Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Consciouness

Expand Messages
  • Daniel
    Your statement that Consciousness is 100% a spiritual function , is based on what independently reproducable facts? The future is not set and not predictable,
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 30, 2011
      Your statement that "Consciousness is 100% a spiritual function", is based on what independently reproducable facts? The future is not set and not predictable, so you cannot say what will be developed in the future. I for one have seen no direct evidence of spiritual function in the brains mechanisms. It it all just a matter of complex interaction of cells. It is only a matter of time before we figure out how it works.

      Dan


      --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Mc Garry <buz90a@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear all,
      >
      > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but do bear in mind
      > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so you will never
      > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling silicon chips. The
      > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of artificial 'self
      > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
      >
      > Yours
      >
      > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Daniel
      I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function . I could make the statement true human
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 30, 2011
        I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".

        I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100% biology/cell based".

        In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.


        Dan

        --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Mc Garry <buz90a@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear all,
        >
        > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but do bear in mind
        > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so you will never
        > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling silicon chips. The
        > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of artificial 'self
        > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
        >
        > Yours
        >
        > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Jim Bromer
        What you mean is that you do not see evidence of a spiritual function that convinced you. Evidence does not have to be overwhelming to be examined. If you
        Message 3 of 16 , May 1, 2011
          What you mean is that you do not see evidence of a spiritual function that
          convinced you. Evidence does not have to be overwhelming to be examined.
          If you disregarded all evidence that was initially presented to you, you
          would have to disregard all subsequent evidence as well. In other words if
          you simply issue blanket denials of the significance of initial impressions
          then you would be denying all impressions.

          Now I might say that I have seen no evidence of aliens from outer space
          taking world businesses over. However, that is not the same as saying that
          I have never seen any evidence of the possibility that alien life from
          another planet might exist. Carl Sagan's billions and billions of stars for
          example may be taken as evidence of the possibility that life off this
          planet might exist.

          This issue of what may count as initial evidence is a proper AI question. I
          believe that the questions of what constitutes enough specification
          or generalization and how much open mindedness would be best for moving
          toward greater insight is major issue. Although I cannot answer those
          questions I have found a opening here. One is found by restating the
          assertion as a possibility and the other is a play between
          generalization and specification. So if there is no strong evidence for a
          strong assertion it can be weakened to a statement of possibility. And if
          specific evidence does not exist (the aliens from Andromeda announced their
          intention to take over Google) then a statement may be made more general (is
          there a possibility that aliens exist on other planets in other star
          systems?)

          The method of greater generalization however, seems to stand in contrast to
          the original statement that all mind (or consciousness) is spiritual. That
          statement seems to suffer from being too strong and too general. However,
          the subject of the excess of generalization is that "all consciousness is
          spiritual". If someone said that some conscious thoughts are spiritual, its
          denial would seem more absurd because many people do feel that the concept
          of spirituality makes sense to them. So the strategy of making a statement
          more general seems to conflict with predicate generalization of formal logic
          that excludes the possibility that there may be more than one galaxy of
          generalization to an idea. The statement that "all consciousness is..." is
          a statement of absolute generalization. However, it actually narrows our
          choices of evidence because we would have to find evidence of the assertion
          for all consciousness! If we say that "some consciousness is..." we
          actually have more possible evidence to choose from because only a few cases
          have to be demonstrated to support the statement. I haven't quite figured
          this out, but it seems like it might be important.

          Jim Bromer
          On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Daniel <daniel.burke@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          >
          > Your statement that "Consciousness is 100% a spiritual function", is based
          > on what independently reproducable facts? The future is not set and not
          > predictable, so you cannot say what will be developed in the future. I for
          > one have seen no direct evidence of spiritual function in the brains
          > mechanisms. It it all just a matter of complex interaction of cells. It is
          > only a matter of time before we figure out how it works.
          >
          >
          > Dan
          >
          >
          > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Mc Garry
          > <buz90a@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Dear all,
          > >
          > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but do bear
          > in mind
          > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so you will
          > never
          > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling silicon
          > chips. The
          > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of artificial
          > 'self
          > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
          > >
          > > Yours
          > >
          > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bernard
          ... Colleagues. What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention the fact
          Message 4 of 16 , May 20, 2011
            --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel" <daniel.burke@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
            >
            > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100% biology/cell based".
            >
            > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
            >
            >
            > Dan
            >
            > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Mc Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Dear all,
            > >
            > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but do bear in mind
            > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so you will never
            > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling silicon chips. The
            > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of artificial 'self
            > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
            > >
            > > Yours
            > >
            > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            Colleagues.

            What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
            I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky appears to have lost interest in it!


