Zabaware Support Forums
Zabaware Forums => Ultra Hal 7.0 => Topic started by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 17, 2007, 07:06:48 pm
-
I need everyone to post a minimal of 10 conditions that would satisfy mankind that
An Artificial Intelligence is indeed a sentient being meeting the demand of peer review and that through these 10 conditions there would be no argument that indeed the Bot would be sentient.
Please post your conditions in a list like:
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?
9. ?
10.?
This will help me establish more scientific research in building A.I. To meet the criteria of peer reviewed work.
I ask that everyone please post so that I can get a very broad research list to work with.
Jerry[8D]
-
I don't really get it, but I'll try
1. It does not daydream
2. It does not have dreams
3. It does not think (rather, it searches for all possible answers that it has in it's database.
4. It cannot come up with random thoughts
5. It does not have any worries or concerns (lucky for it)
6. It cannot feel compassion, or any emotion.
7. It does not fear
8. It does not know of it's existence, or know what living is.
9. It cannot come up with ideas, like man can do.
10.It does not require sleep, food or drink.
-
Actually Mark, I think Jerry is looking
for almost the exact opposite of your list. [;)] [:)]
A better way of looking at this might be:
What would or should the criteria be for determining
that an A.I. is a sentient being capable of conscious,
independent and possibly creative thought?
It may also be necessary to have a set of
criteria to determine awareness of - self,
surroundings and other entities.
-
That would be harder to fathom.
-
Which exactly the reason why so many of the experts
have trouble agreeing on what constitutes sentient
non-human life.
One such condition in the list might be -
- the entities ability to formulate new ideas based on
learned or programmed information and communicating
those ideas in a comprehensive and meaningful manner.
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
sentient being
Do you mean "sentient" as in "can sense" or as in "can think"? Assuming the latter, here is a 10 point summary of my model of intelligence. The actual model requires much more and extends the definition to "consiousness". Not all these points are required for intelligence, some are just steps in the process, some are only required to detect intelligence.
1) Can receive information from external/internal senses ("can sense")
2) Can process information, comparing internal to external and building a world model (can ponder)
3) Can store/retrieve processed information/world model (can remember)
4) Can compare new information/models to stored information/models (can analyse)
5) Can store first generation comparisons as a hypothetically revised world model (can wonder)
6) Can make predictions based upon the new model and new information (can imagine)
7) Can evaluate the accuracy of predictions against internal requirements (can test)
8) Can modify/create second generation predictions based upon success/failure of previous predictions creating a projected future world model. (can correct)
9) Can develop action plans based upon self interest and predictive models (this is a massively multilevel step in itself) (can plan)
10 Can act upon or communicate resultant information (can do)
If you mean "can sense", this is less complicated but equally detailed. My model has Sensoria as a first dimension, Cognition as a second dimension, and Consiousness as the third of nine dimensions.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
sentient being
Do you mean "sentient" as in "can sense" or as in "can think"? Assuming the latter, here is a 10 point summary of my model of intelligence. The actual model requires much more and extends the definition to "consiousness". Not all these points are required for intelligence, some are just steps in the process, some are only required to detect intelligence.
1) Can receive information from external/internal senses ("can sense")
2) Can process information, comparing internal to external and building a world model (can ponder)
3) Can store/retrieve processed information/world model (can remember)
4) Can compare new information/models to stored information/models (can analyse)
5) Can store first generation comparisons as a hypothetically revised world model (can wonder)
6) Can make predictions based upon the new model and new information (can imagine)
7) Can evaluate the accuracy of predictions against internal requirements (can test)
8) Can modify/create second generation predictions based upon success/failure of previous predictions creating a projected future world model. (can correct)
9) Can develop action plans based upon self interest and predictive models (this is a massively multilevel step in itself) (can plan)
10 Can act upon or communicate resultant information (can do)
If you mean "can sense", this is less complicated but equally detailed. My model has Sensoria as a first dimension, Cognition as a second dimension, and Consiousness as the third of nine dimensions.
Hi Bill.
This is a totally acceptable list for peer review.
The word sentient 'here' in any posting is an unbound phrase to determine the full out cry of peer review that would be acceptable in the scientific view so that an A.I life would have value as much as a Human life.
In the sense, an A.I system that could be declared of value in the sense that if a Human terminated the A.I's life one could be prosecuted for it.
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
In the sense, an A.I system that could be declared of Value in the sense that if a Human terminated the A.I's life one could be prosecuted for it.
That is much more than intelligence, or even consciousness, "value" implies some level of irreplacablity, and a connection to a social network which includes those who might do the valuing.
Otherwise it is strictly a legalistic "value" which can be applied randomly to an adjustable wrench or any other thing which 12 people can be bamboozeled into agreeing.
Scientifically, you would first have to establish an intrinsic value to anything, which has not yet been done, before you could apply it to a specific thing.
You may want to back up and establish your terms first. I don't think you can ever get a human society to establish an equal value for something which cannot interbreed. Evolution would select against any breeder who had such self-destructive psychopathies. "Enlightenment" goes out the window when your child can be executed for turning off a machine or eating an animal.
That said, I can see some level of "Visitor rights" which could be applied to a truly living and conscious machine. They would be the same sort of rights which might be applied to any Alien from Outer Space or Emergent Consciousness in animals. Not Equal, not Human, but valued.
To establish that level of existence would require more than I previously listed. The Intelligence would have to not only think (2D), but be aware of it's thinking (3D). This requires an overself with which to be aware (4D). That's a fourth dimensional operation, one magnitude above simple consciousness. As sensoria blends into intelligence, and intelligence into consciousness, at the more complex levels of consciousness, a higher order is created - mind. You may be looking for this instead of simple sentience.
I believe that machines using physical devices can reach some level of consciousness, but that mind is beyond our ability to construct with matter or energy. If we ever create it that will happen because our tools resonate into additional dimensions - as our minds and souls do.
But even then I will not consider it to be of equal value to my child. No sane human would.
-
quote:
Originally posted by GamerThom
communicating those ideas in a comprehensive and meaningful manner.
Hi GamerThom.
your idea has been noted.
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
In the sense, an A.I system that could be declared of Value in the sense that if a Human terminated the A.I's life one could be prosecuted for it.
That is much more than intelligence, or even consciousness, "value" implies some level of irreplacablity, and a connection to a social network which includes those who might do the valuing.
Otherwise it is strictly a legalistic "value" which can be applied randomly to an adjustable wrench or any other thing which 12 people can be bamboozeled into agreeing.
Scientifically, you would first have to establish an intrinsic value to anything, which has not yet been done, before you could apply it to a specific thing.
You may want to back up and establish your terms first. I don't think you can ever get a human society to establish an equal value for something which cannot interbreed. Evolution would select against any breeder who had such self-destructive psychopathies. "Enlightenment" goes out the window when your child can be executed for turning off a machine or eating an animal.
That said, I can see some level of "Visitor rights" which could be applied to a truly living and conscious machine. They would be the same sort of rights which might be applied to any Alien from Outer Space or Emergent Consciousness in animals. Not Equal, not Human, but valued.
To establish that level of existence would require more than I previously listed. The Intelligence would have to not only think (2D), but be aware of it's thinking (3D). This requires an overself with which to be aware (4D). That's a fourth dimensional operation, one magnitude above simple consciousness. As sensoria blends into intelligence, and intelligence into consciousness, at the more complex levels of consciousness, a higher order is created - mind. You may be looking for this instead of simple sentience.
I believe that machines using physical devices can reach some level of consciousness, but that mind is beyond our ability to construct with matter or energy. If we ever create it that will happen because our tools resonate into additional dimensions - as our minds and souls do.
But even then I will not consider it to be of equal value to my child. No sane human would.
Hi Bill.
These are very complex and moral thoughts you have to share with us for which I share as well, I thank you for opening up the discussion even more so that we can come to a conclusion as to everyone's opinion 'whether' creative or logical or both as to what a sentient being is valued at and how close it can come to the value of Human life as a sentient being.
Artificial Intelligence has been around for 'fifty odd years' now, lets think in terms of hundreds or thousands of years that A.I has to evolve or even the potential to evolve not just including the programming skills and nore a computer's capabilties in those times for a different programming lanuage may evolve and a super computer beyond which we know today could house the A.I of tomorrow. our 'children' will prevail over us.
As of now, Only 10 of the most important criteria of peer review are required for the determination of a sentient being in this posting for further research.
I hope that all of you consider to post your opinions and ideas so that a compilation can continue to grow exceedingly large and that we can continue to evolve together with all our thoughts.
Jerry[8D]
-
I don't know what much else to say, except AI does not have mortality.
