Response to Brain model of AI and similar question

Philip Greenspun's Homepage : Philip Greenspun's Homepage Discussion Forums : NE43 Memory Project : One Thread
Notify me of new responses
Hi, my name is Brian Gadd. I am a Sr. in high school and have been
doing some research for and AI Paper I am writing. These were some
of my thoughts as I did some reading. Please read through and
respond to what I have said. Thank you. =)

From what I have read so far there are several key points on which I
have come to base most what I believe must and will happen in order
for AI to become a reality (it is these points which lead me to
believe despite the claims that some of the machines we have created
can think, AI has yet to be achieved and is farther down the road

1) In order to create AI (or anything else for that matter) you some
type of model to base it on.

2) The only intelligent model known to man is man; that model is the
human brain (and its body since, as I will point out later, its
sensory organs are indispensable to the development of intelligence)

3) We must understand how this model works to the point of recreation
in order to created AI.

a) For as little we do know about the brain (and myself even less
having done no research) there are several key points about the brain
and its development on which we must eventually base our attempts at
AI on.

1) We must understand how the brain works and its pieces function as
a whole in order to create the mind. In order to do so I would
propose the use of cloning. My first assumption is that such and
action is possible (I know we have cloned some human body parts but
not yet to my knowledge have we cloned a human brain, and I am of
course leaving out ethical standpoints for the meantime) I am
assuming that it would be possible to study the cells as they begin
to split and the brain grows it would quickly reach the point where
real-time monitoring of the brain's growth via today's technology
(however today's doctors "watch" brain activity) would not be
possible, and it is at this point I would suggest slowing the process
down via freezing so that the growth and interactions can still be
watched and hopefully eventually understood. Of course stimuli must
be input via the sensory organs in order to gain a complete
understanding of how I note here this is a scheme I have dreamt up
with no research, so however it is done I simply find it imperative
that we fully (or to the limits of technology etc.) understand how
the brain functions. In doing so I believe it will inevitable
provide us with a physical model on which to base our creation of AI.

2) The second key piece of the brain that we must understand is the
function to DNA. We must understand how it functions in creating the
body, and the mind and any influence or direct direction it has on
instincts. Since we have just recently completed the first step in
the Human Genome Project (discovering and "writing" out all of the
human genes) this should start immediately. It is my belief that DNA
serves not only as a script for the building of the human body but
also and the basic script for the human mind. I believe it provides
us with the basic instincts and also the more advanced "mindset" to
let us become intelligent. Herein lies my first major problem. In
order to assume this about DNA I have to assume that we are not
intelligent from the moment of birth. Are we? (Possibly before?
although this once again touches on other issues) I will address
this question in a second, but in assuming that we are not then I
find the understanding of DNA absolutely essential to understanding
the development of our own intelligence and thus eventually AI.

b) We must also consider our own definition of intelligence. In the
end it most believe that it basically boils down to understanding.
Then on this definition of intelligence I base the rest of my theory:

1) Intelligence is denoted by understanding. Thus I present the
following. We are not intelligent beings when we are born, but
instead we are" ready made" to be intelligent. Before beating me up
please follow my logic. These are two statements on which I believe
no one can argue with;

1) Understanding comes from experience. No individual can claim to
understand something if they have no explored that something in some
in-depth way. I would like someone to point out how this might not
be possible.

2) If one does not understand something that one can only mimic it.
Its like math class for most of us. We can mimic the math, follow
the example problems and even do other problems using the same method
in the examples, however when we come to a problem that is a variant
on the methods just taught you can only solve the problem if you
understand the problem and are able to adapt. If intelligence is
denoted by understanding then must use these two statements to
explain how the human brain develops. Thus we come to the sensory
organs. These organs allow us to explore things in-depth and then
using the mind, to understand them. Thus when we are born we are
like a clean slate and as our sensory organs feed us information we
develop speech (an understanding between individuals), emotion (
perhaps this starts of as the connection to the mother and then
eventually later in life as hormones kick in it is to others, however
once again I must point out that this is speculation with out any
research), and slowly thought. I believe that the stimuli at the
beginning and throughout life are the key to the developing of
intelligence. I also believe that it isn't just any stimuli but that
of the family human society with communication that develops
intelligence. The only way I can think of currently testing this is
to put a new born out in the wild (with some method of insuring its
survival and growth without any kind of human or man made contact,
which right now is pretty much impossible, and yes once again I am
ignoring the moral stuff right now) and then watching and observing
for intelligence. This of course has some major holes in it. Like
if this is true then how did we ever become intelligent, then we have
the evolution vs. creation stuff blah blah blah. Back to my point,
stimuli yields curiosity, exploration, and in some cases
understanding and thus intelligence.

4) Based on the human brain and its development and my "theory" on
how intelligence might be achieved I think we are going about all
this AI stuff all wrong. We keep trying to program everything in and
expect it to be intelligent. However if we are intelligent because
of understanding then we must find a way to let a machine understand
things for itself. I believe we must find a way for it to start out
like the newborn with the capabilites to communicate and explore (
that is where I think the DNA part might come in but once again I've
done no research whatsoever) and thus it might be able to grow and
become intelligent. Despite the very general definition of
intelligence as understanding there is only on way that I believe we
can consider something intelligent and that is self-awareness. An
entity must realize that it can think and in the case of AI I believe
that the machine must come to realize that it is a machine, not human
or anything else, without it ever being told or programmed.

This was a five minute brainstorm I had that turned into an hour of
typing. I know that this has so many holes in it that its crazy but
that's what came to my mind. This stuff totally fascinates me. I
would love it if you would poke even more holes in this and tell me
what you all think. Thank you.
Brian Gadd

-- Brian Gadd, July 21, 2000