AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzweil-does-not-understand-the... -As I consider your question more on whether I think it is possible, Kurzweil's discussion at this link certainly makes it seem possible. At the same time I find it hard to say it IS when we don't have a firm grasp on what consciousness IS? Trial by error, again...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3630 views

Ok, so assume for a moment that they are able to model a brain. Woohoo! Can they build it, possibly. With enough processors and sub-processors it might be possible. Would it function as efficiently? It might seem to at first, but I doubt it. Even IF they succeed at modeling it and building a circuited version, unless they figure out how to make a biochemical version, it will not be capable of the elegant beauty of the human brain. Why? Because hardware can't rebuild itself to suit it's needs. It can in a fashion, by making and breaking paths between sub-processors, but not to the same extent as the brain.

3587 views

Ok, so assume for a moment that they are able to model a brain. Woohoo! Can they build it, possibly. With enough processors and sub-processors it might be possible. Would it function as efficiently? It might seem to at first, but I doubt it. Even IF they succeed at modeling it and building a circuited version, unless they figure out how to make a biochemical version, it will not be capable of the elegant beauty of the human brain. Why? Because hardware can't rebuild itself to suit it's needs. It can in a fashion, by making and breaking paths between sub-processors, but not to the same extent as the brain.-Poor Matt. Now it is two against one!

3596 views

Ok, so assume for a moment that they are able to model a brain. Woohoo! Can they build it, possibly. With enough processors and sub-processors it might be possible. Would it function as efficiently? It might seem to at first, but I doubt it. Even IF they succeed at modeling it and building a circuited version, unless they figure out how to make a biochemical version, it will not be capable of the elegant beauty of the human brain. Why? Because hardware can't rebuild itself to suit it's needs. It can in a fashion, by making and breaking paths between sub-processors, but not to the same extent as the brain.
> 
> Poor Matt. Now it is two against one!-Actually a much stronger argument is presented by Graham Dustin Martin by simply asking how it would possibly "correctly" model human experience. He follows a tact of demonstrating that language is an abstraction of reality, and therefore no machine could contain THAT part of human experience as a result.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3618 views

Ok, so assume for a moment that they are able to model a brain. Woohoo! Can they build it, possibly. With enough processors and sub-processors it might be possible. Would it function as efficiently? It might seem to at first, but I doubt it. Even IF they succeed at modeling it and building a circuited version, unless they figure out how to make a biochemical version, it will not be capable of the elegant beauty of the human brain. Why? Because hardware can't rebuild itself to suit it's needs. It can in a fashion, by making and breaking paths between sub-processors, but not to the same extent as the brain.-Actually, a lab in Italy is working on creating a completely software model of the physical human brain. Even if it doesn't become "alive" it will still give us SO much information in regards to how the brain works.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3582 views

Ok, so assume for a moment that they are able to model a brain. Woohoo! Can they build it, possibly. With enough processors and sub-processors it might be possible. Would it function as efficiently? It might seem to at first, but I doubt it. Even IF they succeed at modeling it and building a circuited version, unless they figure out how to make a biochemical version, it will not be capable of the elegant beauty of the human brain. Why? Because hardware can't rebuild itself to suit it's needs. It can in a fashion, by making and breaking paths between sub-processors, but not to the same extent as the brain.-Never underestimate the power of the human mind; It can't be done when its been proven it can't be done. -As for the latter part, you're right as of now; but within 15 years we'll have nanomachines that will repair human bodies--a helluva lot more difficult than repairing another machine.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3585 views

http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzweil-does-not-understand-the...Dhw, -As I consider your question more on whether I think it is possible, Kurzweil's discussion at this link certainly makes it seem possible. At the same time I find it hard to say it IS when we don't have a firm grasp on what consciousness IS? Trial by error, again...-As this is one of the many subjects on which I am horribly ignorant, my response is made with some hesitancy, but I'm here to learn.
 
