… and what they “want to do” is everything any mind can do, just faster and better.
It is all going in accord with the plan. 
Arminius, just curious, the table describing , those for and those against the op’s proposition has been a while. Would/could a more upgraded version be printed? Or, as it looks, the number of participants have narrowed down a bit. May this be significant/ as far as the holding of pro/con opinions, or may be the narrowing down of opinions to only a few, be of some significance in it’s self?
The number of participants has nothing to do with the opinions. People find other things to be interested in and distracted by. They look for new things, regardless of their opinions of the old things.
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. As much as Man lusts at the notion that none could ever possibly be greater than he, he will soon discover his error. And by his own hand.
That is precisely what i am suggesting. Brain does nothing except this at the ground level. All other compllexities are derived from it and converted into it also.
I can accept that too.
I think that i have slight disagreement here.
The root question is here what happens first, reverberating of sensations or emulation of those sensations? Those are different things for sure, not one.
Emulation entails the existence of something to emulate. It cannot happen without that.
And, if that is true, it entalis that some mechanism must be already placed there to sense what is to be emulated later.
Thus, it negates the premise that we develop understanding capacity with time. That capacity comes inbuilt.
with love,
sanjay
That is true.
That depends what they want. In some cases, it is not necessary but but not in all.
with love,
sanjay
Not in all senses. He cannot even create something equal to him in some cases but that is possible in some other cases he may exceeds himself.
with love,
sanjay
Those are, in fact, the same thing. The reverberating IS the emulating.
Each time a sensing occurs, a residue is left in the brain that becomes the memory of the event. When the same sense occurs again, that residue is enhanced, the memory is improved. That is what is called “recurrent neural networking”. But there is actually no such thing as a solitary sensing. Every sensation occurs while another is also occurring. The timing between those sensations is what gives you memory of sense associations and timing.
So when a reverberation occurs, by a sense triggering an action of “reflecting”, what we call “pondering” or “thinking about” an issue occurs in the brain. That pondering is the same sense waves reflecting through the brain just as if they had been physically triggered with the exception of being accompanied with a sense of being only a triggered reflection. The real sense is slightly different than the reflected sense, so the mind knows that it is only a thought and not a physical event. The reflected sense wave is “an emulation” of a real sense wave.
With each sensed wave, a degree of that pondering takes place. The degree of that pondering is the degree of thought or consideration the brain/mind is giving to each sensation. It is a measure of “how awake you are to your situation”. The reflecting of the waves is the emulation of the waves, which is the pondering, which is the thinking.
Thus the “language of the mind”, the “language of thought” is emulation of sensing, replaying events in the mind as though they were real.
Verbal language is merely one of the sensing schemes that gets triggered into emulation (that inner voice as one thinks to himself). The verbal cues, although only emulated, trigger additional pondering/emulating that would not have taken place. Inwardly verbalizing thoughts is a means for reducing interference and focusing on a topic, as is writing it down. Machines, not having to deal with the medical interference that humans do, have no need to an inner voice.
Here comes the 5th interim balance sheet:
|Will machines completely replace all human beings?|
||_ Yes (by trend) | No (by trend) | Abstention ___|
||__ Arminius |__ Dan | Obe |
|| James S. Saint | Mr. Reasonable | Kriswest |
||__ Amorphos |__ Fuse | Mithus |
|| Tyler Durdon | Esperanto | Nano-Bug |
||__ Blueshift | Only Humean | Lizbethrose |
||__ Laughing Man |____ Gib | Cassie |
|||Uccisore | Eric The Pipe |
||| Zinnat (Sanjay) |Backspace Losophy|
||| Barbarianhorde | Sweet Misery |
|||__ Ivory Man |__ Ralfy |
||| Moreno | Interterrestrial |
||| Ierellus |__________|
|[size=74]Sum:[/size]|_______ [size=150]6[/size] | [size=150]12[/size] |_ [size=150]11[/size] ________|
Note:
“Yes (by trend)” means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
" No (by trend)" means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.
For comparasion:
1st Interim balance sheet,
2nd Interim balance sheet,
3rd Interim balance sheet.
4th Interim balance sheet.
Thanks, and thanks for the gift, i will listen to it, !
Are you a behaviourist, James?
According to linguists language is more than merely a “sensing scheme” or a tool of behaviour. And I think the linguists are right. The function you mentioned are existent anyway. But according to many (not all!) technicians, or materialists, or behaviourists, there is nothing existent beyond their technical, or material, or behavioural “world”. And I think that’s wrong.
That’s right.
Human beings are living beings of luxury. Therefore they have such a brain, such a mind, such a language, etc… Machines don’t need luxury. They are merely beings of logic, reason, rationality. But they are able to know what luxury really is.
You seem to be asking if I believe in the Roman gods or the Greek gods.
The answer is, “Not entirely”.
As far as what category I fit into, I am “James S Saint, de NotA”.
“None.of.the.Above”
Gilles Barbier “L’Hospice” (“The Hospice”), 2002.
In English:
Although in the USA, it is a place where one goes to die.
… a place where one goes to pay for dying more slowly.
Or more speedily, depending on the intent of family members. The bigger the inheritance, the more impatient and determined the beneficieries.
That’s why medical bills are so high, so that the money will go to the insurance companies (government) and doctors rather than family members. Once the money is used up, the “cost of living” is out of reach, thus death. If family members want the money, they have to take the doctors and insurance companies out of the picture by either not going to the hospital and/or encouraging an earlier death. So either way, you pay in order to live longer. If you don’t pay either family or government/doctor, you are sure to die sooner. It is called “extortion”.
Having money and not paying to live, is making yourself a target. Since the government favors early death (machines are much preferred), people are given incentives, authorities, and encouragement through the concern of money to choose early death.
It is pointless to control all life if one can’t choose who is going to live and who is going to die. From the government stand point, the more death, the better, as long as it is the right people dying (those we have kept money from).
Yeah. Sometimes one has also to be careful when translating from French into English.
Above and beyond that, is the actual fact, that hospices do, routinely practice euthanasia, based exclusively on the desire of heirs and relatives. The dying person is seldom told.
Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.
This fact reminds me of the following one of my posts in this thread:
In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed anymore.