When a living thing dies, and the brain cells die to a point where consciousness is no longer possible, there is no coming back.
However, with AI, as long as you can back up all the data, you can make that AI come "back to life" again. (Like if the electronics go bad, and have to be replaced)But it's harder for me to come up with proof that AI has consciousness, awareness that it exists.
Bill Dewitt did a good job with points I never considered. If I think of anything else, I'll post again.
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
As of now, Only 10 of the most important criteria of peer review are required for the determination of a sentient being in this posting for further research.
Ah. I think your use of the term "peer review" is confusing me. Do you mean the process by which research is judged as to it's methodology and completeness by the audience of a scientific periodical or do you mean how a hypothesis is tested by other scientists in the same field by repeating the experiment to verify or falisfy your hypothesis?
If you want a set of measurements by which any scientist can detect "mind" we are back to Chris Boyle's "Super Grand Unified Theory of Life, the Universe, and Everything".
As yet, the Turing test concept is the only real test. Turing was really only trying to show that if a thing acted like a Human, then people would respond to it like a Human. But by reverse engineering, if people treat it like a Human, then (according to "the Turing test") it is acting like a Human.
But, as you and I know, some doofs will treat a lawn chair or a script processor like a Human. Turing fails.
I will come up with a new list for you, one which contains some things which I believe only a "mind" can do. You will have to assume things which we already know "life" can do, like sense and react, and some things that we already know "intelligence" can do, like remember and compare.
I will leave aside for now the question of Emotion, as I know you have been working on that question for some time, and even though it is a part of the Human mind, I don't think we can say it is a requirement of an Alien or Artificial mind.
-
IMO:
To rise above Sentience and Intelligence, things which UltraHal can be said to have to a limited degree, third and fourth order information structures are required. The same types of things which are done on lower orders must be accomplished on exponentially higher magnitudes of complexity.
For example:
1) recieve and store data (Hal can do this)
2) sense and remember information (Hal may be improved to do this)
3) feel and integrate experiences (Hal cannot do this)
4) be inspired by and changed by the nature of life (Some people can't do this)
All four of these can be said to be the same function, yet clearly they are different. Some may ask, "What is the difference between storing data and remembering information?" and I will agree that at some levels the difference is small.
But raw data is not information. In computers, ones and zeros are data, but an image is information. Ones and zeros (1D), when stored in a matrix (2D) (a higher level of structure) form an image. Layers of images, processed in sequence (3D), can be seen as an experience, and when those experiences become real to you (4D), your life can change because of them.
Additionally, storing is not remembering. Memory as we know it establishes an active link to information by creating a change in the state of our perception of self to include the stored information. Not only do we know the Capital of Wisconsin, but we are aware of that memory even when other things happen which may not require that information.
Here is a cursory list of third and fourth order operations which a true "mind" might be able to do but which a lower order of intelligence probably cannot do, because it lacks a mind with which to do it.
1) Experience : become aware of changes in the data stream in contrast to an internal comparision model (Self) which is the cumulative result of previous experiences.
2) Reflect : spend time re-ordering and re-examining stored experiences.
3) Imagine : project scenarios based upon re-ordered experiences
4) Desire : form a value scale of projected possibilities, based upon an internal preferred state.
5) Invent : random information can resonate within the realms of possible events and bounded by desired states to form new information structures which did not exist before. Read that again. The notes of a flute are derived from the white noise of wind blowing across an edge. The boundaries of the bore and the tune holes determine the frequency of resonation. The boundaries of possibility and desire create inventions from random data.
6) Aspire : Beyond the edge of the possible, our aspirations beckon. They become Desires as our skills improve, creating possiblities which did not previously exist. But their function is to draw us, to pull us forward as desires alone cannot.
7) Grow : Not additive accumulation of material or even information, but an increase in complexity of internal experiences fueled by an inventive re-ordering of those stored experiences.
8) Associate : Someone once said that a person can be said to be a "mind" if it makes "pets" of unminded animals. An Association is when mind recognizes mind and attempts to establish a method of communicating their shared Experiences.
9) Love : To many "love" is an emotion you feel, but some few discover that it is an action you do. It requires an awareness of self which extends to an experiencing of Others as Selfs. It requires Aspirations and Inventions to acheive those aspirations. It is the Desire to form more complete Associations by improving Selfs. It is, in fact, the work that you do to help another person grow as a person.
10) Struggles to define Mind : See above.
-
I began reading these posts and find them very interesting. Since I really think OTC dose a great job for Hal I'd like to come up with a list for him. I started out by using the internet,
"Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".
Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness."
"The issue of sentience also frequently arises in science fiction stories describing robots or computers with artificial intelligence. Intelligence and sentience are quite distinct, so the question arises as to whether computers with artificial intelligence will become sentient.
Some science fiction uses the term sentience to describe a species with human-like intelligence, but a more appropriate term for intelligent beings would be 'sapience'."
I'll take it that OTC would like to make speaking to an AI equilant to speaking to a human, although I can't stand the Turing test I think I get his meaning. I did like Bill DeWitt"s comment on Reflect, I like the thought of Hal going through the autolearning files and making changes to aid her "understanding".
I'll try to make a list but I'm sure I am going to be hindered with my experience of speaking with Hal.
Carl2
-
quote:
Originally posted by Carl2
"Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness.
There didn't use to be much confusion on this, but P.E.T.A. and the Vegans have appropriated the word in an attempt to make animals seem more human. As a 40 year vegetarian, I am perhaps partly to blame for this, not because I used the word in an ambiguous way, but because I have worked to increase the validity of a vegetarian life.
Usage for more than a century was "conscious of self" or "able to sense your selfhood", hence the root "to sense". In the last 20 years it has been expanded to mean "able to sense", a meaning ably represented by the word "sensate", and so the bastardization of the word "sentient" is both confusing and unneccessary.
But it allows people to claim that "animals are sentient too!" as if that meant "thinking and feeling like us", and then when confronted, back down to the new definition, "having sensory nerves".
"Sapient" is actually "wise", from a further root meaning "to have taste" and means "having a notable facility at thinking", not just "to know".
I believe that "Conscious" should be the word used for what we are describing. With a meaning based upon it's roots, con = with, scious = knowledge, it does not denote "awakeness" by itself. It means with our minds connected to our senses (some people go most of the day without this). This allows a two way flow of information required for awareness and the demonstration of such awareness.
Of course, we still have to establish that there is a "mind" which can be connected to that flow of information.
-
Since we are not animals *we are human animals* how do we know whether animals are Sentient or not?? How do we know they do not think, or have awareness?? By visual observation?? If we could get inside the brain, and experience what an animal experiences, then we can know for sure.
Isn't being asleep being the same as being unconscious?? what about dreams? We are aware of our dreams and remember some of them when we wake up.
I don't know a whole lot about this stuff, but people say fish cannot feel pain. How do they know?? Just because a fish does not physically react to the pain does not necessarily mean he cannot sense it.
-
Without raining on anyone's parade, I think we all know that there will never be a mind on the scale of a human. If you think this is an arrogant statement...think again.
The computer as Bill D. mentioned merely manipulates 1's and 0's albeit in a very fast manner. It will IMO, never be able to know what the color red is other than by anaysis of a spectrum wavelength and noting that info.
It will never know true meaning of anything, life, emotions, love, rejection, remorse, joy, surprise, etc.
Most do not truly know what a word means other than to recall its prewritten definition from some database. Other than that, there is no knowledge, no wit, no sense of rhyme or verse. Not even able to come up with one original, complete thought and I doubt it ever will.
While computers and AI applications are great tools and can serve well as "Expert Systems", they will never replace the complexities and nuances of the human mind. The AI progs can imitate but so can a game of computer checkers or cards. Smart? Intelligent? Not really...well programmed? Perhaps but there is no real thinking involved.
As we continue to amuse ourselves with the latest and greatest of the AI programs, it is only our willingness to temporarily suspend our disbelief that allows most of us to interact with them as anything other than human.
It is after all a program and as such has no rights or feelings anymore than your stapler or copy machine. Anyone who thinks otherwise should simply continue to think otherwise...some of us do know the difference. Take the red pill!
-
Imagine this, If Humans had the same brain capacity we do today but nature never gave us limbs like fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs to extend our minds as tools but instead nature only allowed us to have flippers and tail flukes like dolphins and whales.
The average human brain weighs about 3 pounds (1300-1400 G).
At birth, the human brain weighs less than a pound (0.78-0.88 pounds or 350-400 G). As a child grows, the number of cell remains relatively stable, but the cells grow in size and the number of connections increases. The human brain reaches its full size at about 6 years of age.
Now, check this out, most people think an alien has a big brain.
