human knowledge.

As for "Why would an AI cure cancer or save children?" the answer is simple. It would do so because we ask it to.

Back on the topic of human intelligence, we have generationally been gaining IQ points for a long time. Each generation hones its intellectual weapon to a sharper and sharper point. Given that we are locked into that intelligence loop, it shouldn’t surprise us that we create more and more damage to the fabric of life as we gain more and more knowledge and power.

Hopefully, we will become smart enough to realize that we are going to kill ourselves and everything else on the planet. But the smarter we get, the more we seem to hurt the planet. What a conundrum!
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Mon 16 Oct 2006, 23:55:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he brain is a massive I/O machine. The size of the datapath within is huge, though its processing speed is fairly slow. When thinking about the distinction between computer and brain, I think of a fairly slow, giant set of networked CPU's that have a datapath from ram to register, and a register size of a million bits, all connected together on a 10 gigabit network.

It helps to seperate what the two types of machines are good at.

So, I don't think we'll be replacing brain tissue with electronics any time soon; on the other hand, having a digital computer "assist", with some kind of neural interface seems to me to have gone from the remotely possible to the probable in recent years. Having the computer be external also makes it cheaper to swap out and upgrade. Upgrade nuts being the lifeblood of hightech, so you don't want to discourage them!


Only the human brain is analogue as opposed to digital. You'd definately need to convert a discreet signal to resemble an analogue one for such an interface to function, and there will always be some degree of error or mis-synchronization.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby entropyfails » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 01:31:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')Only the human brain is analogue as opposed to digital. You'd definately need to convert a discreet signal to resemble an analogue one for such an interface to function, and there will always be some degree of error or mis-synchronization.


What if real numbers don’t exist? Then all computation is discrete and digital, even human computation. Also, humans use neurons for a large part of the mental computation which fire discretely. Even computers are analog devices (electrical currents ie groups of particle/waves) that special machinery reads discretely. This whole analog vs discrete debate seems like a red herring to me.

Even with the primitive interfaces we have now we get a LOT of bang for the buck with computers. Better interfaces will mean more human intelligence, which can be a good thing if used properly. If used improperly, it will destroy most life on Earth. But that’s the same situation as we are in right now!
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 02:40:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat if real numbers don’t exist?


We don't know that, so why make that assumption? The burden of proof would rest on a competing theory to displace the currently accepted one.

The notion that real numbers don't exist is discussed in a book titled "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin. Read it, by chance?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, humans use neurons for a large part of the mental computation which fire discretely.


Yes and no.

The brain uses chemical processes along with electrical to conduct its functions. The brain itself carries out computations within the time domain as continuous functions of time, even if individual neurons may fire discreetly. Further, wheras computers have processes that are independent or semi-independent from each other, the brain itself is parallel and woven, allowing processes to work in unison. Computers run a series of instructions in a sequence, while is isn't universally understood whether the brain does such and it appears to do something different. Perhaps not a series of instructions, but a spontaneuous generation of, overlapping of, and elimination of instructions not necessarily in that order.


This is my understanding of the subject at least. It may be wrong. I'm no neurologist.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven computers are analog devices (electrical currents ie groups of particle/waves) that special machinery reads discretely. This whole analog vs discrete debate seems like a red herring to me.


It is important to consider if brain interfaces were to ever be properly designed. Wheras converting from discreet to analogue can potentially result in no error as the original signal remains completely intact, doing vice versa will always result in error.

The level of technology needed to properly convert from an analogue to a discreet signal with a small enough degree of error that the human brain won't be able to tell the difference is staggering. We simply can't have errors more than nanoseconds given how fast electrical current travels in the mediums discussed, and ideally, this small error range would be consistent with each tied neuron without fail. Billions of connected neurons, each firing at a different time, each needing to receive or send a signal at the right time for it to have the desired effect.

There have been very basic interfaces integrated into the brains of monkeys, but they do things such as controlling a computer cursor mentally, things that generally have signals with much greater room for error than a full interface integrated with one's own consciousness may have.

It is an interesting prospect, none the less. I've always liked the idea of having a microprocessor plugged into my brain, provided that it couldn't be exploited by others.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 03:28:03

The fact of the matter is that the brain already exists, functions according to principal and can studied. Just because it isn't understood doesn't mean that it cannot be eventually.

And once people begin to understand its operation, its principals will be duplicated in electronics no doubt about it. And whatever inventions derive from the brain's design will, in turn be designed for specialized heavy lifting. So it's really just a matter of time.

