Is it possible to create an artificial mind?

For centuries mankind has dreamed of artificial intelligence. It seems a little more, and the cherished goal will be achieved, but it is worth asking yourself: is it possible to solve this problem in principle? What is an artificial mind that should finally equate man with God?
Let me express my own - I hope, different from the ordinary - opinion.


')
As a rule, artificial intelligence is identified with the human mind, that is, it is about creating an artificial person. In this case, it is good to understand what a natural person is, who is proposed to be produced artificially.
What is a person - the most common, so to speak, natural?
It exists on two levels, undoubted for any (both scientific, and ordinary-practical) perception:

• at the level of matter
• at the level of the mind, which is supposed to be artificially reproduced. The brain encased in the skull is quite material, but the mind is something else, qualitatively different from matter. It's hard to argue with that.

Since the task of creating an artificial mind is informational, it is correct to declare both levels of human existence information systems in such a plane and consider the problem. The first information system is the material world around us, the second information system is the human mind. It should be noted right away that the named systems do not correlate with each other in any way. And why should they relate? What could be the correspondence between the material carrier and the information recorded on it? That's right, no.
When cognizing the world around us, a person — his cognizing “I” —is outside the cognizable, in another information system. You can learn something exclusively external, not internal, you do not find? Try to track the movement of neurons in your brain when you try to track the movement of neurons in your brain when you try to track the movement of neurons in your brain ... and so on to infinity. In a foreign brain, that is, in a region external to its own mind, this is quite imaginable, but not in one’s own brain with its own neurons, thanks to which thinking is possible. That is why I say that knowledge is an external function: in relation to a different information system, it is possible in principle, and in relation to its own information system (the one in which the cognitive “I” of the subject is located) is by no means unacceptable beyond this, the concept of mind loses its meaning.
I will try to illustrate the statement on a clear example.
Suppose green people have landed on our planet, quite peaceful and sociable. The escaped humanity asks them various questions, and the green little people reasonably and in detail answer the joy of the gathering. Are space guests intelligent beings? Without a dispute, are! How bitter is the disappointment of the crowd when it turns out that sociable green men are not intelligent beings at all, but biorobots operating on the basis of the program embedded in them, or even directly in real time, following the direct instructions of the direct owners. Who, then, is intelligent? What a question - of course, those guys from Proxima Centauri, where the control signal comes from to the green biorobots! Suppose, let's say ... But what if the signal from Proxima Centauri is sent by other, more advanced, controlling mechanical devices? Is this possible to imagine? Why not ?! Who then are intelligent beings? Those who manufactured not only green men, but also control transmitters from Proxima Centauri, of course. Well, and so on, if you understand the applied logic ... As you can see, the question of the rationality of space guests directly depends on our awareness of this issue - more precisely, on what we consider to be the “ultimate” information system:

• we consider the "extreme" brain of green men - it means that green men are intelligent beings;
• we find out that the “brain” of green men represents a device that perceives signals from Proxima Centauri - oh yes, yes, there is complete clarity, the real rational beings are on Proxima Centauri;
• ah, on Proxima Centauri, only control transmitters, you say? - well, then, rational beings are somewhere in the room, did someone make these control transmitters?