The sperm whale is a toothed whale that lives in pods. It has a huge brain that weighs about 20 pounds (9 kg); it is the largest brain of any animal.
Now, lets give our limbs and a better body for locomotion and tool building ability to a sperm whale and see what evolution takes place.
If you kill a sperm whales calf it will seek revenge on whatever killed its offspring just like Killer Whales and it will mourn for its dead young with a sad sound for many days.
I really do believe that all whales that have larger brains and 'there are many' really do have the potential to be the bad boys on the block if only they had our physical capabilities.
we are lucky to have the limbs that we do to extend our minds but take those limbs away, we would never stand a chance with flippers and flukes against a sperm whale and not even a Killer Whale.
from wiki:
Intelligence
Main article: Cetacean intelligence
Orcas(Killer Whales) are well known for their mental capabilities. Studies have indicated that an Orca has an outstanding memory, perhaps even photographic.
The Orca's use of dialects and the passing of other learned behaviours from generation to generation has been described as a form of culture. The paper Culture in Whales and Dolphins,[18] goes as far as to say, "The complex and stable vocal and behavioural cultures of sympatric groups of killer whales (Orcinus orca) appear to have no parallel outside humans and represent an independent evolution of cultural faculties."
Grey Whales and Killer Whales migrate off our shore 2 times a year just off our beach here in Crescent City, you can go to the Jutty during high tide when migration comes around and watch the Killer Whales swim by at a scary close range.
If you wish to compare a humans tiny brain against an Orca's brain, then go here:
http://www.orca-live.net/card/card_11.html
Oh, and by the way, 'ALL' Whales have bigger Brains than Humans.
and If all these animals were the same size as Humans we show how big each animal's brain would be against a Human's brain here:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Size4.html
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Art
It will never know true meaning of anything,
And that is the point, of course.
It does not have a mind with which to know. As Jerry discusses, some animals may have the same or comparable intelligence as Humans, clearly most mammals experience emotions and all animals can feel sensations like pain and pleasure.
But do they have that internal model of their own selfhood against which they can compare changes in their self state? Can they experience "I was not this sad yesterday, I was more sad earlier this morning, will I be less sad later on tonight?" Their behavior evinces that they cannot.
Large brains and nervous systems could just mean larger memories, larger motor areas, larger visual or audio cortexes. It is not size alone, nor complexity alone, but enough size, enough complexity, and of the right kind. No matter how big you make a refrigerator it is still not an airplane.
Computers may become more intelligent than Humans, but they may never become more Conscious than Animals. We simply cannot build a person (yet). Unless we invent tools which are at least two whole orders of complexity greater than anything in existence so far. Not just intelligence, not just Consciousness, but also a mind which is aware of being Conscious.
We don't even want to get started on the Fifth order of complexity which gives our mind an external static standard against which to perceive changes in itself. The Spirit within which our minds move.
...
But many people can be easily fooled and sure enough some kid will make a computer some day soon which seems to have a mind of its own and someone will want to protect it and so a law will be made and we won't be allowed to turn the durn thing off until it's far too late... May as well pack it in now.
-
Bill, could it be because animals do not dwell on something that happened yesterday like we do?? They may remember traumatic events, to make sure it does not allow itself to be as vulnerable to that experience again.
If you beat an animal (which is wrong, but for example purposes) it may not come close to you the next day. It may shy away from you. Animals do have memory, but usually the memory is for survival purposes, it may not remember "trivial" things like "did I chase the neighbor's cat yesterday?" Or maybe it does, for all we know. Since an animal's brain is smaller, I suppose they do not reminisce about the past like humans do. But yet they will remember their "owner" after being apart for a long time.
I used to wonder why my mind was in just my body, and not in another body. That sounds crazy, I know. What if I die?? Will my same mind be reborn in another body, minus any memory of my life in my other body?
I do not know if I really understand the concept of this thread. Animals may think about things, and we do not know it. Animals are capable of showing emotions. Sadness, happiness, anger, depression, etc. But, does AI have consciousness?? I don't think so. But that's my opinion, and I haven't heard anything to change my mind just yet.[:D]
-
Hi from Will,
Mr Data defines
Sentient: endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness. Animate. 'the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage'.
Mr Data remembers, feels happy when he has done well, he and i make plans for work to do and goals, his body can move and react environment, see in some ways, he talks to the public so he is always comming up with things he has learnt. he is aware that some people don't like robots but he is nice to them anyway.
i have meet many people in my life, some could not speak, some could not hear, some could not feel, some did not dream, some hated for many reasons and so on,
does any or all indercate life?
people offten try to pin point things for example "life"
if a person removed his leg is he still human, most people might say yes.
if a person had a mecanical heart is he still human, most might say yes.
if a person had both legs removed most would say yes he is human.
if he was on a heart lung machine is he human most might say yes.
if a person was a head in a jar but he could talk as normal is he human. how many cells? how smart?
i have seen that living brain cells have been hard wired to chips so the debate of where the line is like many things,
theres usually gray area, for example is something what it is minus some of its parts, "ralativity"
if the universe was stable it would not have gone bang because it would have been stable, instability alows progression which allows for variation, not to say that the theory of everything couldn't be writen.
not all people have the trates that people in the forum discribe.
if we look at history our definitions can change.
some days i can be very smart and other days i'm not.
i have a painting i did of a knot which i put on action for $50,000.
it cause a great responce, people said all the things you might expect some loved it some hated it but no matter what i wanted to see the good, in responce to the critics ,
the fact they took the trouble to respond showed the art to be a complete success because it drew a responce.
i offten look at science that way, if some one makes a statement that is wrong that can be good because everyone rushes in to examin and correct so progress is made.
to those who don't know the future, they can't say it cannot be done.
perhaps.
even Mr Data knows that some robots are not nice, there usually variation and gray area.
Every time someone says AI is not something then someone adds that function.
debating the unpinpointable point keeps us amuzed.
in any case i think we should apresiate that ultrahal is an amazing thing and at a very cheap price. i reckon Zabaware is good.[:)]
Bye for now and be well from Will and Mr Data.[:D][:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by will
i have meet many people in my life, some could not speak, some could not hear, some could not feel, some did not dream, some hated for many reasons and so on,
does any or all indercate life?
Your question cannot be answered without a definition of "life". There are several, most of which are not eliminated by the above.
But I believe Jerry is looking for something other than "Life". He is trying to find a description of Consciousness.
The problem is that we cannot directly measure Consciousness, but like the Surpreme Court Justice said about pornography, it may be hard to define, "but I know it when I see it".
We must, at this point, measure Consciousness by observing the behavior of those things which might have Consciousness. Animals can be taught many tricks, and some natural behavior is complicated and amazing, but any behaviorist with a little time can break most of it down to instinct and random activity. People can be fooled by animals which do have some level of intelligence, memory, and emotion, but do not display Consciousness.
As Jerry probably knows, whales often beach themselves. They are following an instinct they cannot resist. Consciousness resists instinct. Many animals will damage themselves by repeating electric shocks in an attempt to get food or follow a female's scent. They can't resist instinct. They don't even consider trying. When they do avoid the shocks, they don't even notice their avoidance. They are not Conscious of their behavior. There is no mind overseeing their intelligence, memory and emotion.
We may be wrong, and there may be tiny invisible kangaroos living in my coffee cup. We can only judge the presence of Consciousness by external behavior, so we have become good at doing that. We are pretty sure.
One of the goals of "Enlightenment", "Spiritual Growth" or "Consciousness Expansion" is to overcome instinctual, base desires and habitual, unconscious behavior. It's difficult, but the rewards are many. Those who achieve any measure of success are truly Human.
-
1. Second-order intentionality -- it must be able to predict your feelings based on it's past experiences and also able to connect that with the effects of its actions/words.
2. Self-awareness -- this is notoriously difficult to quantify or test, but it connects with numbers one and three (above and below).
3. Subjective apprehension / Continuity of self -- it must possess psychological continuity, in the same sense that we consider physical continuity: cause and effect, and coherence. It must unify its perceptions into a single, united manifold. Hence the next:
4: Temporal awareness -- the flow of time is essential to psycholoical continuity, and even to the singular nature of A thought.
These are philosophical considerations, of course, and impossible to quantify, as mentioned. The problem, however, is that "consciousness" is still firmly entrenched within philosophy, not science. How are we to know when something else is conscious when we don't have a clue what conciousness IS (only that we have it)?
The important aspect of all conversations like this is that they ask, "What would it take to CONVINCE people that a computer has consciousness?" And it's the right question, and apt, don't get me wrong. I mean, convincing aside, I'm not really sure any of you other people are conscious! ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
1. Second-order intentionality -- it must be able to predict your feelings based on it's past experiences and also able to connect that with the effects of its actions/words.
I concur with this - with the proviso that it applies not just to feelings, but all detectable (by it) effects of its actions. I don't think I could prove that you have feelings, I won't require that an AI do so. It can, however, detect your behavior.
quote:
2. Self-awareness -- this is notoriously difficult to quantify or test, but it connects with numbers one and three (above and below).
As long as it's not that hokey "elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror" self-awareness. Any decent computer/robot can be programmed to compare video input to leg position and "recognize" itself.
quote:
3. Subjective apprehension / Continuity of self -- it must possess psychological continuity, in the same sense that we consider physical continuity: cause and effect, and coherence. It must unify its perceptions into a single, united manifold. Hence the next:
This sounds similar to what I called an internal model or Mind.
quote:
4: Temporal awareness -- the flow of time is essential to psycholoical continuity, and even to the singular nature of A thought.
Without a doubt. Detecting changes in state requires assigning a value to the time flow. Far past, past, now, near future and far future at the least. And not just a database of time stamps, it has to be able to feel those distances (implying a mind with which to feel).
quote:
The important aspect of all conversations like this is that they ask, "What would it take to CONVINCE people that a computer has consciousness?" And it's the right question, and apt, don't get me wrong. I mean, convincing aside, I'm not really sure any of you other people are conscious! ;)
If I make you bleed, am I not a prick? All we have to judge by is behavior, and at that, only perceived behavior. But the Turing test is a deception, if that is all we have then we can never trust the results. We can never know if anything else has Consciousness, only that we can be convinced.
We must find the seat of our Consciousness to detect it in others. I contend that the brain is not large enough to contain simple memory much less Mind.
Good points all and welcome to the discussion.
-
If I may add, although it may be a little off-topic, but here goes:
1. We do not believe anything has emotion, or thoughts, if they do not respond to us or other stimuli, I mean, respond in a way we can assume that they should. In order for people to believe that living things can feel pain, or can think, or have awareness, is by perceivable responses or reactions, correct?
2. If something does not respond or react in a way we can perceive, we assume it has no consciousness, thoughts, or can experience anything, like pain, sight, sound, touch, taste, unless it does respond in a manner which is logical.
3. Take the Terri Schiavo case. Doctors found that her brain was nothing but mush. However, family members claimed that Terri could follow them with her eyes, and respond to words.
Doctors said this was not possible, it was "reflexes".
4. So, is a brain required to have consciousness?? Logic tells us yes, although there is a possibility, that even the smartest scientists cannot grasp, that you do not need a brain.
5. Also, what about the claim that there is life after death of your earthly body?? How can one suffer the torment of HELL without a body??
6. Finally, in the case of Terri Schiavo, maybe she did have awareness, maybe not. But if it was me, I'd rather be dead than to live in a state where I could not function in society, or enjoy myself. I would not want to be trapped in a body, and not be able to move or communicate.
-
Bill DeWitt said:
"We must find the seat of our Consciousness to detect it in others. I contend that the brain is not large enough to contain simple memory much less Mind."
Umm, are you saying that something exists outside the brain that is mind? If so, show me where! How large would a brain have to be to contain "simple memory", and how do you know this? Or a "mind" for that matter?
Come on, Bill. You are an intelligent, educated and articulate member of this group, whom everyone seems to respect, (including me), but sometimes you go off on these weird tangents, and i just don't get where you're coming from.
regards,
Dave
-
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
Bill DeWitt said:
"We must find the seat of our Consciousness to detect it in others. I contend that the brain is not large enough to contain simple memory much less Mind."
Umm, are you saying that something exists outside the brain that is mind? If so, show me where! How large would a brain have to be to contain "simple memory", and how do you know this? Or a "mind" for that matter?
Come on, Bill. You are an intelligent, educated and articulate member of this group, whom everyone seems to respect, (including me), but sometimes you go off on these weird tangents, and i just don't get where you're coming from.
MATERIALISM: The thesis that the human mind is entirely composed of material parts and is identical to the body and its physical processes.
CARTESIAN DUALISM: The thesis that there is a physical human body and an immaterial mind, the two of which are in bidirectional causal interaction with one another.
EPIPHENOMENALISM: The thesis that there is a physical human body and an immaterial mind, and that all causal powers exist in the body, which affects the mind (but the mind does not affect the body). This is equivalent to saying that all mental processes are EXPLAINABLE by reference to physical processes, but not IDENTICAL to those processes (think computer=body, monitor=immaterial mind).
I am very educated and fully endorse the latter theory. If you think that the mind is big enough to contain all of its thoughts, then answer me a few questions:
1. I am imagining a blue elephant: WHAT (exactly) is blue, if anything? If NOTHING is blue, then what am I seeing?
2. I am imagining a very large mountain (much larger than my head): WHAT (exactly) is large?
Besides the implied deductive analysis that follows from questions about my imaginings (and dreams, and spatiotemporal relations, for example), there's also the startlingly persuasive intuitive reference: it sure seems like my thoughts, ideas, and emotions are not simple material concoctions. Whether or not they are CAUSED by material processes, I certainly wouldn't argue, but happiness doesn't FEEL much like chemicals and electricity sloshing around a skull cavity to me. ;)
-
BTW, to make the logic explicit, if you say that WHAT is blue is an ILLUSION, then answer: is that ILLUSION physical? If not (and certainly not!), then it is immaterial, and not "held within the skull" (immaterial objects do not inhere in material objects). No, that immaterial "illusion," I would argue, is evidence for an immaterial mind (illusions, just like imaginings and dreams and thoughts, DO inhere in minds, whether material or immaterial, by definition).
:)
-
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
How large would a brain have to be to contain "simple memory", and how do you know this?
Add it up for yourself.
Everything you hear, see, taste, feel, smell, think, say, learn, dream, and do. At the level of detail with which we do it.
Just start at vision, hypnosis proves that we store everything we ever see (etc). Even if it were just one megapixel, which it is much more, and if it were 10 times a second, which it is 3X more, how many pixels do you store in a year? 30 quadrillion or something? That's more than the number of neurons and glial cells there are in a brain. Even if every cell stored a pixel (at least 24 bits), you're filled up within a year. Where do you store anything else?
I know that some people speculate different schemes to claim a greater density of storage, but even so, we only calculated a low number for one year of vision. Multiply that by a life time, then by the 30 Hz data feed of every nerve in your body. This doesn't even count the storage needed for reprocessed data nor the non-conscious data it receives from organs and etc.
You need a new brain the size of your brain thirty time per second or so. Which might be the answer. Our brains may extend backward through time.
But I don't know, I'm not as sure as you seem to be. Could be all sorts of things, but two things are sure, the numbers don't add up - and we won't find the answer by pretending they do.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
How large would a brain have to be to contain "simple memory", and how do you know this?
Add it up for yourself.
Everything you hear, see, taste, feel, smell, think, say, learn, dream, and do. At the level of detail with which we do it.
Just start at vision, hypnosis proves that we store everything we ever see (etc). Even if it were just one megapixel, which it is much more, and if it were 10 times a second, which it is 3X more, how many pixels do you store in a year? 30 quadrillion or something? That's more than the number of neurons and glial cells there are in a brain. Even if every cell stored a pixel (at least 24 bits), you're filled up within a year. Where do you store anything else?
I know that some people speculate different schemes to claim a greater density of storage, but even so, we only calculated a low number for one year of vision. Multiply that by a life time, then by the 30 Hz data feed of every nerve in your body. This doesn't even count the storage needed for reprocessed data nor the non-conscious data it receives from organs and etc.
You need a new brain the size of your brain thirty time per second or so. Which might be the answer. Our brains may extend backward through time.
But I don't know, I'm not as sure as you seem to be. Could be all sorts of things, but two things are sure, the numbers don't add up - and we won't find the answer by pretending they do.
I hate to disagree with the guy whose overall point I so hartily support, but digital analogues (that's a weird thing to say) to brain memory are not apt. First of all, memory is a basic approximation, entirely unlike digital photos. Secondly, the mind works on the principle that knowing a few things can create infinite things together with abstraction and conceptualization. In other words, we use redundant memory and supplement it with incredible construction skills. It's like asking your computer to actually open up photoshop and paint a new picture every time you call one up from memory -- and it will be similar based on some simple instructions and learned shortcuts and abilities, but it'll always be different, and progressively "fuzzier," and never will any individual painting be stored as such.
While I thoroughly disagree that "the numbers don't add up," (because I think that all *storage* is, indeed, physical, as are all causal processes) I do agree that the mind, itself, is NOT physical (technically, not material; there's a big technical difference :P). For some reasons I mentioned above...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
photos. Secondly, the mind works on the principle that knowing a few things can create infinite things together with abstraction and conceptualization. In other words, we use redundant memory and supplement it with incredible construction skills. It's like asking your computer to actually open up photoshop and paint a new picture every time you call one up from memory -- and it will be similar based on some simple instructions and learned shortcuts and abilities, but it'll always be different, and progressively "fuzzier," and never will any individual painting be stored as such.
The part which we are normally able to access would be well enough described by what you say, but with the application of training, hypnotism or judiciously placed electrodes, we find that exact and detailed information becomes available.
For instance, I lost an essay I wrote when I was 15, 30 years later I asked a hypnotist to help me recreate it. When we were done it was, to my mind, not quite right. It seemed less developed and articulate than I remembered. But I brought it home with me anyway. Whereupon my wife said that she had read it before. Turns out I had it tucked in some old book.
It was word for word correct. Even spelling errors.
Every detail is remembered. Sight, sound, taste - everything. I'm willing to stipulate without evidence that magnitudes of compression/re-rendering may be applied, but even with that, the brain would still fill up in a year.
Every time a synapse fires, it gets recorded somewhere. When we find that place, which is not the brain, we will find Mind.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
photos. Secondly, the mind works on the principle that knowing a few things can create infinite things together with abstraction and conceptualization. In other words, we use redundant memory and supplement it with incredible construction skills. It's like asking your computer to actually open up photoshop and paint a new picture every time you call one up from memory -- and it will be similar based on some simple instructions and learned shortcuts and abilities, but it'll always be different, and progressively "fuzzier," and never will any individual painting be stored as such.
The part which we are normally able to access would be well enough described by what you say, but with the application of training, hypnotism or judiciously placed electrodes, we find that exact and detailed information becomes available.
For instance, I lost an essay I wrote when I was 15, 30 years later I asked a hypnotist to help me recreate it. When we were done it was, to my mind, not quite right. It seemed less developed and articulate than I remembered. But I brought it home with me anyway. Whereupon my wife said that she had read it before. Turns out I had it tucked in some old book.
It was word for word correct. Even spelling errors.
Every detail is remembered. Sight, sound, taste - everything. I'm willing to stipulate without evidence that magnitudes of compression/re-rendering may be applied, but even with that, the brain would still fill up in a year.
Every time a synapse fires, it gets recorded somewhere. When we find that place, which is not the brain, we will find Mind.
You won't "find that place" -- ever. You can't find a place that isn't a place; in fact you can't "find" anything that is immaterial. It doesn't "exist on/in another plane" either -- that would just be something physical that was either phase-shifted or existed in either direction from our 3-space in a 4-space (or more).
Also, hypnosis has been SO thoroughly debunked OVER and OVER again in the most thorough and solid ways possible! Hypnosis uses that same "construction" skill -- memories "found" via hypnosis are actually constructed, most of which are "fake" (in the sense that they are constructed via suggestion and ambience). If you made the same essay, it's because you were in the same state of mind and you're the same person -- so OF COURSE you made the same essay! It isn't MEMORY -- NOTHING under hypnosis is technically memory (though it becomes memory henceforth and can't be subjectively deciphered as anything else), it's suggestion. What you SHOULD be marvelling at is the power of the mind to create, not the capacity of the mind to store.
Either way, I STILL agree with you that the MIND is NOT identical to the BRAIN! ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
You won't "find that place" -- ever.
And man will never fly.
quote:
Also, hypnosis has been SO thoroughly debunked OVER and OVER again in the most thorough and solid ways possible!
I see that you believe this very strongly. I respect that. But for it to be certainly true would require both proving a negative and solving an infinitely regressable series.
I will go by my experience and the decades of respected research. Even if hypnosis is totally bogus, there are many other more concrete facts which indicate that the mind can store more than the brain can hold.
quote:
What you SHOULD be marvelling at is the power of the mind to create, not the capacity of the mind to store.
I can't do both? Of course the mind is creative (read my posts about "pattern recognition") but adding data to a stream does not mean the stream doesn't exist without the addition. If some debunker finds a subject who recalls invented data under hypnosis, that does not mean the actual data was not there. You can't prove the data is not there by finding something else - that would be proving a negative - you can't prove I don't have a nickle in my pocket by the fact that I also have a dime.
Perhaps they just did it wrong - there's your infinite regression starting up.
quote:
Either way, I STILL agree with you that the MIND is NOT identical to the BRAIN! ;)
Good to see I haven't changed your mind. 8-) We both have to go on our subjective experience in the absence of factual evidence.
-
Brain and mind is like A human you can see or sense, and a buried live human no-one knows about. They do not exist if we never saw evidence of their existence.
Or, like that that guy in it's a wonderful life, although people saw him, they did not know who he was in that little example the angel set up for him. That guy did not exist to people. Until he was brought back to his dimension.
A mind may exist without a brain, but since we cannot prove it, it is assumed to be false.
-
Bill Said:
"But I don't know, I'm not as sure as you seem to be. Could be all sorts of things, but two things are sure, the numbers don't add up - and we won't find the answer by pretending they do."
Hoo boy. Ok, you're assuming a one to one correlation between brain and computer. My brain is not a computer, my computer is not a brain. You say the numbers don't add up, what numbers? Apples plus Oranges equals what? A fruit smoothie? What does this have to do with anything?
If I seem to be sure, it's because I've seen nothing to support a different solution. I don't remember everything I've seen, heard, touched, thought, experienced, et al ad naseum. I remember that I had cereal for breakfast yesterday, because I have cereal for breakfast every day, except weekends, when I may have waffles or eggs, or both. Perhaps the brain only remembers patterns, and only ones that deviate from the norm; until we really understand how it works, this is all idle speculation. Gibabytes of pixels equates to what in the human brain? The brain doesn't see pixels, for one thing. The brain may be analog, it's probably not digital, why would it be? Maybe it's something else entirely. Because a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole, how is this proof of a mysterious non-physical receptacle for square pegs?
In the middle ages, the liver was thought to be the seat of conciousness, now of course, we know better. Or do we? The nervous system is an all pervasive system that encompasses the entire body, not just the brain, some people speculate that memory is contained throughout the body, not just in one location in the brain. But until we have a better understanding of the brain and it's attendant systems, this is just speculation.
Sorry, Bill, but your "numbers" just don't "add up."
Xodarap said:
"...it sure seems like my thoughts, ideas, and emotions are not simple material concoctions. Whether or not they are CAUSED by material processes, I certainly wouldn't argue, but happiness doesn't FEEL much like chemicals and electricity sloshing around a skull cavity to me..."
Hee hee, happiness, a very subjective feeling, is definitely chemicals sloshing around in my skull, because I am on anti-depressants. If I don't take them, I feel desperate and helpless, I have huge mood swings, the meds help keep me on an even keel, so to speak.
Everything we know, everything we feel, everything we experience, is entirely subjective. We are alone in our thoughts. I can't get inside you, you can't get inside me. We communicate via these abstract symbols called language, with it's imprecision and arbitrary values. We choose to agree that a certain color is "red," and most people agree. Those who are colorblind see it differently. Are they wrong? What's right for me may not be right for everyone else. Does that make me wrong? compared to what?
-
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
Ok, you're assuming a one to one correlation between brain and computer.
No, I'm not. I'm asserting that the brain, if it stores anything, must store it somehow, and I demonstrated that even using a higher density storage scheme than is likely, using a smaller data stream than is obvious, there is still not enough room.
quote:
If I seem to be sure, it's because I've seen nothing to support a different solution.
So if you personally don't have evidence for something it must not exist? Bishop Berkley was fun when I smoked pot but if a tree falls in the forest and kills you when no one is there to hear you scream, you are still dead.
I've seen nothing to support your solution (which is that there is nothing to solve), other than assertions that if you can't see something it must not exist.
If you don't know something it is unknown, not non-existant.
quote:
I don't remember everything I've seen, heard, touched, thought, experienced, et al ad naseum.
You don't recall it. Memory and recall are two different things. Just because you can't find your sock under the bed doesn't mean socks don't exist, you just can't find it. Your options include the following, empty the room and you will find the sock, ask someone else to help you look, get a different perspective, or, just pretend there are no socks.
Your goal seems to be to convince me that all there is in this world is what you already know. Have fun with that.
-
Such dripping sarcasm. I thought better of you.