Kurzweil says that thanks to modern technology "we can see how our brain creates our thoughts and see how our thoughts create our brain." Modern technology can certainly show up the activities in the brain, and the respective locations of our different mental processes, but I do not get the impression that Kurzweil actually knows HOW thoughts are created. If he did, would he not be able to build his sentient robot now? I find his statement extremely misleading, and your own comment on consciousness (along with the scepticism of B_M and David) reinforces my doubts.-Kurzweil asks what makes the brain "capable of self-organizing and learning from its environment?" If he is to build a human brain, should he not also be asking what makes the brain capable of consciousness, creativity, imagination, love, empathy, self-doubt, arrogance etc.? You've quite rightly identified my main interest as being whether such a "human" robot is possible, and the discussion you've referred us to seems to me to ignore most of the attributes that actually make us human. There are primitive organisms that are perfectly capable of self-organizing and learning from their environment.-Kurzweil talks repeatedly of "massive redundancies", suggesting that the brain is in fact far less complex than it seems. Since he hasn't solved any of the above mysteries, I wonder ... very speculatively ... if what he calls redundancies might not turn out to be the equivalent of what was once thought to be junk DNA. Or of course there is the possibility that there is more to the human mind than meets the technological eye.

3625 views

http://www.kurzweilai.net/ray-kurzweil-responds-to-ray-kurzweil-does-not-understand-the... 
> Dhw, 
> 
> As I consider your question more on whether I think it is possible, Kurzweil's discussion at this link certainly makes it seem possible. At the same time I find it hard to say it IS when we don't have a firm grasp on what consciousness IS? Trial by error, again...
> 
> As this is one of the many subjects on which I am horribly ignorant, my response is made with some hesitancy, but I'm here to learn.
> 
> Kurzweil says that thanks to modern technology "we can see how our brain creates our thoughts and see how our thoughts create our brain." Modern technology can certainly show up the activities in the brain, and the respective locations of our different mental processes, but I do not get the impression that Kurzweil actually knows HOW thoughts are created. If he did, would he not be able to build his sentient robot now? I find his statement extremely misleading, and your own comment on consciousness (along with the scepticism of B_M and David) reinforces my doubts.
> 
> Kurzweil asks what makes the brain "capable of self-organizing and learning from its environment?" If he is to build a human brain, should he not also be asking what makes the brain capable of consciousness, creativity, imagination, love, empathy, self-doubt, arrogance etc.? You've quite rightly identified my main interest as being whether such a "human" robot is possible, and the discussion you've referred us to seems to me to ignore most of the attributes that actually make us human. There are primitive organisms that are perfectly capable of self-organizing and learning from their environment.
> 
> Kurzweil talks repeatedly of "massive redundancies", suggesting that the brain is in fact far less complex than it seems. Since he hasn't solved any of the above mysteries, I wonder ... very speculatively ... if what he calls redundancies might not turn out to be the equivalent of what was once thought to be junk DNA. Or of course there is the possibility that there is more to the human mind than meets the technological eye.-Your comments, coupled with Dunstan's has reminded me that there is more to being human than what goes on when we think. The experience argument is firmly lodged in my mind now, and I will have to chew on it a bit to see if I still find a human AI is possible. -At the same time, nothing here will be learned by not trying; I'm as committed now as I was when we first broached the subject: we won't learn about the brain (or the mind) by sitting still and theorizing. It's time to get dirty and do the work of a madman!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3601 views

Scientists identify brain's region for introspection:-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-identify-brains-region-for-introspection-2081635.html-"We found a correlation between introspective ability and the structure of a small area of prefrontal cortex near the front of the brain,"-"He said introspection was a part of consciousness unique to the human brain. By gaining an insight into the nature of introspection, scientists may gain a better understanding of conscious thought."

