The language of Mind

[James_S_Saint]

@zinnat13

@James S Saint

The “language of the mind” is emulation.

No, James.

That comes later. It is not from where the process initiates.
For emulation, one must has a priori capacity of feeing/sensing. Otherwise, there is no way that one can even emulate.
Everything starts from feeling, no matter how you look at it.

with love,
sanjay

No, Sanjay.

@James S Saint

The “language of the mind” is that of emulation. The mind emulates sensory responses in order to predict future situations, much as in a dream. The results of the emulation become the next stimulators (as though they were real experiences) that also send waves of emulated sensory events. It is a process of both parallel and serial processing of self-invoked, “artificial”, emulation more commonly known as “imagination”.

In AI, it is recursive neural networking.

@James S Saint

Emulation is the ONLY thinking that a mind does. The initial sensations and resultant verbiage use constitute the premise concepts and final actions involved. Everything between is entirely emulation.

That is why people learn more quickly through experience than reading or lectures and why symbols and sounds emulate their associated concepts.

@James S Saint

You are conflating simulating with emulating. A simulation uses a proposed model to stand in for or represent a real entity and projects behavior based on presumed principles. An emulation uses artificial stimulations to trigger natural responses. The parts of the brain doing the thinking are the same parts that respond to real stimulation except the reactive output is turned off, else the person “sleep walks”, acting out his thoughts (such as talking to oneself out loud) or is “delusional”, not being able to distinguish real stimulation from his own artificial stimulation. That is why those maladies exist.

@James S Saint

I’m not sure what you said, but what I was saying is that it isn’t a matter of interpretation any more. People like Kant had to guess about such things. Science has gone far pass any speculations on the matter other than small sophisticated details. The military has had the brain mapped with extreme accuracy for decades, fully aware of exactly how much EMR or chemicals to use in order to cause exactly which effects. They have hypnosis down to instant perfection. They don’t really need to experiment or hypothesize any longer. It would be about like experimenting to see what air is really made of.

@obe

The fact that evolution has advanced to the point where brain function has been transplanted to the machine. The fact is that it was the human brain which thought of the computer is significant, because it was within the potential of the human brain to come up with it. The computer may be looked at as the evolutionary extension of the brain, and even if, the capabilities of the computer far exceed in certain functions, it is to the credit of the human brain that this became a possibility.

Machines have nothing to do with evolution other than interfering with it. And yes, Man is to be credited for being so stupid as to create a life form so very much more advanced than his own.

@obe

The question of whether the artificial brain will ever become smarter, other then faster and more efficient, is highly questionable, since smartness begs semantic questions as to what being ‘smart’ actually mean.

Only to people who have no idea of how far past those questions the world really is. It is about like wondering if a machine could ever outrun a horse. When they hadn’t seen it yet, they wondered if there wasn’t some mysterious phenomenon that would prevent it. After they saw machines out run not only horses but everything else, they stopped asking the question. But the question was silly to begin with. And right now it is seriously silly to wonder if AI systems can be more intelligent than humans. They can be as far past human intelligence as how much they can outrun horses.

@obe

My feeling is that artificial intelligence will outpace the natural brain quantitatively ,whereas, the human brain will become ever more important in qualifying factors relating processing of information.

The human brain has only fading residual use, soon to be none.

[Orbie]

The qualifying of languages has to be refreshed, if it is not to fade. Therefore, i see no way out of this, in order to avoid a SAl as a runaway train kind of phenomenon. I understand that the overbearing evidence points to the aforementioned position, however, it is a matter of what needs, should be done, if anyone is to avoid calamity. Against all odds, to avoid the appearently unavoidable. As with all major changes, it is the unexpectedly inconsequential , the hardly perceived missing link, which nature inserts into the equation, to save project. The greatest project(ive) , is the idea of God’s love for creation, which as a hypothetical, has to be substantiated by the unexpected. I know You are right, James, but I feel natural processes balance out the equation, as if by a miracle. There is still time to re-evaluate the naturalistic fallacy, as perhaps way premature.

[James_S_Saint]

@obe

The qualifying of languages has to be refreshed, if it is not to fade. Therefore, i see no way out of this, in order to avoid a SAl as a runaway train kind of phenomenon. I understand that the overbearing evidence points to the aforementioned position, however, it is a matter of what needs, should be done, if anyone is to avoid calamity. Against all odds, to avoid the appearently unavoidable. As with all major changes, it is the unexpectedly inconsequential , the hardly perceived missing link, which nature inserts into the equation, to save project. The greatest project(ive) , is the idea of God’s love for creation, which as a hypothetical, has to be substantiated by the unexpected. I know You are right, James, but I feel natural processes balance out the equation, as if by a miracle. There is still time to re-evaluate the naturalistic fallacy, as perhaps way premature.

To limit the possibility of what a machine can do, is to limit the possibility of what Man can do. Can Man create something greater than himself? He certainly can if there is a possibility of anything greater than himself.

[Orbie]

@James S Saint

@obe

The qualifying of languages has to be refreshed, if it is not to fade. Therefore, i see no way out of this, in order to avoid a SAl as a runaway train kind of phenomenon. I understand that the overbearing evidence points to the aforementioned position, however, it is a matter of what needs, should be done, if anyone is to avoid calamity. Against all odds, to avoid the appearently unavoidable. As with all major changes, it is the unexpectedly inconsequential , the hardly perceived missing link, which nature inserts into the equation, to save project. The greatest project(ive) , is the idea of God’s love for creation, which as a hypothetical, has to be substantiated by the unexpected. I know You are right, James, but I feel natural processes balance out the equation, as if by a miracle. There is still time to re-evaluate the naturalistic fallacy, as perhaps way premature.

To limit the possibility of what a machine can do, is to limit the possibility of what Man can do. Can Man create something greater than himself? He certainly can if there is a possibility of anything greater than himself.

It is not man setting the limits to what he can do, but Nature herself, at critical points where limits define the extent of it, of even what is conceivably possible.

[James_S_Saint]

@obe

It is not man setting the limits to what he can do, but Nature herself, at critical points where limits define the extent of it, of even what is conceivably possible.

True, but what I meant was that when people say, “Machines cannot do” this or that, they are setting a limit that nature has not necessarily set on machines nor Man’s ability to accomplish. Man can do anything that nature allows. And what nature allows is far beyond what Man has currently done. So one cannot gauge the limits of Man based upon what he has done so far. Man is currently still a child, a work in process, as are his machines.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Can any blind and deaf person think or not, consodering that he does not know any language

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

Maybe she’s not quite the example to have since ~~ by the age of seven, Keller had more than 60 home signs to communicate with her family.

But still…it’s a very interesting question.

[James_S_Saint]

@Arcturus Descending

Can any blind and deaf person think or not, consodering that he does not know any language

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller

Maybe she’s not quite the example to have since ~~ by the age of seven, Keller had more than 60 home signs to communicate with her family.

But still…it’s a very interesting question.

Actually, that is a great example. She had very limited external stimulation with which to comprehend what we normally call language. Yet her mind was still functioning within itself, which she later proved.

If she had been void of literally ALL senses, even internal senses, her mind could not have functioned at all and she would have died very early because most of the mind’s “thinking” involves the coordination of internal concerns.