Will Artificial Intelligent systems be able to learn and distinguish between different emotions experienced by humans?

This question has troubled engineers, psychologists and mathematicians for ages and I hope that it will not continue to haunt their successors for generations to come.

Yet, despite this old-age knowledge gap in science, theoretical physicists find time to talk about the singularity and conclude hypothetical results – not concrete, raw evidence. While physicists meet at endless forums and conferences, the technological industry is advancing in the singularity race. It is not about which industry better, but the field that that has the most positive impact on society.

But how much of this concept of technological singularity is actually possible?

According to William Dembski (author of Intelligent Design), he argues that artificial intelligence cannot fully emulate human intelligence. Artificial intelligence is just complex computations...but what is human intelligence (is it computations or more than that)? In addition to this, experienced artificial intelligence scientists know that a computer cannot make a decision with incomplete information or a situation that requires it to choose the right frame of reference to solve a problem.

You confused? Not yet. Good.

William Dembski presents this scenario in support of his argument: A man goes into a bar and says,”I ‘d like a glass of water.” The bartender pulls out a gun and shouts,”Get out of here!” The man says “thank you” and leaves.(a)

This scenario could be explained this way: The man had hiccups that is why he asked for a glass of water. The bartender understood the problem and decides to frighten him with a gun causing the man’s hiccups to stop. Because the cure worked (no more hiccups), the man says thank you and leaves.(a)

Humans will understand this type of frame of reference of this situation, but a computer cannot make sense of it. Imagine the countless number of reference frames that might have the same effect.(a)

If you did not get it, here’s another example of frame of reference: The man is very thirsty that is why he needs a glass of water. The bartender is reminded of a bad thing that the thirsty man did. The bartender decides to chase him out of his bar by pulling out a gun. The thirsty man behaves in a sarcastic manner and says thank you and leaves the bar. A human being can understand this scenario, but a computer will not understand it.

Why would it not make sense to a computer? There are a lot of unknown factors, emotions involved and character differences exist in people. However, there are some AI systems that use “common sense ” to come to conclusions but computer scientists cannot fully explain this logic.

And in addition to this, since artificial intelligence is about computations – here is a challenge for mathematicians, psychologists and engineers: write an algorithm (function) to determine how someone is feeling (emotion) at a specific point in time.

Apart from William Dembski’s arguments, Raymond Kurzweil believes that humans will be able to merge human intelligence with non-biological intelligence – resulting in enhanced intelligence operation on the Internet and at the same time being able to achieve brain-to-brain communication through the Internet(b). Do you think it is possible?

I do not know but hopefully, by the end of this scientific research year, I will have formulated a standpoint.

Acknowledgements: (a),(b) Examples taken from Dr. David Passig,"Singularity - The accelerating pace of  change", Bar-llan University Isreal,'</www.passig.com/>', (a)-31,32 and (b)-29

                    

Opportunities to impact the world and problems that arise...

Well, it is interesting to know that most scientists make the most contribution to their fields when they are between 25 -35 years old. Taking this into account, we can all agree that our fathers and forefathers of modern science had opportunities to make such long lasting contributions to these fields. However, I think vital components are missing in our generation to realize these opportunities to impact the world.

You may disagree or agree with me - here is a list of obstacles that may stand in our way when we want to impact the world: creativity, globalization and motivation.

Let us look at creativity. We cannot argue the fact that educational institutions and systems are designed in such a way that they favor the industrial workforce of society - meaning that it gives people the reality that they exist to go to school, go to work and then kick the bucket. The exceptions are those who have followed their passions with the most minimal deviation - in effect going against the social trends of a successful life - these people are the history makers. To me, it feels like our systems have killed creativity in the general population while the others (system creators) continue to be creative. Think about the following questions for a while before you criticize my logic. How many people go into traditional science careers and eventually end up in the business or finance sector? How many engineers or physicists are refining ancient theories and how many are looking for different ways/methods to do something that already exists(something new)?I have a feeling more are applying than exploring. Why should performance artists spend more and more time not performing? How much freedom do you think Newton and Einstein had? Just because we have a foundation for science, many people tend to narrow their development to this foundation rather than exploring other types of foundations. The answer is simple. We sacrifice creativity for survival (we deny ourselves the opportunity to discover new things because dependency theories demand us to do repetitive work to earn money to survive).