If you and I are proud of our 130 IQs, just imagine how some advanced brain-derived invention would compare. Think of a man with a shovel. Now think of a giant earth mover.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby entropyfails » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 11:06:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat if real numbers don’t exist?


We don't know that, so why make that assumption? The burden of proof would rest on a competing theory to displace the currently accepted one.

The notion that real numbers don't exist is discussed in a book titled "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin. Read it, by chance?


That theory is also prominent in Gregory Chaitin's work on the Omega number. I haven't read Lee Smolin's book yet, but Chaitin mentions his work in this paper. From that paper,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')In other words, there are arbitrarily small coverings, and the computable reals are therefore a set of measure zero, they have zero probability, they constitute an infitesimal fraction of all the reals between 0 and 1. So if you pick a real at random between 0 and 1, with a uniform distribution of probability, it is infinitely unlikely, though possible, that you will get a computable real!

What disturbing news! Uncomputable reals are not the exception, they are the majority! How strange!

In fact, the situation is even worse than that. As Emile Borel points
out on page 21 of his final book, Les nombres inaccessibles (1952), without making any reference to Turing, most individual reals are not even uniquely specifable, they cannot even be named or pointed out, no matter how nonconstructively, because of the limitations of human languages, which permit only a countable infinity of possible texts. The individually accessible or nameable reals are also a set of measure zero. Most reals are un-nameable,
with probability one!


So we can be certain that either we cannot name most of the universe or the universe is discrete. Indeed, Zeno said a very similar thing a very long time ago. *grin* I highly recommend checking out Chaitin if you enjoy these sorts of ideas.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, humans use neurons for a large part of the mental computation which fire discretely.


Yes and no.

The brain uses chemical processes along with electrical to conduct its functions. The brain itself carries out computations within the time domain as continuous functions of time, even if individual neurons may fire discreetly. Further, wheras computers have processes that are independent or semi-independent from each other, the brain itself is parallel and woven, allowing processes to work in unison. Computers run a series of instructions in a sequence, while is isn't universally understood whether the brain does such and it appears to do something different. Perhaps not a series of instructions, but a spontaneuous generation of, overlapping of, and elimination of instructions not necessarily in that order.

But all of that could easily fall into the discrete realm. We have a countable number of neurons that we could use a countable number of computers to simulate. The interconnections inside the brain are also countable. Brains certainly work differently from a modern Von Neumann engine, but we have not found anything that brains can do that a Von Neumann engine cannot, except of course building a self-reflective consciousness. Roger Penrose argues that this will always be so because he feels the brain also performs quantum calculations that we currently do not understand. However that is far from proven either.

Certainly, the jury is out. But Chaitin’s arguments about a discrete universe do have both a strong mathematical background and a strong physical background. It's fun stuff to think about regardless.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven computers are analog devices (electrical currents ie groups of particle/waves) that special machinery reads discretely. This whole analog vs discrete debate seems like a red herring to me.

It is important to consider if brain interfaces were to ever be properly designed. Wheras converting from discreet to analogue can potentially result in no error as the original signal remains completely intact, doing vice versa will always result in error.

The level of technology needed to properly convert from an analogue to a discreet signal with a small enough degree of error that the human brain won't be able to tell the difference is staggering. We simply can't have errors more than nanoseconds given how fast electrical current travels in the mediums discussed, and ideally, this small error range would be consistent with each tied neuron without fail. Billions of connected neurons, each firing at a different time, each needing to receive or send a signal at the right time for it to have the desired effect.
There have been very basic interfaces integrated into the brains of monkeys, but they do things such as controlling a computer cursor mentally, things that generally have signals with much greater room for error than a full interface integrated with one's own consciousness may have.

I agree that a single processor cannot fully model the human neural system. However, we are fast approaching the point where groups of computers CAN handle the amount of data within the timeframes you specified for human neural computation. Such a device could conceivably time things in a way that our neurons couldn’t tell the discrete nature of their input. We have a ways to go, but we will have 20 Ghz processors around the time we hit Peak Oil. So to me, Peak Oil is a race between enhancing human intelligence to the point where it no longer wants to destroy the world and the effects of resource depletion of the planet. We’ll have an interesting time ahead of us.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '
')It is an interesting prospect, none the less. I've always liked the idea of having a microprocessor plugged into my brain, provided that it couldn't be exploited by others.

It would make for a new and interesting way of calling in sick. “I’m sorry boss, I’ve got a brain virus today and I cannot think.” Or corporate espionage, “We implanted a virus in the lead designer’s brain that will ensure that all of our competitor’s cars look like large ducks.” Or perhaps you are having a conversation with your Mom, “And then I went to the wedding and I …. WANT TO ENLARGE YOUR PENIS?!?! CLICK HERE!”

One thing about our future, it will look nothing like our recent past. *grin*
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby AgentR » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 11:37:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'O')nly the human brain is analogue as opposed to digital. You'd definately need to convert a discreet signal to resemble an analogue one for such an interface to function, and there will always be some degree of error or mis-synchronization.


We've been doing the analog to digital and back brain interface for a long time, its the monitor, mouse, and keyboard I'm using at the moment to convert analog nerve impulses into discreet bits going into the computer, and the monitor/video takes the digital bits on the AGP ram and converts it into little dots of light of varying frequencies which strike the retina and create the analog signal in my mind.

This is certainly NOT an error free process in either direction; whether its the simple typo, or reflected light on the monitor interfereing with what you see.

The next step was voice commanding; which computers are now entirely capable of with reasonable accuracy.

Eventually the interface will be interpretation of brain activity; but that is only experimental and very, very limited. Give it ten more years. People used to think voice commanding was impossible, or at least incredibly difficult. Now we know that its just annoying.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: What is you IQ?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Tue 17 Oct 2006, 22:18:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o we can be certain that either we cannot name most of the universe or the universe is discrete.


It could be argued the probability of a real number existing isn't necessarily 0, but that it instead approaches 0.

There is a common misconception that 1/∞ = 0

∞ is a concept as opposed to a number, and technically cannot be used with mathematical operators. That is why we use limits and such in integral calculus. The solution approaches a number, rather than is a number. For the sake of simplicity, we merely round up or down as needed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e have a countable number of neurons that we could use a countable number of computers to simulate. The interconnections inside the brain are also countable.


That number of neurons is also constantly changing and the time at which that number is changed is arguably infintesmally small. You could theoretically find the unit of time that neuron becomes active at a certain time t with an error approaching 0, but said error not being equal to 0.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ertainly, the jury is out. But Chaitin’s arguments about a discrete universe do have both a strong mathematical background and a strong physical background. It's fun stuff to think about regardless.


Can't really argue with any of that. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')agree that a single processor cannot fully model the human neural system. However, we are fast approaching the point where groups of computers CAN handle the amount of data within the timeframes you specified for human neural computation. Such a device could conceivably time things in a way that our neurons couldn’t tell the discrete nature of their input. We have a ways to go, but we will have 20 Ghz processors around the time we hit Peak Oil. So to me, Peak Oil is a race between enhancing human intelligence to the point where it no longer wants to destroy the world and the effects of resource depletion of the planet. We’ll have an interesting time ahead of us.


a) We may have already hit peak oil

b) We will reach limitations when we get down to a size as small as the atomic level. This is perhaps 30 years from now.

Still fun to ponder.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you and I are proud of our 130 IQs, just imagine how some advanced brain-derived invention would compare. Think of a man with a shovel. Now think of a giant earth mover.

While there are some correlations and relations between such a test score and other variables, this number really doesn't measure much except for extreme cases(and even then, not all extreme cases hold true in the long run, considering I scored at the retarded end of the bell curve early on, which if it were any bit true, you wouldn't be reading this post).

If I were to take such a test today and score a 90-110(or even less), I wouldn't care in the least.

Whether I have a 130+ at the moment, I can't really say, and I won't even bother to find out anyway. I see it as a possibility, and indeed one such score in high school was quite a bit above that. But that number alone doesn't really determine shit in regards to what I may or may not be capable of.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e've been doing the analog to digital and back brain interface for a long time, its the monitor, mouse, and keyboard I'm using at the moment to convert analog nerve impulses into discreet bits going into the computer, and the monitor/video takes the digital bits on the AGP ram and converts it into little dots of light of varying frequencies which strike the retina and create the analog signal in my mind.

This is certainly NOT an error free process in either direction; whether its the simple typo, or reflected light on the monitor interfereing with what you see.

The next step was voice commanding; which computers are now entirely capable of with reasonable accuracy.

Eventually the interface will be interpretation of brain activity; but that is only experimental and very, very limited. Give it ten more years. People used to think voice commanding was impossible, or at least incredibly difficult. Now we know that its just annoying.

That just isn't the same sort of input. You have to physically move the mouse. The sort of interface previously discussed would have you moving it mentally. Theoretically, there may be less degree of error in doing so(eg. less chance for a misfiring of nerves, etc.), except for the error such a device might pose.

I don't think a brain interface is impossible, just complicated, and certainly beyond our level of technology. Even if we knew how to do it, our transistors aren't yet small enough. Werre currently at like what, 13*10^-6 m? Maybe when we get to 1 nm and smaller...
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron