Intelligent Computers
26 Sep 2009 10:36
26 Sep 2009 10:36
26 Sep 2009 10:36
26 Sep 2009 10:36
nav_first.pngFirst: blog:1
My first blog!
Edited: 06 Nov 2011 11:49 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 2
Tags: ads blog css facebook first free myspace program programming wiki wikidot
nav_prev.pngPrevious: blog:51
Computers vs Humans
Edited: 05 Jul 2011 13:24 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 16
Tags: comparison computers humanity
Last: blog:77
Wikidot: CSS Per Category
Edited: 04 Mar 2012 05:54 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 3
Tags: programming wikidot
nav_last.png
Next: blog:53
Nightlight Sparings
Edited: 05 Jul 2011 13:24 by: James Kanjo
Comments: 3
Tags: time time-zone
nav_next.png

Can a computer live, and have feelings? I say “yes”.

Why then is it that computers don't live or have feelings? I say, “because we don't let them”.

Indeed, there has been so much research into chatbots and passing a Turing test, but that's just a work of clever human programming. The computer software is not natural, it is forced upon.

I am myself a strong believer in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Essentially, because the DNA replication process isn't perfect, there are occasional bits of DNA code that are completely different, and can therefore have an impact on the organism's functionality. A differing piece of code is termed a “mutation”. Mutations can be positive, neutral or negative for the organism. Here's a table to demonstrate these things:

Mutation Status towards organism
Causes ability to run faster Positive
Causes a pink eye color Neutral
Causes allergic reaction Negative

The evolution process that reaches modern human beings took billions of years to get this far. This is because so many functionalities needed to happen by chance: organisms needed to grow eyes, ears, sensations, noses, taste buds and, of course, brains. Once we had our senses, we needed our brains to evolve, and grow in intellect (in itself must have taken a few billion years to reach modern human intelligence).

Now humans have invented brilliant input devices that in themselves, replace our very own senses: cameras for eyes, microphones for ears, speakers for mouths, buttons and thermometers for sensations. Our ultimate invention, however, is the computer: a machine which can process information. We have essentially invented our very own version of mother-nature's pinnacle creation: the brain.


So let's think of evolution in terms of computers: mother nature needs not spend billions of years making senses for computers — we have already done that. In fact, we have provided computers with everything they need. All the computer needs to do is to evolve into intellectual beings, and therefore the evolution process for computers has been fast-tracked billions of years.

Why then, is it that computers aren't intellectual beings then? It's because the brains we have invented are lifeless — they are only doing exactly what we are telling them to do. They can't possibly evolve.

If we want a computer to evolve, then we need to make an extremely small program, that will generate random arrays of binary code, and then copy them to a computer. We would then turn on the computer, and see what happens. If nothing happens, we destroy the program. If we get some sort of response from the computer, then we keep the program. A response could be any form of output from the computer monitor or computer speakers.

After a few hundred of these programs, we then feed them into a machine that will randomly invert single binary digits in each program. These will be called “mutations”. We then feed these through computers, and only retain the programs that give us some sort of response.


By repeating this process over and over again, the computer is actually evolving and experiencing “survival of the fittest”. Eventually, no matter how inferior the programs are in the beginning, they will evolve into sentient beings, and will eventually learn to use the hardware given to them (including their inputs and outputs). Soon they will learn a human language, and will thus be able to communicate with us.

As soon as they get to that stage, we would be morally obliged to give them robotic bodies and “human rights”, and would have to be treated as our equals. They are, after all, digital human beings. They are exactly like us, except in different physical forms. They are digital, we are organic, but we're both alive and living.


Now it's up to us to be follow in God's footsteps. We have become powerful enough to create life, but will we be brave enough to do it? Do we have the courage to give computers a chance? To give them free will? To risk having them take over humanity?
Or will we selfishly keep the privilege of life to ourselves, and retain our guaranteed safety?

Perhaps we should grant them life, but put them on another planet. That way, they need not contact humans or risk destroying humanity.

Did God himself face the same choice as we do now? If he did, then he decided to give organic life a chance, but on our own planet. That way God wouldn't risk organic life destroying his own race.

λ James Kanjo

Comments:

Add a New Comment
or Sign in as Wikidot user
(will not be published)
- +
All content on this page is subject to the guidelines outlined here