            Bernard
          • another_base_name2001-debase@yahoo.com
            Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play what-if scenarios
            Message 5 of 16 , May 22, 2011
              Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
              sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
              'what-if' scenarios with that information.
              Is this potentially what consciousness is ?

              If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
              alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
              consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
              ours, in part because it has no language ?

              Bernard wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
              > <daniel.burke@...> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
              > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
              > >
              > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
              > biology/cell based".
              > >
              > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
              > >
              > >
              > > Dan
              > >
              > > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
              > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Dear all,
              > > >
              > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
              > do bear in mind
              > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
              > you will never
              > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
              > silicon chips. The
              > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
              > artificial 'self
              > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
              > > >
              > > > Yours
              > > >
              > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > >
              > Colleagues.
              >
              > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
              > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
              > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
              > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
              > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
              > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
              > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
              > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
              > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
              > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
              > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
              > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
              > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
              > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
              > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
              > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
              > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
              > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
              > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
              > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
              > appears to have lost interest in it!
              >
              > Bernard
              >
              >




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Michael Gullatte
              I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
              Message 6 of 16 , May 23, 2011
                I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
                accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
                themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
                adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
                intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
                reading its environment and having understanding of self.






                ________________________________
                From: "another_base_name2001-debase@..."
                <another_base_name2001-debase@...>
                To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
                Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness


                Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
                sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
                'what-if' scenarios with that information.
                Is this potentially what consciousness is ?

                If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
                alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
                consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
                ours, in part because it has no language ?

                Bernard wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
                > <daniel.burke@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
                > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
                > >
                > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
                > biology/cell based".
                > >
                > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
                > >
                > >
                > > Dan
                > >
                > > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
                > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Dear all,
                > > >
                > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                > do bear in mind
                > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                > you will never
                > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
                > silicon chips. The
                > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                > artificial 'self
                > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                > > >
                > > > Yours
                > > >
                > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > > >
                > >
                > Colleagues.
                >
                > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
                > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
                > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
                > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
                > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
                > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
                > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
                > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
                > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
                > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
                > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
                > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
                > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
                > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
                > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
                > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
                > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
                > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
                > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
                > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
                > appears to have lost interest in it!
                >
                > Bernard
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Daniel
                My big problem is that we do not know yet what consciousness is, therefore you cannot say it is or isn t anything. When research is done that provides enough
                Message 7 of 16 , May 25, 2011
                  My big problem is that we do not know yet what consciousness is, therefore you cannot say it is or isn't anything. When research is done that provides enough repeatable evidence to show what it is, then we can comment. Until then peoples opinions are just hot air (including mine).

                  Dan x


                  --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Jim Bromer <jimbromer@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > What you mean is that you do not see evidence of a spiritual function that
                  > convinced you. Evidence does not have to be overwhelming to be examined.
                  > If you disregarded all evidence that was initially presented to you, you
                  > would have to disregard all subsequent evidence as well. In other words if
                  > you simply issue blanket denials of the significance of initial impressions
                  > then you would be denying all impressions.
                  >
                  > Now I might say that I have seen no evidence of aliens from outer space
                  > taking world businesses over. However, that is not the same as saying that
                  > I have never seen any evidence of the possibility that alien life from
                  > another planet might exist. Carl Sagan's billions and billions of stars for
                  > example may be taken as evidence of the possibility that life off this
                  > planet might exist.
                  >
                  > This issue of what may count as initial evidence is a proper AI question. I
                  > believe that the questions of what constitutes enough specification
                  > or generalization and how much open mindedness would be best for moving
                  > toward greater insight is major issue. Although I cannot answer those
                  > questions I have found a opening here. One is found by restating the
                  > assertion as a possibility and the other is a play between
                  > generalization and specification. So if there is no strong evidence for a
                  > strong assertion it can be weakened to a statement of possibility. And if
                  > specific evidence does not exist (the aliens from Andromeda announced their
                  > intention to take over Google) then a statement may be made more general (is
                  > there a possibility that aliens exist on other planets in other star
                  > systems?)
                  >
                  > The method of greater generalization however, seems to stand in contrast to
                  > the original statement that all mind (or consciousness) is spiritual. That
                  > statement seems to suffer from being too strong and too general. However,
                  > the subject of the excess of generalization is that "all consciousness is
                  > spiritual". If someone said that some conscious thoughts are spiritual, its
                  > denial would seem more absurd because many people do feel that the concept
                  > of spirituality makes sense to them. So the strategy of making a statement
                  > more general seems to conflict with predicate generalization of formal logic
                  > that excludes the possibility that there may be more than one galaxy of
                  > generalization to an idea. The statement that "all consciousness is..." is
                  > a statement of absolute generalization. However, it actually narrows our
                  > choices of evidence because we would have to find evidence of the assertion
                  > for all consciousness! If we say that "some consciousness is..." we
                  > actually have more possible evidence to choose from because only a few cases
                  > have to be demonstrated to support the statement. I haven't quite figured
                  > this out, but it seems like it might be important.
                  >
                  > Jim Bromer
                  > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Daniel <daniel.burke@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your statement that "Consciousness is 100% a spiritual function", is based
                  > > on what independently reproducable facts? The future is not set and not
                  > > predictable, so you cannot say what will be developed in the future. I for
                  > > one have seen no direct evidence of spiritual function in the brains
                  > > mechanisms. It it all just a matter of complex interaction of cells. It is
                  > > only a matter of time before we figure out how it works.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Dan
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Mc Garry
                  > > <buz90a@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Dear all,
                  > > >
                  > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but do bear
                  > > in mind
                  > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so you will
                  > > never
                  > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling silicon
                  > > chips. The
                  > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of artificial
                  > > 'self
                  > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                  > > >
                  > > > Yours
                  > > >
                  > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • James J Youlton Jr
                  I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time. We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 26, 2011
                    I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time.