--
GPJ

3647 views

Scientists identify brain's region for introspection:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-identify-brains-region-for-introsp... 
> "We found a correlation between introspective ability and the structure of a small area of prefrontal cortex near the front of the brain,"
> 
> "He said introspection was a part of consciousness unique to the human brain. By gaining an insight into the nature of introspection, scientists may gain a better understanding of conscious thought."-The book I'm reading--a concerted attack on materialism--does raise a very interesting point: I will raise this shortly under its own thread.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3581 views


> At the same time, nothing here will be learned by not trying; I'm as committed now as I was when we first broached the subject: we won't learn about the brain (or the mind) by sitting still and theorizing. It's time to get dirty and do the work of a madman!-I think the point for me is the same as it is in so many other areas of science. It is one thing to say, "By doing this, we can learn something." That is a noble pursuit and an exercise in humility, admitting how little we know, and how much there is to learn. So in that respect, attempting to make a AI brain is a worthy endeavor. But that does not mean that we will learn tremendous amounts about the human brain by studying an AI brain, nor that we will crack the mystery of consciousness by studying an unconscious object, no matter how lifelike it might seem.

3549 views


> > At the same time, nothing here will be learned by not trying; I'm as committed now as I was when we first broached the subject: we won't learn about the brain (or the mind) by sitting still and theorizing. It's time to get dirty and do the work of a madman!
> 
> I think the point for me is the same as it is in so many other areas of science. It is one thing to say, "By doing this, we can learn something." That is a noble pursuit and an exercise in humility, admitting how little we know, and how much there is to learn. So in that respect, attempting to make a AI brain is a worthy endeavor. But that does not mean that we will learn tremendous amounts about the human brain by studying an AI brain, nor that we will crack the mystery of consciousness by studying an unconscious object, no matter how lifelike it might seem.-Why do you so value "humility?" Great men (Augustus, Caesar, Leonidas, Xerxes, Constantine, Cato, Leibniz, Newton, Moses of Deleon, Penn Gillette, Justinian, Euler... I can go on???) all took great pride in who they were and what they had done for their people. Humility is a "slave word" for those who value subservience to greatness...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3576 views

Why do you so value "humility?" Great men (Augustus, Caesar, Leonidas, Xerxes, Constantine, Cato, Leibniz, Newton, Moses of Deleon, Penn Gillette, Justinian, Euler... I can go on???) all took great pride in who they were and what they had done for their people. Humility is a "slave word" for those who value subservience to greatness...-That is a common misunderstanding of the words humility and pride, confusing them with submission and arrogance. Wordnetweb.princeton.edu defines humility as "a disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride". This is the trait that I admire. Pride in a job well done is not a bad thing, nor is pride in ones accomplishments, as long as it is not a false or excessive pride, otherwise known as arrogance.

3569 views

Why do you so value "humility?" Great men (Augustus, Caesar, Leonidas, Xerxes, Constantine, Cato, Leibniz, Newton, Moses of Deleon, Penn Gillette, Justinian, Euler... I can go on???) all took great pride in who they were and what they had done for their people. Humility is a "slave word" for those who value subservience to greatness...
> 
> That is a common misunderstanding of the words humility and pride, confusing them with submission and arrogance. Wordnetweb.princeton.edu defines humility as "a disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride". This is the trait that I admire. Pride in a job well done is not a bad thing, nor is pride in ones accomplishments, as long as it is not a false or excessive pride, otherwise known as arrogance.-We should take this offline perhaps--but I just don't see it as a virtue. A humble person is "one who demonstrates humility." Humility is this:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility-"The term "humility" comes from the Latin word humilitas, a noun related to the adjective humilis, which may be translated as "humble", but also as "low", "from the earth", or "humid", since it derives in turns from humus (earth)"-It's also termed as "egolessness," but aren't the things that make great men (or women) exactly that trait that values the self?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3580 views