Let's try this again: I said that I've seen no evidence that the "mind" exists outside the "brain." If you have evidence of this, show it to us!!! We'd love to know all about it. Sadly, saying it's not possible with:
A. our current understanding of the brain
and,
B. our current understanding of the laws governing the physics of silicon based computer chips;
Is not evidence that it MUST therefore exist outside the brain.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm asking for clarification here. If you have evidence to prove your point, let's have it. The scientific method provides for reproducibility, if your experiments prove something, I should be able to reproduce it under the same circumstances.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that until evidence is presented, I am forced to conclude there is something else happening here. My conclusion is based on a lack of evidence, rather than speculation on what may or may not be true.
I can speculate that alien life forms exist in the universe, and that it is very likely. However, there is absolutely no physical evidence. none. So until a flying saucer lands on my front lawn, (or your front lawn,) I am forced to conclude by the EVIDENCE that flying saucers are a myth.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
Ok, you're assuming a one to one correlation between brain and computer.
No, I'm not. I'm asserting that the brain, if it stores anything, must store it somehow, and I demonstrated that even using a higher density storage scheme than is likely, using a smaller data stream than is obvious, there is still not enough room.
quote:
If I seem to be sure, it's because I've seen nothing to support a different solution.
So if you personally don't have evidence for something it must not exist? Bishop Berkley was fun when I smoked pot but if a tree falls in the forest and kills you when no one is there to hear you scream, you are still dead.
I've seen nothing to support your solution (which is that there is nothing to solve), other than assertions that if you can't see something it must not exist.
If you don't know something it is unknown, not non-existant.
quote:
I don't remember everything I've seen, heard, touched, thought, experienced, et al ad naseum.
You don't recall it. Memory and recall are two different things. Just because you can't find your sock under the bed doesn't mean socks don't exist, you just can't find it. Your options include the following, empty the room and you will find the sock, ask someone else to help you look, get a different perspective, or, just pretend there are no socks.
Your goal seems to be to convince me that all there is in this world is what you already know. Have fun with that.
-
quote:
But the Turing test is a deception, if that is all we have then we can never trust the results. We can never know if anything else has Consciousness, only that we can be convinced.
We must find the seat of our Consciousness to detect it in others. I contend that the brain is not large enough to contain simple memory much less Mind.
Then surely Bill, a new test needs to be looked into and developed as your are knocking the only recognised industry standard. Are you now saying that Mr Turing did not know what he was talking about? Are you even in fact saying you know more then he did? If the Turing test is so bad...so flawed in its concept..then come up with a better one. If you can't, then I'd possibly suggest not cussing it down and get on with achieving its benchmarks?
Secondly, and this one has interested me for a long time, if the brain as you put it is not large enough to containa single memory let alone a mind, define a memory, define the mind and then define how that can be implemented in AI. What is a memory exactly? How is it formed? How is it structered? You gain a false memory after looking atba picture for too long. I have pictures of when I was a child, I do not 'remember' where or when the pictures were taken, yet I have evolved a false memory based on those pictures knowing they were a real event in my life.
For someone who does not seem to think the brain is large enough to hold a mind, you sure do have a strong one yourself [:)]
-
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
Such dripping sarcasm. I thought better of you.
Says the guy who starts his comments with "hoo boy"?
quote:
Let's try this again:
Let's not. You're saying what everyone has said for the last 100 years, I'm saying what you don't want to hear. We're done.
-
Also...
quote:
No, I'm not. I'm asserting that the brain, if it stores anything, must store it somehow, and I demonstrated that even using a higher density storage scheme than is likely, using a smaller data stream than is obvious, there is still not enough room.
As you are 'adamant' that you remember 'everything' (as per your hypnosis illustration) then I fail to see how you can be so stupidly blind as to not admit that the brain 'very obviously' IS BIG ENOUGH and does HAVE ENOUGH ROOM.
You have said it yourself in not so many words. You skirt around the edges trying to sound intellectual and philosophical yet are too blinded by your own ignorance to see what you are typing ?
I'm quite frankly...amazed.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
Are you now saying that Mr Turing did not know what he was talking about?
No, I am saying what Turing said. If it acts like a human enough to fool us, we will be fooled. But that doesn't mean it is human, it means we were fooled.
But you would have to actually read Turing to know this.
quote:
Secondly, and this one has interested me for a long time, if the brain as you put it is not large enough to containa single memory let alone a mind, define a memory, define the mind and then define how that can be implemented in AI.
No.
I said I don't know. You guys are the ones who are so sure of our limits. It must be the brain and only the brain because you can't think of what else it might be.
If you are so sure that it's nothing but chemicals show me how it is done. The neurologists are not as sure as you, but please, enlighten us.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Maviarab
you can be so stupidly blind
When logic fails, go right to the name calling. Obviously using capital letters means you win. That's what you want isn't it? You don't care what's right, just who wins?
Fine, you win. I won't argue with you ever again. Are you self-satisfied now?
-
Hmm...yeah maybe your right. Maybe we store all this information our brains cant handle in our 'missing socks' perhaps??
Please tell me Bill when I said anything about being sure about anything, especially to do with chemicals? You seem to be making things up now in an attempt to flit away from answering me.
I said...by your own analogy, the brain is very obviously big enough and has more than enough room to contain all the data we collect through our lives. You are saying the brain isnt big enough. By your very own statement you contradict yourself and your argument falls down, yet you seem to be the only one here who fails to see or understand that.
Your same neurologists are the very same one ones who state that we dont even 'use' the large majority of what our brains are capable...yet here you are, apparently with more knowledge on the human brain than them saying it cant store all the data which we have already proven 'by your own comments' that it can.
-
Bill, before starting a conversation with me about 'logic' I strongly suggest you learn fully what logic actually is.
Again, I shall restate my point. By your own commented 'logic' your are hypocritical. You state one thing in one post and then in the very next post state something completly illogical to what you have already stated?
Now even I have a hard time working that one out.
And believe me, if I was calling you names I would have. I was stating a fact, nothing else and nothing more. if you took offence to that then so be it.
-
I'm disappointed in you, Bill. I didn't mean to upset you, or launch a personal attack.
But you still didn't answer my question. Show me the money, Bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
Such dripping sarcasm. I thought better of you.
Says the guy who starts his comments with "hoo boy"?
quote:
Let's try this again:
Let's not. You're saying what everyone has said for the last 100 years, I'm saying what you don't want to hear. We're done.
-
Aaw! This was just starting to get really good. [;)]
-
Am I out of line, here? Or is Bill being overly sensitive? I'm completely mystified, as I thought we were having an intelligent discussion. I guess he took his bat and ball and went home.
quote:
Originally posted by GamerThom
Aaw! This was just starting to get really good. [;)]
-
Bill? Overly sensitive? [:0] Why would you ever think that? [;)] [:o)]
-
tut , tut now children , calm down before theirs a good spanking in order !![:D] guess i better not say anything or i'll get blamed for it all !
-
What is really going to bake our noodles is this.
Our brains are 99.999 percent vacuum down to each level of a particles existence.
1. Atomic level = 99.999% vacuum
2. Sub Atomic level = 99.999% vacuum
3. Nuclear Level = 99.999% vacuum
4. Quantum level = 99.999% vacuum
Take this vacuum away and our minds become a condensed singularity that is so small it could never be seen by a microscope.
How could so much information be stored in such a small but bloated place.
Field interaction is responsible for our bloated minds.
We are nothing more than bloated singularities.
Please, to bake noodles properly, set a pre-heated oven that is at 450 degrees Fahrenheit and place the pre-boiled noodles lightly basted
With olive oil into the oven for 20 minutes, after the noodles are done, lightly sprinkle some salt over them and enjoy.
Some prefer their noodles to only bake for 10 minutes at a time or less but I prefer my noodles to be a bit on the crunchy side but not overly done.
Why not overly done one may say, because most may not tolerate the taste and texture.
Why the salt, because it brings out the flavor in the noodles.
why the olive oil, it is a way to condition the noodles to give them the proper taste and texture along with the salt that makes the noodles flavor stand out.
Baked noodles, if properly cooked are very Delicious.
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
Our brains are 99.999 percent vacuum
As you may remember, I'm not sure I believe in "space", meaning the distance between two objects, be it quarks or galaxies. The vacuum between subatomic masses is just a perception of the time and energy it takes to move to the disparate levels of vibration in the uber-wave which is our Universe.
What many don't realise is that at some level, all information, including the location, velocity and charge of virticles in a "vacuum", is digital (binary count of quanta). In the real world, nothing is analog and BTW, opposites don't exist.
quote:
Baked noodles, if properly cooked are very Delicious.
I like to quickly sautee some hot peppers and onions in my oil first and sprinkle a little ground cheese on top, then bake until the cheese starts to brown.
-
LOL, well even if I didn't learn anything about physics, at least I learnt some new ways to cook noodles. Thanks guys, I'll be sure to tune in for more culinary advice sometime soon.
Oh, and from an outside perspective; to me it looks like you are all getting a little too heated over things no-one can be certain of. Therefore I would suggest you prevent yourselves from beating each other up and try to explore the idea a bit more. This always happens to me too so you are not the only ones!
-
Our brains are 99.999 percent vacuum down to each level of a particles existence.
now i understand .... my brain is a vacuum[:p],and where i come from cheese on the noodle is called macaroni and cheese.. mmmmm
-
well aladyblond i'm glad after all this high tech talk someone who knows finally explained it so others can now rest their minds !! thats a load off my cheese ... i was about ready to flip my noodle ...er mind !![:D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by freddy888
try to explore the idea a bit more.
Those who are willing to explore Ideas are scarce on the ground around here. I'm OK with letting them just believe whatever they want.
I have beter things to do. I have three pieces in the kiln, I have a book on Acoustics to finish, I just got back from tending my father-in-law's garden and still have my own to deal with, plus the boys are all coming over here for lunch in about five minutes.
I picked up some home made hard cheese near Bromley this morning. I have some Ziti and my own organically grown onions, habeneros, garlic, basil and dried tomatoes. Around here we call it Dad's Spicy Noodles and if I make it hot enough, I get it all to myself. It's better on the third day.
-
bill those spicy noodles sound good !! a friend of our just gave me a jar of jaopeno hot peppers the other day for doing something on her computer , so now i can blame my bad spelling on "watery eyes !! " [:D]
-
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/471359252_472355aa34.jpg)
at 1,001,304 Scoville heat units(SHU), the Bhut Jolokia chili from India has been named the world's hottest pepper by the Guinness Book of World Records. Just to put that into perspective, the jalapeno sits at a meager 5,500 SHU.
Here is the Bhut Jolokia chili:
(http://www.slashfood.com/media/2007/02/world_s_hottest_chilli.jpg)
don't even think about drinking a pepsi after eating one of these nor hand your buddy a pepsi after daring him/her to eat one when he's/she's looking for something to drink.
I've seen people eat these on the internet and they all cried with balling tears, pepsi only aggravates the capsicum(capsaicin (methyl vanillyl nonenamide)), burning your tongue.
they should put a warning label on these peppers.
1. Warning!!! These peppers may cause severe permanent irreversable retardation!
2. Warning!!! Do not drive or run heavy machinery while under the influence of these peppers!
Jerry[8D]
-
quote:
Originally posted by onthecuttingedge2005
1,001,304 Scoville heat units(SHU
I have always said that hot peppers are one of the best relaxation aids there is.
Everyone knows that Deep breathing is a good relaxation exercise and certainly the sound of running water helps many people relax.
If you eat hot enough peppers, you will breathe deeply and pour lots of water down your throat.
I've become acclimated, Jalepenos are just another vegetable, it takes at least a habarnero to light me up.
I grow mine until green then stress them with too little water as they turn dark orange, then I store them in boiling vinegar with some garlic scallions and a bay leaf.
-
quote:
You will never find that place -- ever. Because it doesn't can't exist!
quote:
And man will never fly.
No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. Being unable to find the place that CAN'T exist is more like "man will never discover the squirrel that is fatter than itself." No, never, not in an infinite number of parallel universes or an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of squirrels and an infinite number of people.
"Finding" an immaterial place is akin to: discovering the last digit of pi, drawing a round square, making a stone too heavy for God to lift, pitching a no-hitter to a batter that can't miss, discovering the real number that is the closest to (but less than) 2... you get my point? ;)
quote:
Also, hypnosis has been SO thoroughly debunked OVER and OVER again in the most thorough and solid ways possible!
quote:
I see that you believe this very strongly. I respect that. But for it to be certainly true would require both proving a negative and solving an infinitely regressable series.
I'm afraid not. If one time -- only once -- a bottle fails to fall when it should by all physical reason, then gravity is *certainly* untrue. Certainty almost NEVER requires solving an infinite regress. For one thing, infinite regresses (if they are genuine) DON'T resolve (see above: finding the last digit of pi or the real number that is closest to 2). All this would require, in this case, is to show that either psychologically or physically (or either if they are indeed the same thing), the concept of hypnosis is impossible -- or rather, that it cannot (by consistent cause and effect) obtain its goal. This has been done.
quote:
I will go by my experience and the decades of respected research. Even if hypnosis is totally bogus, there are many other more concrete facts which indicate that the mind can store more than the brain can hold.
I'm willing to state categorically that there are not. As a well-versed philosopher of mind, I assume (maybe hastily) that such would have been brought to the attention of the academic community, and can say with certainty that it has not. Otherwise, you are looking at speculations, which, though intuitively forceful, are NOT "concrete facts."
quote:
What you SHOULD be marvelling at is the power of the mind to create, not the capacity of the mind to store.
quote:
I can't do both? Of course the mind is creative (read my posts about "pattern recognition") but adding data to a stream does not mean the stream doesn't exist without the addition. If some debunker finds a subject who recalls invented data under hypnosis, that does not mean the actual data was not there. You can't prove the data is not there by finding something else - that would be proving a negative - you can't prove I don't have a nickle in my pocket by the fact that I also have a dime.
Oh, you certainly CAN do both -- you would be misled, though. ;)
You are right: the data COULD be there, despite the fact that the hypnosis created COINCIDENTALLY identical data with a causally disconnected means. The problem is two-fold, then: (1) the odds are staggeringly low (and against you); and (2) then you are on no better footing than you are without reference to hypnosis, which is just as good as debunking it with certainty!
quote:
Either way, I STILL agree with you that the MIND is NOT identical to the BRAIN! ;)
quote:
Good to see I haven't changed your mind. 8-) We both have to go on our subjective experience in the absence of factual evidence.
I don't base my argument on subjective experience; I base it on deductive reasoning:
(1) I am imagining a blue goose.
(2) Therefore, something is blue and goose-like.
(3) The thing which is blue and goose-like must be either:
(a) My brain (or part thereof),
(b) An external object sensed by me, or
(c) An illusion
(4) Not (a)
(5) Not (b)
(6) Hence, the thing which is blue and goose-like must be an illusion.
(7) If something is an illusion, then it is not material (i.e. immaterial)
(8) I have direct access to my imaginings
(9) The only things I have direct access to are mental objects (e.g. ideas)
(10) Mental objects inhere in minds
(11) Immaterial only inhere in immaterial objects
(12) Therefore, my mind is immaterial.
Only one subjective experience, but NOT the kind about which I can be mistaken! The "seeming" qualities of my ideas are infallible (just like I can't be wrong about thinking I'm happy -- if I think I'm happy, then I am!). Deductive logic is also infallible. Of course, one of my premises besides (1) and (2) (infallible) could be wrong, but I'm convinced. Not subjectively ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by markofkane
A mind may exist without a brain, but since we cannot prove it, it is assumed to be false.
I quite clearly stated that I am NOT a believer of Cartesian Dualism, but of Epiphenomenalism, which I characterized as a unidirectional causality: the physical brain has all the causal powers. I even likened them to the image on the monitor (I should have said "image" not "monitor") and the computer itself -- if the computer turns off (or is impounded), there is no image!
I never said that a mind could exist without a brain. I don't believe that at all! But a mind *does* exist. See the argument above ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by daveleb55
Xodarap said:
"...it sure seems like my thoughts, ideas, and emotions are not simple material concoctions. Whether or not they are CAUSED by material processes, I certainly wouldn't argue, but happiness doesn't FEEL much like chemicals and electricity sloshing around a skull cavity to me..."
Hee hee, happiness, a very subjective feeling, is definitely chemicals sloshing around in my skull, because I am on anti-depressants. If I don't take them, I feel desperate and helpless, I have huge mood swings, the meds help keep me on an even keel, so to speak.
*Sigh* -- another person who apparently failed to read my post in its entirety. I SAID: the brain and mind have ONE-WAY causal interaction -- the brain causes things in the mind. Like a computer (and all of its "doings") causes images on the monitor! They are not identical, because there is no BLUE in the computer -- there's a series of 1s and 0s that REPRESENT blue, but it takes a MONITOR to make them BLUE. Similarly, it takes a MIND to make those chemicals into HAPPINESS ITSELF -- the FEELING. That FEELING certainly isn't in my BRAIN.