Moving on to globalization (a form of dependency) - let us look at a few scenarios. The centralization of money and resources has resulted in every engineer, doctor and academic to collaborate and invent something incredible - which is good. But at the end of the day who benefits? The engineer's poor country or the rich country where the invention was made? Please do not misinterpret me! All I am advocating for is simple : the impact you are making - will it only be accessible to people with money or will it be accessible to anyone who needs it? Are we willing to sell our skills to rich foreign organizations for millions(for money) rather than use these skills to develop our own homes, communities and nations for peanuts? The game theory probably has an explanation for this. For clarity purposes, let me reiterate that I am not attacking globalization but posing an important question: What will we sacrifice in order to make an impact in society (will it be financial status or people who can derive the most from your innovation)?

The third and final obstacle is motivation. What motivates people to take maximize on opportunities for development? We live in a world where most people propagate the idea of improving the wheel and not reinventing the wheel. So we are limited to improving the wheel because that is where all the benefits are centralized. What encourages people to reinvent the wheel nowadays? Do you think Henry Ford could have invented the Model-T Ford if he did not reinvent the wheel?

There are a lot opportunities to contribute to society. From the environmental, scientific, financial to even the social level. I think if we can answer why we want to make an impact in society then we are more likely to make the right decisions in assessing the pros and cons of every opportunity. Every decision affects people around you. So, let us take some time and think about the reasons why we would want to impact the world.

What questions do I have about the readings so far?

Frankly, there has been one question that has been tormenting me for this past week. Do not worry, it is not about any computing topic or physics - surprisingly enough, it comes from a field I regarded as an 'unnecessary' science. I always thought of this field as an 'easy-going industry' where people just sit and converse in very complex, freudish vocabulary and convince their clients that depression is so fatal that you need to spend thousands(if not millions) in order to be 'helped'. This is how far I will go for now. However, my question still retains its origins from this field. Thanks to Tafadzwa for inspiring this question concerning the Placebo effect.

If you do not know what the placebo effect is, too bad! If I were you, I would use the power of Google and find out. I know some of you are wondering what this question is, if you are not - then please kindly find another blog to read because this one is definitely not in your scope. If you are still here, here goes: "Can we heal our sicknesses and cure ourselves by simply thinking that we are getting better? Are psychological effects so powerful and effective that they can render biological killers(viruses) harmless? Is it possible to sickness-proof yourself using your mind? Is the human mind so deadly that it can initiate physical change?" All these questions funnel down to how powerful the human mind really is? Let us think about this for a moment.

If I can consciously convince myself(I'm sure psychology has a word to describe it) that there is nothing wrong with me even if I am suffering from a serious illness that looks likely to kill me; the placebo effect implies that  I can actually survive. Now, let us look at it from a proactive view. Imagine training your mind so that it is immune to infection or illnesses. I know many biologists and doctors will argue and fight with me for equating psychology to biology(two different fields). I mean if you can get better by just thinking that you feel better then why can't you think(convince yourself) that no infection/illness can enter your system. Just like in math(since almost everything can be expressed mathematically), if the theorem is true, then the converse is likely to be true. This does not end here...

What do psychologists and biologists have to say about martial arts masters who can focus their "Chi"(energy) onto a specific body parts that it resists the piercing forces of spears. Even more impressive, some people pull heavy vehicles with their skins, ears and other body parts. What makes them more superior - is it a biological or psychological quality? And these people who move objects with their minds...

Honestly, I do not know any of the answers to these questions. However, I do know one thing which is: WE ARE DECEIVING OURSELVES! I believe there is a world out there, where our thoughts will command the physical things in this world. The complicated math that we use every day to solve our problems is one example out of many.