That is a common misunderstanding of the words humility and pride, confusing them with submission and arrogance. Wordnetweb.princeton.edu defines humility as "a disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride". This is the trait that I admire. Pride in a job well done is not a bad thing, nor is pride in ones accomplishments, as long as it is not a false or excessive pride, otherwise known as arrogance.
> 
> We should take this offline perhaps--but I just don't see it as a virtue. A humble person is "one who demonstrates humility." Humility is this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility
> 
> "The term "humility" comes from the Latin word humilitas, a noun related to the adjective humilis, which may be translated as "humble", but also as "low", "from the earth", or "humid", since it derives in turns from humus (earth)"
> 
> It's also termed as "egolessness," but aren't the things that make great men (or women) exactly that trait that values the self?-Yes, of the earth. I really like that description. Truly great men and women do not take pride in things which they have not accomplished, and they rightfully take pride in the things that they have accomplished. The earth is a source of strength, nourishment, support, inexorable resolve, and stability. I fail to see where any of those things could be considered negative. -From your own link:->Recent research suggests that humility is a quality of certain types of leaders. For example, Jim Collins and his colleagues found that a certain type of leader, whom they term "level 5", possesses humility and fierce resolve.[11] Humility is being studied as a trait that can enhance leadership effectiveness. The research suggests that humility is multi-dimensional and includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking.

3653 views

That is a common misunderstanding of the words humility and pride, confusing them with submission and arrogance. Wordnetweb.princeton.edu defines humility as "a disposition to be humble; a lack of false pride". This is the trait that I admire. Pride in a job well done is not a bad thing, nor is pride in ones accomplishments, as long as it is not a false or excessive pride, otherwise known as arrogance.
> > 
> > We should take this offline perhaps--but I just don't see it as a virtue. A humble person is "one who demonstrates humility." Humility is this:
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility
> > 
> > "The term "humility" comes from the Latin word humilitas, a noun related to the adjective humilis, which may be translated as "humble", but also as "low", "from the earth", or "humid", since it derives in turns from humus (earth)"
> > 
> > It's also termed as "egolessness," but aren't the things that make great men (or women) exactly that trait that values the self?
> 
> Yes, of the earth. I really like that description. Truly great men and women do not take pride in things which they have not accomplished, and they rightfully take pride in the things that they have accomplished. The earth is a source of strength, nourishment, support, inexorable resolve, and stability. I fail to see where any of those things could be considered negative. 
> 
> From your own link:
> 
> >Recent research suggests that humility is a quality of certain types of leaders. For example, Jim Collins and his colleagues found that a certain type of leader, whom they term "level 5", possesses humility and fierce resolve.[11] Humility is being studied as a trait that can enhance leadership effectiveness. The research suggests that humility is multi-dimensional and includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking.-This is certainly true of Julius Caesar. Among his men he regularly ate with them and worked to know many of them personally. Yet many value his actions as self-serving. Good leader? Misanthrope? Which is it?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3629 views

I would argue that in the situation of a leader eating with his troops, it displays not only a sharp insight into human relationships, but also humility and wisdom. Yes, to an extent it was self serving, but his troops also got something out of it in the form of moral. As long as he was genuine in his efforts, I can see no fault with what he did.

3652 views

I would argue that in the situation of a leader eating with his troops, it displays not only a sharp insight into human relationships, but also humility and wisdom. Yes, to an extent it was self serving, but his troops also got something out of it in the form of moral. As long as he was genuine in his efforts, I can see no fault with what he did.-He was genuine from the vantage that he had fought side by side with them many times, and had cultivated a loyalty to him instead of the Roman state. (Rome's fatal flaw was no formal system of constitutional acculturation--the soldiers were never formally tied to the state, but to the generals that recruited them.) -He was ultimately going to be using them as means to an end. His goal was to have them tied to him in heart and spirit--because the act of crossing the Rubicon was a very grave act. His actual feelings towards his men is something lost to time--we can never know that. But knowing what I know of ancient Rome and Caesar--he was NOT going to face trial. His men would have allowed him to do whatever he wanted, so he wasn't pressed by soldiers to march on Rome. He was using his men as a tool to further his own ends. What his troops got out of it--was the promise of parcels of land given to them by the state to become agrarians.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3562 views

If every man does what is in his own ration self interest, he will also be doing what is in the rational self interest of other men.-Ayn Rand

3501 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum