That is the question plaguing Neuroscience, Biology, Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (including AI work). We don't know how brain states generate the affective sensations that we experience (and I assume all animals with a sufficiently complex CNS experience, which probably includes fish, who have a very nicely complicated CNS). Right now "artificial life" researchers are struggling to come up with even a proto-bacterium-like entity from scratch. And simply putting the enzymes and transporters into a membrane-bound container doesn't make it start to act "alive".
The thing that most non-biologists don't think about is that all cells only come from other living cells. Thank Pasteur. This is not a trivial point. Except for one time we can infer, life only comes from life. Abiogenesis may have been a one time deal, or maybe just a few times as far as we know now. So clearly something unusual and interesting is involved, and we are not entirely sure what that is.
Some researchers have proposed that living systems selected metabolites based on them naturally being in a state of quantum criticality. See here for example:
Whether claims like this turn out to be true or not remains to be seen. But clearly, scientists are struggling to even define the basics of what makes living organisms unique.
If you search PubMed for articles on artificial life you get articles like this, where they make it quite explicit that they are just trying to imitate life-like behaviors, not create them de novo. Any "emotions" would be simple imitations of behavior.
Artif Life. 2015 Spring;21(2):141-65. doi: 10.1162/ARTL_a_00164. Epub 2015 May 7. On the Evolution of Behaviors through Embodied Imitation. Erbas MD1, Bull L, Winfield AF2.
Abstract This article describes research in which embodied imitation and behavioral adaptation are investigated in collective robotics. We model social learning in artificial agents with real robots. The robots are able to observe and learn each others' movement patterns using their on-board sensors only, so that imitation is embodied. We show that the variations that arise from embodiment allow certain behaviors that are better adapted to the process of imitation to emerge and evolve during multiple cycles of imitation. As these behaviors are more robust to uncertainties in the real robots' sensors and actuators, they can be learned by other members of the collective with higher fidelity. Three different types of learned-behavior memory have been experimentally tested to investigate the effect of memory capacity on the evolution of movement patterns, and results show that as the movement patterns evolve through multiple cycles of imitation, selection, and variation, the robots are able to, in a sense, agree on the structure of the behaviors that are imitated.
OK, I agree completely that we don't know what "alive" means in mechanistic terms. I was going to bring that up, so I am glad you beat me to it. If we cannot define life, then we have a long ways to go before we can imitate life's abilities, wouldn't you agree?
There is an enormous gap between defining life, and making a machine that can do what a human brain does. Considering that humans are still working on what "life" is, there is little doubt that it will be along time before we can create something with sensations, thoughts and emotions. First we need to figure out why a cell is alive one minute, but dead the next when you apply a little bit of sodium azide. We know what chemical reactions we have shut off, and we know the various cellular death cascades that occur (apoptotic, necrotic cell death, etc.), but we still don't know what the attribute of "living" even is, let alone how to emulate it.
Just like we know a living organism when we see one, I have a good sense that we will know it when someone finally makes a living thing (or a thing with living attributes) when we see it. You won't need a Turing test, because it will act alive, rather than acting like it is imitating life. It will have to say "ouch!" and really mean it when you stick it with a pin.
I would like it very much if you could provide some information that suggests that all you need is complexity to make something with feelings and emotions. Cells respond to chemicals, like hormones and neurotransmitters because that is how signaling pathways in the target cells are activated. But the key is that they are alive, which allows for sensations and in more advanced organisms with a complex central nervous system, emotions. Just because emotions involve "chemical reactions" (like the signaling cascade that occurs after a glutamate ion binds to an NMDA receptor in the brain) that doesn't mean all you need for emotions is the right chemical reactions. You need the living cells in an extremely complex network, at least that is the best neuroscience can determine at this point. There is no evidence that any machine of any type even has a "thought", let alone an emotion.
So until you can come up with examples where any machine has shown the capacity for sensations or thoughts or emotions, then I posit, along with lots of other neuroscientists, that living cells are required to have attributes of living organisms. It is why we distinguish between animate and inanimate objects.
The evidence is pretty clear that a lax attitude and cozy government-corporate-regulatory environment made this disaster much worse than it had to be. I am sure that they will all get off without any significant penalties or jail time, but at least they are going to have to go through the court system.
I wonder what it is that makes people think that robots can be given emotions, when we have no idea how brains generate emotions? And even when we do figure out how brains do that, what makes people think that it doesn't require living cells to have feelings, sensations and emotions? In which case you would have to grow robots from single cells, which would mean they were living, rather than robots.
Windows 7 is fully supported at least until 2020. There may be extensions after that. I will only upgrade to Windows 10 when I deem it to be an upgrade from Windows 7 ultimate. Windows 10 is an app-orriented (MS store oriented) mobile OS more than anything else. The only addition that may be useful for me at some point is Direct X 12, but I doubt that will be a major plus for some time to come. I will also wait until popular demand gets MS to allow some control over updates (at least a "remind me" feature). I don't use apps on my desktop computer, and so far Direct X 12 is not something I need. Right now Windows 7 is perfect for my purposes. MS will have to figure out a way to make 10 much more appealing than it is now.
Switching to Windows 10 now from Windows 7 Ultimate seems like a downgrade rather than an upgrade. Features and customization options have been removed and stability and usability are still iffy. I will wait for service pack 1 and read the reviews over the next year. But unless they give me as much functionality and customization (including setting drivers and updates to be installed when I say so) as I have in Windows 7, I am not going to go for their "free app-oriented mobile device OS that also sort of works on desktop computers".
Somehow I don't think that putting my Windows 7 disk in and running the installation would get me back to my current setup from Windows 10. I currently have a very complicated setup with over 150 programs installed. I use my computer for writing science manuscripts, preparing the figures, video editing, Flash animation, preparing scientific graphs, and playing games. It more than likely that running the Windows 7 installation disk on an upgraded Windows 10 machine would wipe the OS and start from scratch. Setting up a virtual machine is not an option that I am interested in on my main computer. As I mentioned, I may try upgrading on one computer here that is dedicated to playing games since it won't be a disaster even if it causes problems.
Still, it looks like the selling points are "it's more like Windows 7" and "it runs universal apps". I don't use any apps, and I really like Windows 7. So they will need to add some new desktop functionality that does not exist in Windows 7 before I would make the change.
I really don't want to set up a dual boot system on my main computer. It is too important for my work to play around with it like that. I may try on one of my gaming computers here that is not used for anything serious.
But again, since most people won't be setting up virtual machines and instead will upgrade from 7 or 8 to 10, I am wondering if the process is reversible? Can people revert back to 7 if they decide they don't like 10?
I just went to MS to see what they had to say about why I should upgrade to 10. They said it was because it has the best of Windows 8 and Window 7 combined, and has live tiles. So since I don't want anything from Windows 8, and I hate the live tiles, they haven't convinced me at all.
So I am wondering, does anyone know if you can uninstall 10 and go back to Windows 7 once you have done the "upgrade"? I have a feeling it is a one way street.
I have read lots about Windows 10, which is a facelift on Windows 8. They had to do the facelift because their vast existing user base didn't like the childish colored squares. I have looked at dozens of screens shots. Yes, I can customize Windows 10 to look like Windows 7, but that means I have to spend time to get back to where I already am right now. Can I un-install 10 if I try it and don't like it? That I have not seen mention of anywhere.
So, can I un-install it and go back to Windows 7 if I don't like it?
I find the large colored squares to be extremely ugly. It looks cheep, like something for a small mobile device (because that is what it is for). I have a 27" monitor and I use my desktop and I put lots of work items on it. The desktop acts like my to-do list. As I complete jobs I move the icons off the desktop and make room for new jobs. I want complete control over the look of my desktop, and I want small, easy to identify icons because that is how I work.
I don't see how big, ugly, flat colored boxes look good to anyone who is using a large monitor.
Just don't want or need it. I don't run apps, I only use programs for the work I do (Creative Suite 5.5, ChemBioDraw, Sigmaplot 12, Reference Manager, etc.). Also play games. Windows 7 Ultimate does everything I want, and so far I haven't seen anything in Windows 10 that would make me switch. That may change over time as they work on 10, but after Windows 8 it's going to be a tough sell.
Still hate the new interface. I will never warm up to the big, ugly colored squares. You know, the ones that they needed to make it work on a tiny phone screen? I will wait to read about useful improvements in the OS before I do anything. Right now I see nothing I want.