Find a suitable information system external to the one under consideration, and the concept of reason will immediately move there. Is it too vague for a concept to be implemented as an operating mechanism?
Do you still think that the human mind exists? Based on strong conviction and personal sense of self? And bring proof of the fact that you yourself are not a green man, that is, a biological machine not controlled by someone from the outside? What are your reasons for believing yourself to be a rational being, actually? Self-sense of rationality is not proof: it is quite possible to assume that the actual creator programmed you with a similar self-sensation with the specific aim that you did not guess anything. The situation, repeatedly beaten in the cinema: a robot who considers himself a man. The mere assumption of an external information system does not leave a trace of your rationality!
What is the mind then? Trivial ability to respond to signals. A person reacts in a certain way to signals, therefore, he is reasonable. The iron is equally sensible: I plug the plug into the socket, and the iron starts to heat up, imagine - doesn’t this show a highly organized mind? Ah, the iron is arranged in such a way as to heat up when plugging the plug into the outlet? So after all, a person is arranged in a certain way: if he touches a hot iron, he will withdraw his hand with a cry - from this side his reaction is as predictable as the reaction of the iron when turned on. And the fact that the device of the iron is known, and the device of the human brain does not prove so far, does not prove the qualitative difference in some reactions from others, that is, does not prove the superiority of man over the iron. The iron is a mechanism produced by a person, so a person can turn out to be someone produced by a mechanism. How are they then fundamentally different from each other?
Since humanity certainly wants to produce an artificial person, let us analyze how artificial intelligence can differ from natural, human?

1. Humanoid.
In cinema, robots usually have forms that are close to human, but this is not necessary when creating artificial intelligence. Let the iron, if only the iron think - enough to solve our problem.

2. Difficulty.
The device of the person is undoubtedly more difficult than the device of the iron. Although the iron is not the most complicated of the inventions of mankind: some of the modern machines are comparable in level to the human brain, at least in the sense that they are beyond the comprehension of the average man in the street.
In general, it is accepted.

3. Ability to self-development.
A completely programmable ability: it is enough to take into account all the preceding signals in the algorithms and your own reactions - in other words, to base on past experience.

4. Unpredictability.
Man, because of the complexity of his device, is more unpredictable than an iron. More - because the iron is also not always predictable: for example, after plugging the plug into the socket, it may not turn on (due to a breakdown), and it may crack or catch fire (due to a more serious malfunction). Of course, the list of possible reactions of the iron to the inclusion in the outlet is limited, but the list of human reactions too: if you hit on the leg, most likely, the culprit will apologize or keep silent - it is extremely unlikely that he will smile to you two hundred fifty times, then wave his ears and take a look at the sky
However, it is easy to make artificial intelligence humanly unpredictable: you just need to insert a random number generator into the algorithm.

5. Simplifying or complicating?
The material from which the artificial mind is created can be any, not necessarily biological. But it can be biological. In this case, a side question arises: how active should the participation in the biological, essentially natural, process of the builder of artificial intelligence be? Should a scientist borrow a living cell from nature and grow an artificial mind out of it, or for this to be considered fully artificial, does a living cell taken from nature need to be modified, or can a scientist use ready-made cell blocks to create artificial intelligence?
Suppose the creator of the artificial mind, acting on the example of Frankenstein, finds a pair of unexplained corpses, the left hemisphere amputates at the first, the right hemisphere at the second, then connects the hemispheres and receives a functioning brain? This brain, made up of different people’s hemispheres, has artificial or natural intelligence? If natural, where is the boundary between artificial and natural? And if a scientist took a single cell from the brain and grew a whole brain out of it, would the grown mind be artificial and natural? .. If the answer is negative, if the connection of the left and right hemispheres is given by an artificial brain ... then in general the devil knows what happens, you know . It turns out that it is enough to remove one cell from the natural brain as the brain becomes artificial. That is, the matter is not in the methods that the scientist uses, but as a result:

• when the mind changes as a result of the actions of a scientist (in fact, as a result of the influence of external factors, at least minimal) - the artificial mind;
• the mind in its original state is natural.

Why, then, surgery? Enough external stimuli that allow you to change the mind in the desired direction! I hint at the media that manipulates the moral and ethical views of humanity without any scalpel. From this point of view, the viewer stuck to the zomboy-box possesses much more like an artificial intelligence - a high-tech product. Such a viewer is a biorobot like the green men mentioned above. Strictly speaking, any interpersonal communication leads to a change in the intelligence of the communicating parties - true, unlike the situation with the zombie, two-way and equal in this sense.
What do I want to say? The fact that when you try to create a thinking robot, you should decide on the methods of achieving the goal: we want to create something simple from a simple or from a complex. If to create an artificial mind it is enough to simplify or stop the development of the natural mind existing in man, the task of creating an artificial mind has been solved for a long time and reliably.

