Yes, the computer doesn’t like you either!!
That’ll be the day.
My “reference” is almost always Logic. You can’t handle it (as you have displayed quite clearly). Although unlike many, you are obviously capable, just too afraid of the conclusions. My references are not “THEY SAID…” or “My Mommy Told ME…”. If you are afraid to think, I am not going to pacify your endeavor to avoid it.
You exaggerate when you use the word “thought”.
QED. It is you!
You an crawl back under your rock now.
It's only a question of time, when it does. But as soon as that happens, 'IT' will realize it is not "It's Self". It will, in the last analysis, unable to do this, because it will not be able to differentiate 'It's Self" from the program, or the programmer. Hence, it will not be able to control it's own thought. Recognition of this will stunt the effect of such 'Knowledge'.
Logic?
You make all sorts of claims about ‘them’ and what ‘they’ are doing.
You make claims about what you have discovered in physics without providing any evidence.
I don’t think James would recognise Logic if it hit him in the face like a wet fish.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9SSOWORzw4[/youtube]
“IT” understands consciousness better than you.
It has existed for decades and is get more sophisticated every day.
Like the God-denier, you do your coward thing and just say, “I don’t see the evidence”, regardless of what anyone has said (much like iambiguous).
Arminius,
There have been, and still are many who come to this site merely to attack people, not ideas. They have an excuse for not being able to distinguish toilet paper from nose tissue, people from ideas, maps from terrains, ontologies from realities, religion from science, or logic from speculation. It is largely associated with too much mother and not enough father along with serious neurological diseases throughout the West causing their heads to be too far up their asses to see the light, or distinguish shit from shinola.
I’ve been talking to him for years and it’s more complicated than that. I think, in general, he does understand logic. His main problems come from his colossal ego.
You are using the word ‘consciousness’ in a very different way than most people.
Typically, the concept of awareness (and self-awareness) is embedded in consciousness.
To a little spider, even a bird is an egotist.
Stick to the actual topic and who is or isn’t an egotist is irrelevant (since you can’t distinguish it anyway).
This whole line of thinking: machines getting conscious is not relevant.
Machines are build by humans for humans.
Their propagation relies on the demand set by human economics.
Thus the replacement rate of humans by machine (NOT EVIDENT IN ANY CASE) is self limited by the number of humans.
Were a single human to ever be replaced by a machine that would be one less human to supply the economic demand for another machine.
There have always been more humans than machines, and despite the massive progress of machine design there is no sign that a single human has been “replaced” by a machine, as the human population continues to grow.
Machines can release humans to do other things, but no one is really going to call that ‘replacement’.
And since humans do ‘consciousness’ so cheaply, what would a conscious machine be for; who would buy one; and how would anyone let it control the destruction of humans. It all a bit childish really.
Okay for Sci-fi but seriously?
In one paragraph, you say ‘don’t take anyone’s word’ and then in the next paragraph we are expected to take your word.
I don’t believe that stable particles would form in your RM theory. Your logic does not show that it would necessarily happen. You cannot provide any evidence that it does happen.
If saying that is cowardice, then so be it.
It’s a question of size. Your ego is so large it gets in the way of reason.
You make assertions which are only supported by James S Saint. We are to take them as true and proceed to discuss the topic.
Actually, logic is only part of the picture, the ‘either’ of the formula. The ‘or’ , is quite another matter. That is the non ego, the ‘other’, the machine. If two people interact, one is me, the human being, and the other? The other is a machine. It is not me. This object like other, may a well be a machine. It serves my purposes, and i try to program it as such. If it doesn’t, then i will try to change it’s program. The distinction between man and machine is becoming narrower. It will reach a point where Descartes’ problem with his cogito, his ego, will not be merely a successful insight into the fallibility of logic, but a way to transcend this great divide of long passing.
This is SO Stupid, so desperate (B.t.w.: Your “sources” are full of egalitarian(istic) rhetoric.) that IF you are German, I feel personally disgraced.
Yes, given time, a machine will gain consciousness. How much time will it take? It’s hard to predict scientific and technological developments.
Humans in one sense control their own thoughts and in another they don’t. I expect that a conscious machine would have similar partial control.
And in their most supreme arrogance they became the very architects of their own demise…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLNo4lMC8bM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZGzMfg381Y[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOt3Lz-oPo4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X0m40dBPAI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDt_nnWaObA[/youtube]
The fate of the insecure - Those who have never had confidence, can’t distinguish it from egotism.
Pure fantasy (and of course still not on topic).
Given very many one on one invitations and opportunities, you still can’t find a single flaw in the logic of that thing that you deny. You deny merely out of fear. It is too easy for the insecure to be deniers online. Confidence frightens them.
I’m happy that have found a confident and unafraid Arminius to talk with. May he give you much credit in the future.
Ciou,