Sounds like more work for the teachers, and my guess is that would be without extra pay. Even with the aid of technology, individual lessons means more time required on the teachers part. How about just reduce the number of students per teacher?
I meant corporations are pulling the strings in both parties. The corporations are pretty much in control now, just ask any politician who is grubbing for money on Wall Street. I see virtually no difference between the two major parties at this point. They spout different red meat rhetoric, but they bow to the same master.
Yeah. My Windows 7 systems boot very fast (SSD boot drives) with the fastest one being 14 to 15 seconds. Cutting another few seconds off of that won't effect my life at all. I don't need any of the other things you mentioned, and I doubt Direct X 12 will offer many benefits for some time to come. MS is going to have to make a better desktop OS for me to switch, and right now 10 doesn't seem to have anything I want. Both 8 and 10 seem like they were primarily designed for mobile devices, not desktops. I like the Win 7 interface, and really dislike the new ones (8.1 especially, and 10 as well).
No interest whatsoever in using One Drive, and I don't use apps on my desktop computers which I use to do work like putting together scientific manuscripts for submission to journals. I also backup whole drives, as well as backing up key file directories. So Windows 10 offers me nothing except less functionality and less customize-ability.
Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate. To me, Windows 10 seems like a downgrade from 7 ultimate.
That is my impression as well. They are trying to make it palatable to desktop users, including the entire corporate and government sectors who are still using it, but it is just an app-based OS for mobile devices that can still run Windows programs. They hope to drive lots of business to their app store by giving 10 away for free. But for desktop Win7 users it seems like a big, irritating downgrade.
Windows. Love it or hate it, it's there. I only use it on desktops, so I don't see Microsoft's attempt to make an every-device OS as a plus. I use Windows 7 because it was designed for desktops. Why would anyone want to switch over to Microsoft's app based Windows 10? Does anyone here have any substantive reasons other than small differences in boot time or DirectX 12 support, that make the upgrade useful for desktop users with Windows 7? I'm curious.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the question plaguing Neuroscience, Biology, Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (including AI work). We don't know how brain states generate the affective sensations that we experience (and I assume all animals with a sufficiently complex CNS experience, which probably includes fish, who have a very nicely complicated CNS). Right now "artificial life" researchers are struggling to come up with even a proto-bacterium-like entity from scratch. And simply putting the enzymes and transporters into a membrane-bound container doesn't make it start to act "alive".
The thing that most non-biologists don't think about is that all cells only come from other living cells. Thank Pasteur. This is not a trivial point. Except for one time we can infer, life only comes from life. Abiogenesis may have been a one time deal, or maybe just a few times as far as we know now. So clearly something unusual and interesting is involved, and we are not entirely sure what that is.
Some researchers have proposed that living systems selected metabolites based on them naturally being in a state of quantum criticality. See here for example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.0688...
Whether claims like this turn out to be true or not remains to be seen. But clearly, scientists are struggling to even define the basics of what makes living organisms unique.
If you search PubMed for articles on artificial life you get articles like this, where they make it quite explicit that they are just trying to imitate life-like behaviors, not create them de novo. Any "emotions" would be simple imitations of behavior.
Artif Life. 2015 Spring;21(2):141-65. doi: 10.1162/ARTL_a_00164. Epub 2015 May 7.
On the Evolution of Behaviors through Embodied Imitation.
Erbas MD1, Bull L, Winfield AF2.
Abstract
This article describes research in which embodied imitation and behavioral adaptation are investigated in collective robotics. We model social learning in artificial agents with real robots. The robots are able to observe and learn each others' movement patterns using their on-board sensors only, so that imitation is embodied. We show that the variations that arise from embodiment allow certain behaviors that are better adapted to the process of imitation to emerge and evolve during multiple cycles of imitation. As these behaviors are more robust to uncertainties in the real robots' sensors and actuators, they can be learned by other members of the collective with higher fidelity. Three different types of learned-behavior memory have been experimentally tested to investigate the effect of memory capacity on the evolution of movement patterns, and results show that as the movement patterns evolve through multiple cycles of imitation, selection, and variation, the robots are able to, in a sense, agree on the structure of the behaviors that are imitated.