6. Soul.
Often in conversations about artificial intelligence they appeal to the soul: they say, you try to create a thinking machine with a human soul, then ... Well, it depends on what is meant by soul: if some psychophysical features (psycho - in the sense of reaction to external stimuli, physical - in sense of the physical device), then the technique has all the listed qualities. Each device has its own device, almost always with individual features: on this side, typical devices are no different from people tailored to a single piece, at the same time strictly individual. As for the psycho-features, that is, the reaction to external stimuli ... You just do not tell me that the devices do not have psychophysical features. Twenty years ago I had a home-made computer connected to a TV, so this freak often could not read the diskette (they were then five-inch). You sit down with such a computer and you never know whether you will be able to play Tetris or not. In short, this electronic bastard worked on the mood. It took decades of corporate training so that his descendants, a little like an improvised ancestor, learned to function stably. Although the technical devices, even the newest ones, have noses, from time to time it still manifests itself ... And you say, the technology has no psychophysical features!

7. Complete human copy.
Adherents of artificial intelligence may require a complete copy of a person, that is, a person in the flesh.
We will ask them: isn’t people really reproducing themselves, that is, not being copied by other people? What does "artificially" mean? Usually, this word is understood: created by man. However, babies are not made in heaven, but by people, albeit in the order prescribed by God: in this sense a natural child will differ from an artificial child no more than a part produced on a conveyor in compliance with safety rules, from a part produced manually without observing safety rules . For example, a mechanic tried and manually blinded no worse. And it was worth it, if the result is indistinguishable from the conveyor? Quite a professor Preobrazhensky, is not it? “Explain to me, please, why it is necessary to fabricate Spinoz artificially when any woman can give birth to him at any time. After all, she bore in Kholmogory, Madame Lomonosov, this famous one. The doctor, mankind itself takes care of this in an evolutionary manner every year, stubbornly, singling out all the filth from the masses, creating dozens of outstanding geniuses who adorn the globe. ”
By the way, does a human clone have an artificial or natural mind?

No, as you like, but in the very concept of "artificial intelligence" lies a contradiction. When we say “mind”, we mean our own human mind, which, due to our natural essence, is the information system for us personally. We cannot recognize the device of our own brain: we can - the device of the brain of another person, although this knowledge will not be absolutely convincing for us. I remember as a child I was very surprised when I had an x-ray of a dislocated wrist, and it became clear that there were bones under the skin. I was sure that the structure of my hand is not like everyone else ... The artificial reason is also reason, because there is nothing outside: there is no external information system defining it. On the other hand, “artificial” implies - we are the same and created. However, how can you create something without understanding its device? This method coincides with the above-mentioned natural childbirth. It is possible, of course, to construct an artificial mind from separate blocks, the device of which is unknown to us. This is analogous to connecting into a single brain the hemispheres amputated in different people - I considered this option. And collect artificial intelligence from the simplest parts and at the same time do not understand the order of assembly ... I assure you, this is by no means impossible. Or it is necessary to derive the resulting construction from its own information field. For example, the father turns the key of a mechanical bear, which appears to his child alive. And the father of a toy bear does not take a living one: having knowledge of an adult, he simply cannot - unless, of course, he is thirty years younger. No, the variant with the creation of an artificial person and the subsequent own stupidity does not pass.
What we get in the end? And here's what: talk about creating an artificial mind is not correct. But if we mean by a thinking artificial creature a humanoid machine with complex and not quite predictable reactions resembling human ones, then, of course, artificial intelligence can be created. True, such devices are not quite pragmatic: specialized mechanisms for ironing clothes, transporting people, transmitting information, etc. have a better perspective. Thinking irons, in short.