I just watched Horizon. The episode was about ‘The hunt for AI’ (Artificial Intelligence). It’s interesting to know how much work is being done in this field. We think computers will sometime replace us but we can still question even this idea. It’s established that computers are big number crunchers. However they don’t really have a sense of creativity. It is true that there are many processes happening in our sub-conscious mind that do all the necessary calculations without us (conscious-mind) even knowing to get through life every day. How do we define creativity? I understand that to be creative we need to learn to form a connection between two distinct things that’s didn’t have a connection in our conscious mind yet. I suppose this can be computed into a computer and there, a computer can think creatively.
When we are born, we have no idea about the world. We are a lump of flash. When we are born, our brain probably thinks ‘what just happened? It’s a whole new world. I must do anything to survive.’ So the baby learns the smile that gets him attention and learns to cry to get food. However even the baby already comes loaded with a set of instructions. The baby doesn’t have a free mind. It seems that one of the instructions it comes loaded with is to follow the crowd and survive. If we left two babies in a room completely alone, I’m sure they would resemble the actions that are required from the instructions and also develop their own language just like the two robots experiment in the documentary.
Our sub-conscious mind knows things about us that our conscious mind has no clue. Our sub-conscious mind is like the programmed bit of a computer and our conscious-mind resembles the bit that does the number crunching in a computer.
The ability to learn a new skill comes with practise. Neuroplasticity means that our brain is like a plastic. Which means we can bend it and form new connections and learn new skills. Learning a new skill translates to forming new connections in our brain. If we keep practising the act we’re trying to learn becomes second nature. It goes from conscious mind to sub conscious mind. This means we can programme ourselves.
Scientists are questioning whether this is possible with computers. I think it is if we make their brains out of something that can make new connections instead of staying with the same connections all their life.
Scientists in the field of AI now think that it is important to have a body in order to have a sense of its self. I think that’s true. We humans are nothing without our bodies. What could we do if we were brains in a black box or white if you were a mac?
The documentary I watched: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01fmbvb/Horizon_The_Hunt_for_AI/
True AI is not possible. No matter how powerful a computer becomes it is just not possible. The reason is down to experience. Every loving person has evolved and learned throughout his/her life through experience. Just letter and numbers cannot make consciousness. I have see sci fi novels in which Internet becomes concious. It is all fiction.
Also learning language is also something that had to be taught. Even if we leave an army of babies on an island they would not learn I speak to each other. Their communication would be no better than some rudimentary signs and sounds. Science has proven that leaning a language needs a teacher. The big debate is how humans came up with language. The answer is he was taught. Holy Quran gives evidence of
Teaching Adam the names. That was language.
If someone asks how do you prove this. Well we have a recent example of the Promised Messiah (‘alayhi al-salam) who was taught 3000 roots of Arabic in one night.
Well I think I’ve made a mistake by not defining what is meant by the use of AI in this article. What I meant in my article is that where ever work is being done to copy the human intelligence, progress is made. I think what you mean is becoming exactly like a human being, I would agree with you there, AI cannot being truly like a human.
Not much can be said about consciousness although I’d agree with your point.
We cannot yet define: what is alive? If the goal, of the article, was to establish that AI will resemble humankind in every aspect, we’d first need to define what is alive and what is dead? Since this was not the goal, we won’t go there.
Adam (as) came approx. 6000 years ago. Does it mean that all the languages of the world are only 6000 years old? Humankind existed before Adam (as). Humankind had spread to each corner of the world. How is it possible that man spoke no word while they were able to move across continents? Surely great projects require a great deal of communication.
Since there were many Adams, it make sense to believe that a particular Adam before the prophet Adam (as) was taught language. Is that what you meant?
By the way it’s 40,000 not 30,000 root words that he was taught.
40000 roots. Correct. Apologies for the mistake.
Regarding Adam, yes you are thinking the right way. There were many Adams. Maybe every Adam of his era and his race was taught language via revelation. Maybe science will one day be able to answer this question.
This might be a paradox. It is my understanding that Prophet Adam (as) was the first person to receive revelation. It is possible for anyone to receive revelation however I think man had not reached that state in his spiritual evolution where he could receive revelation. If this is true, man was mute for all his time on earth until yesterday.
What do you think?
Man before revelation resembled animals and probably had rudimentary mode of communications like apes. The thing is we don’t know when man started speech as it does not leave any archeological evidence. We know that man had cave paintings 30-40 thousand years ago but that does not tell us anything about language development.
The theory from Holy Qur’an is that man was like other animals. When he was ready he was taught language. The question is was language taught first and shariah of Adam was not taught! Or were both taught together. I don’t know it. I would need to reread Saer-e-Ruhani again.