OK, I agree completely that we don't know what "alive" means in mechanistic terms. I was going to bring that up, so I am glad you beat me to it. If we cannot define life, then we have a long ways to go before we can imitate life's abilities, wouldn't you agree?
There is an enormous gap between defining life, and making a machine that can do what a human brain does. Considering that humans are still working on what "life" is, there is little doubt that it will be along time before we can create something with sensations, thoughts and emotions. First we need to figure out why a cell is alive one minute, but dead the next when you apply a little bit of sodium azide. We know what chemical reactions we have shut off, and we know the various cellular death cascades that occur (apoptotic, necrotic cell death, etc.), but we still don't know what the attribute of "living" even is, let alone how to emulate it.
Just like we know a living organism when we see one, I have a good sense that we will know it when someone finally makes a living thing (or a thing with living attributes) when we see it. You won't need a Turing test, because it will act alive, rather than acting like it is imitating life. It will have to say "ouch!" and really mean it when you stick it with a pin.
I would like it very much if you could provide some information that suggests that all you need is complexity to make something with feelings and emotions. Cells respond to chemicals, like hormones and neurotransmitters because that is how signaling pathways in the target cells are activated. But the key is that they are alive, which allows for sensations and in more advanced organisms with a complex central nervous system, emotions. Just because emotions involve "chemical reactions" (like the signaling cascade that occurs after a glutamate ion binds to an NMDA receptor in the brain) that doesn't mean all you need for emotions is the right chemical reactions. You need the living cells in an extremely complex network, at least that is the best neuroscience can determine at this point. There is no evidence that any machine of any type even has a "thought", let alone an emotion.
So until you can come up with examples where any machine has shown the capacity for sensations or thoughts or emotions, then I posit, along with lots of other neuroscientists, that living cells are required to have attributes of living organisms. It is why we distinguish between animate and inanimate objects.
I just want an SSD made with this ASAP. I hope they don't start out at $500 for a 100GB drive.
The evidence is pretty clear that a lax attitude and cozy government-corporate-regulatory environment made this disaster much worse than it had to be. I am sure that they will all get off without any significant penalties or jail time, but at least they are going to have to go through the court system.
I wonder what it is that makes people think that robots can be given emotions, when we have no idea how brains generate emotions? And even when we do figure out how brains do that, what makes people think that it doesn't require living cells to have feelings, sensations and emotions? In which case you would have to grow robots from single cells, which would mean they were living, rather than robots.
Windows 7 is fully supported at least until 2020. There may be extensions after that. I will only upgrade to Windows 10 when I deem it to be an upgrade from Windows 7 ultimate. Windows 10 is an app-orriented (MS store oriented) mobile OS more than anything else. The only addition that may be useful for me at some point is Direct X 12, but I doubt that will be a major plus for some time to come. I will also wait until popular demand gets MS to allow some control over updates (at least a "remind me" feature). I don't use apps on my desktop computer, and so far Direct X 12 is not something I need. Right now Windows 7 is perfect for my purposes. MS will have to figure out a way to make 10 much more appealing than it is now.
Switching to Windows 10 now from Windows 7 Ultimate seems like a downgrade rather than an upgrade. Features and customization options have been removed and stability and usability are still iffy. I will wait for service pack 1 and read the reviews over the next year. But unless they give me as much functionality and customization (including setting drivers and updates to be installed when I say so) as I have in Windows 7, I am not going to go for their "free app-oriented mobile device OS that also sort of works on desktop computers".
Somehow I don't think that putting my Windows 7 disk in and running the installation would get me back to my current setup from Windows 10. I currently have a very complicated setup with over 150 programs installed. I use my computer for writing science manuscripts, preparing the figures, video editing, Flash animation, preparing scientific graphs, and playing games. It more than likely that running the Windows 7 installation disk on an upgraded Windows 10 machine would wipe the OS and start from scratch. Setting up a virtual machine is not an option that I am interested in on my main computer. As I mentioned, I may try upgrading on one computer here that is dedicated to playing games since it won't be a disaster even if it causes problems.
Still, it looks like the selling points are "it's more like Windows 7" and "it runs universal apps". I don't use any apps, and I really like Windows 7. So they will need to add some new desktop functionality that does not exist in Windows 7 before I would make the change.