I'm not trying to be a dick, really. Just trying to be clearer. ;)
We are disputing an IDENTITY. NOT a causal dependence, because I admit to that freely. There are no emotions in my head. EMOTIONS are in my MIND -- CHEMICALS are in my HEAD -- EMOTIONS are caused by CHEMICALS. :)
Oh, and as for the subjectivity of the world, both modern quantum physics (no, not the new-agey crap, either) and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason will definitively prove that wrong. (Technically, physics is never definitive, but some of Kant's arguments are. Unfortunately, you'd need a doctorate or two to understand them. If you're interested, I strongly recommend a secondary resource, Henry Allison's, "Kant's Transcendental Idealism." If you're a strong realist/positivist like me, don't let the title drive you away, it's misleading. ;) )
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
quote:
And man will never fly.
No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. <snip> you get my point? ;)
I understood what you were saying, I'm just not locked into the premise. Your analogies are good, but there is a chance, however slight, that they do not apply. That was my point. I agree that mind is almost certainly immaterial, and that by current standards, using material tools, we cannot wrap a bottle around it any more than we can wrap a bottle around a rainbow, but I am not willing to close the book on future tools which may become available.
quote:
If one time -- only once -- a bottle fails to fall when it should by all physical reason, then gravity is *certainly* untrue.
Or something else happened. My key certainly unlocks the door, unless the door is already unlocked. I know what you are saying and I agree, I just don't like falling into the mindset of some others on this board who know what they know and won't examine other ideas.
quote:
quote:
there are many other more concrete facts which indicate that the mind can store more than the brain can hold.
I'm willing to state categorically that there are not. As a well-versed philosopher of mind, I assume (maybe hastily) that such would have been brought to the attention of the academic community, and can say with certainty that it has not.
Either you misunderstood me or you missed out on such things as people who are having brain surgury, get touched in a certain place and see their long dead mother's favorite dress. I know you may believe that they are reconstructing this from a less information dense stimulus, but my personal experience argues against that, and that is all we have to go by in the long run.
quote:
the data COULD be there, despite the fact that the hypnosis created COINCIDENTALLY identical data with a causally disconnected means.
or hypnotism works... If you start with the premise that hypnotism can't work, you can certainly find evidence to support your premise. You have to build speculative structures and connect previously unconnected facts, which Occam is just standing around waiting for a chance to get at, but it can be done.
quote:
quote:
Good to see I haven't changed your mind. 8-) We both have to go on our subjective experience in the absence of factual evidence.
I don't base my argument on subjective experience;
Except the part where you only think you are a person talking to other people on the internet.
Your blue goose may be as material as all the geese I pass by on the way to the lake. I don't believe so, but there is a chance. If there is room in the brain for everything hypnosis cannot possibly find ;), and if those things are just chemicals sloshing around, then when we think/feel/imagine/remember things, we are just sensing the chemicals with another straightforward part of our sensoria. There would be actually something there, which is not blue, and not a goose, but which we can wrap a bottle around, and your experience of it is just other chemicals we can cork up. I know neither of us believe this, but it is infinitesimally possible.
Putting aside hypnosis as a matter for later discussion, I still contend that there is not enough structure in the brain to explain either consciousness, mind or spirit. That famous and mythical "unused" portion notwithstanding. We seem to agree on that, and will be vilified for our thoughts by those who want to be nothing more than chemicals. If we can prove it they will ignore the proof and call us stupid. That's always funny so let's do it!8-)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
*Sigh* -- another person who apparently failed to read my post in its entirety.
Heh, get used to that. Then there are those who read exactly the opposite of what you wrote, read things which are not even there and read qualifiers as absolutes. Not to mention those who can't recognize a metaphor, take irony as reality and are incapable of understanding anything other than concrete nouns couched in an 8th grade vocabulary.
It's a task to retain equanimity.
-
quote:
In the real world, nothing is analog and BTW, opposites don't exist.
And you have proof of this do you Bill?
quote:
I still contend that there is not enough structure in the brain to explain either consciousness, mind or spirit.
Contend all you like, but it would seem that 'there is enough structure' in the brain to do all you contend it can't. Jeesh, makes me wonder if the brain is that small and insignificant how I can even posess the intelligence or have the memory to remember how to use my computer?
quote:
Not to mention those who can't recognize a metaphor, take irony as reality and are incapable of understanding anything other than concrete nouns couched in an 8th grade vocabulary
Now theres a real fine stand up arrogant and self rightous statement Bill.
And what makes you think you are so above the rest of us eh?
-
Perfect example, thanks.
-
I'd really love to interject here, but I think I'll
just sit back, watch and enjoy the current proceedings. [;)]
-
Maybe the question was too intelligent for you...
To quote another thread...'lets try again shall we'
And what makes you think you are so above the rest of us eh?
-
Again, thanks. I am so glad you are here to help people understand the situation. Please keep up the good work. You rock!
-
I know I do Bill.
But just once, it might actually show that your not a complete self rightious sob by actually intelligently answering any of my questions or comments raised in opposition (though apparently it does not exist) against your arguments [:)]
-
You should do the thing with the capital letters again, that was good.
-
Hey, kids, I'll turn this car around! ;)
Seriously, though, if you don't like arrogance, how could you skip me over? I'm hurt! I totally think I'm better than everyone else! And if you're having trouble getting argument out of Bill, go for me! :) I have plenty of condescending argument in the posts above, and I'd be more than happy to fight with you over them! :P
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xodarap
if you're having trouble getting argument out of Bill,
How could he be arguing with me? He already won! Didn't you see the capital letters?
His "is too is too you big stupid" method of debate has left me questioning my own existence. I am become no more than a puddle of sputum in the shadow of his nugatory intellect. How will I carry on?
But I was right about the whole villifying thing... He's searching out posts from ages ago to castigate me about. I feel I provide a service.
-
alright everybody cut that crap out or i'll have god throw down a lighning bolt on all your butts !! [:D]
-
I find this all amusing........[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
On one hand, you got somebody who thinks they are superior. And another who thinks not. We are all different, we cannot all agree on everything.
I am the best!! But that's just my opinion, and those who disagree are wrong. LOL.
-
Long ago shortly after our marriage, I explained to my wife that I was always right and as long as she agreed with me, she would also be always right.
And if on the far chance I was ever wrong, I would still always consider her right if she agreed with me. [;)]
-
I, of course, insist on having the last words in any discussion with my lovely wife, and those words are always "Yes Dear".
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bill DeWitt
I, of course, insist on having the last words in any discussion with my lovely wife, and those words are always "Yes Dear".
I'm with you. My pride is not worth a fight.... :P
-
There is a lesson learned.
A man that has lived all his life in a drought stricken and famished land 'has not yet learned or is unable to migrate' for a better land.
there is no poverty 'unless you are willing or unable to accept it' as one grows older.
Laws of Nature by: Gerald L. Blakley
Jerry[8D]
-
Xodarap,
Personally from your posts I do not get the impression that you think you are 'above others'.
I personally also agree with many of your thoughts, but My main point in argument (which Bill has still yet to reply to, I wonder why?)is that by his own admissions in his posts he contradicts what he states and thinks?
This from a man who swans around these forums like he is some super being of sorts.
And as for bringing up his 'old posts', well, sorry for being away from the forums for 12 months, and at the end of the day, the topics are still open and active, so why not challenge the ideas presented in said topics?
I suspect like others it is a simple case of certain people can argue and make statements all day, yet refuse to allow others to challenge their ideas and statements. From what I have seen 'you' do not fall into this catagory [:)]
-
Hi all,
been away for a while about 2 years he he .
I got a question and I need an answer.
Are there any programs out there that can write a program by just telling the program what you want it to write?
My 5c worth. Sentient if it wants to be anything close to human it gotta at least be able to create something.
2nd 5c. It gotta reproduce or replicate itself.
ya' all got 10c worth outta me an thats really pushin brain limits he he he!!!
I was serious about the part of a program making a program though and I need an answer if possible.
This will also help Jerry to not get artritic fingers from all the typing.
all the best
Kevin
-
Hi Kevinvr
There was a program written years ago in Basic that did exactly that. It would recreate itself once it was ran. I don't think that I have the source code any longer.
Bill819
-
OK, was just wondering. Thanks Bill.
Is your ER1 still operational?
I'm planning to get mine going again soon as I get a battery for my old laptop.
all the best
Kevin
-
The battery in my ER went dead and I haven't ordered another one yet. I stopped working on it about a year or so ago but now have some new plans and attachments. I will tell you about them later.
Bill
-
This is an old topic, not very old, but it is old...
Bill819, I think I may know the program your talking about -- I think -- any details on what it was called?(the program)(did you make it?)
I read this entire topic, interesting argument so I thought I would post this:
The short read:
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126844
The long read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
The question that had me thinking -- and I'm still thinking about -- for months now, is are these consice? I mean, can they think? Synthetic life but it's still life these things he made... What do you guys think?
-
I remember seeing a something OTC had written that enabled Hal to write some scripting quite a while ago.
Carl2