I really don't want to set up a dual boot system on my main computer. It is too important for my work to play around with it like that. I may try on one of my gaming computers here that is not used for anything serious.
But again, since most people won't be setting up virtual machines and instead will upgrade from 7 or 8 to 10, I am wondering if the process is reversible? Can people revert back to 7 if they decide they don't like 10?
I just went to MS to see what they had to say about why I should upgrade to 10. They said it was because it has the best of Windows 8 and Window 7 combined, and has live tiles. So since I don't want anything from Windows 8, and I hate the live tiles, they haven't convinced me at all.
So I am wondering, does anyone know if you can uninstall 10 and go back to Windows 7 once you have done the "upgrade"? I have a feeling it is a one way street.
I have read lots about Windows 10, which is a facelift on Windows 8. They had to do the facelift because their vast existing user base didn't like the childish colored squares. I have looked at dozens of screens shots. Yes, I can customize Windows 10 to look like Windows 7, but that means I have to spend time to get back to where I already am right now. Can I un-install 10 if I try it and don't like it? That I have not seen mention of anywhere.
So, can I un-install it and go back to Windows 7 if I don't like it?
Because they couldn't think of anything better, and because they have a tin eye.
I find the large colored squares to be extremely ugly. It looks cheep, like something for a small mobile device (because that is what it is for). I have a 27" monitor and I use my desktop and I put lots of work items on it. The desktop acts like my to-do list. As I complete jobs I move the icons off the desktop and make room for new jobs. I want complete control over the look of my desktop, and I want small, easy to identify icons because that is how I work.
I don't see how big, ugly, flat colored boxes look good to anyone who is using a large monitor.
Just don't want or need it. I don't run apps, I only use programs for the work I do (Creative Suite 5.5, ChemBioDraw, Sigmaplot 12, Reference Manager, etc.). Also play games. Windows 7 Ultimate does everything I want, and so far I haven't seen anything in Windows 10 that would make me switch. That may change over time as they work on 10, but after Windows 8 it's going to be a tough sell.
Still hate the new interface. I will never warm up to the big, ugly colored squares. You know, the ones that they needed to make it work on a tiny phone screen? I will wait to read about useful improvements in the OS before I do anything. Right now I see nothing I want.
Sounds like more work for the teachers, and my guess is that would be without extra pay. Even with the aid of technology, individual lessons means more time required on the teachers part. How about just reduce the number of students per teacher?
I meant corporations are pulling the strings in both parties. The corporations are pretty much in control now, just ask any politician who is grubbing for money on Wall Street. I see virtually no difference between the two major parties at this point. They spout different red meat rhetoric, but they bow to the same master.
Not that we don't need a totally revamped copyright law, just that it doesn't seem likely any time soon considering who is in charge.
Yeah. My Windows 7 systems boot very fast (SSD boot drives) with the fastest one being 14 to 15 seconds. Cutting another few seconds off of that won't effect my life at all. I don't need any of the other things you mentioned, and I doubt Direct X 12 will offer many benefits for some time to come. MS is going to have to make a better desktop OS for me to switch, and right now 10 doesn't seem to have anything I want. Both 8 and 10 seem like they were primarily designed for mobile devices, not desktops. I like the Win 7 interface, and really dislike the new ones (8.1 especially, and 10 as well).
No interest whatsoever in using One Drive, and I don't use apps on my desktop computers which I use to do work like putting together scientific manuscripts for submission to journals. I also backup whole drives, as well as backing up key file directories. So Windows 10 offers me nothing except less functionality and less customize-ability.
Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate. To me, Windows 10 seems like a downgrade from 7 ultimate.
That is my impression as well. They are trying to make it palatable to desktop users, including the entire corporate and government sectors who are still using it, but it is just an app-based OS for mobile devices that can still run Windows programs. They hope to drive lots of business to their app store by giving 10 away for free. But for desktop Win7 users it seems like a big, irritating downgrade.
Windows. Love it or hate it, it's there. I only use it on desktops, so I don't see Microsoft's attempt to make an every-device OS as a plus. I use Windows 7 because it was designed for desktops. Why would anyone want to switch over to Microsoft's app based Windows 10? Does anyone here have any substantive reasons other than small differences in boot time or DirectX 12 support, that make the upgrade useful for desktop users with Windows 7? I'm curious.