                    We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness are, but let’s instead look at our world’s most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part of our lives. I remember when there wasn’t an Internet, but now I can’t imagine life without it.

                    When something happens in the world, net traffic increases dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we haven’t realized it yet. We know we can’t control it any more and it is not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.

                    Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only question is, how do we say “Hello”?



                    From: Michael Gullatte
                    Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM
                    To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness


                    I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
                    accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
                    themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
                    adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
                    intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
                    reading its environment and having understanding of self.

                    ________________________________
                    From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"
                    <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>
                    To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness

                    Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
                    sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
                    'what-if' scenarios with that information.
                    Is this potentially what consciousness is ?

                    If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
                    alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
                    consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
                    ours, in part because it has no language ?

                    Bernard wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
                    > <daniel.burke@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
                    > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
                    > >
                    > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
                    > biology/cell based".
                    > >
                    > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Dan
                    > >
                    > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
                    > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Dear all,
                    > > >
                    > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                    > do bear in mind
                    > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                    > you will never
                    > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
                    > silicon chips. The
                    > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                    > artificial 'self
                    > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                    > > >
                    > > > Yours
                    > > >
                    > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > Colleagues.
                    >
                    > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
                    > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
                    > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
                    > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
                    > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
                    > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
                    > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
                    > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
                    > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
                    > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
                    > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
                    > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
                    > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
                    > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
                    > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
                    > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
                    > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
                    > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
                    > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
                    > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
                    > appears to have lost interest in it!
                    >
                    > Bernard
                    >
                    >

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • another_base_name2001-debase@yahoo.com
                    I have this belief (rightly or wrongly) that once an entity can have knowledge of its surroundings and can undertake what-if scenarios in that environment
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 27, 2011
                      I have this belief (rightly or wrongly) that once an entity can have
                      knowledge of its surroundings and can undertake 'what-if' scenarios in
                      that environment then that could be a measure of consciousness. Part of
                      the machinery required for this would then be proof by induction and
                      trial-and-error.

                      I agree Daniel, that right now it all seems to be hot-air, but I also
                      believe it possible to design an AI that can prove by induction and
                      trial and error. I don't possess one, but I have been grappling with how
                      to do it for a while.

                      Would that AI then be the source of the repeatable evidence you rightly
                      ask for Daniel ?

                      Daniel wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > My big problem is that we do not know yet what consciousness is,
                      > therefore you cannot say it is or isn't anything. When research is
                      > done that provides enough repeatable evidence to show what it is, then
                      > we can comment. Until then peoples opinions are just hot air
                      > (including mine).
                      >
                      > Dan x
                      >
                      > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Bromer
                      > <jimbromer@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > What you mean is that you do not see evidence of a spiritual
                      > function that
                      > > convinced you. Evidence does not have to be overwhelming to be examined.
                      > > If you disregarded all evidence that was initially presented to you, you
                      > > would have to disregard all subsequent evidence as well. In other
                      > words if
                      > > you simply issue blanket denials of the significance of initial
                      > impressions
                      > > then you would be denying all impressions.
                      > >
                      > > Now I might say that I have seen no evidence of aliens from outer space
                      > > taking world businesses over. However, that is not the same as
                      > saying that
                      > > I have never seen any evidence of the possibility that alien life from
                      > > another planet might exist. Carl Sagan's billions and billions of
                      > stars for
                      > > example may be taken as evidence of the possibility that life off this
                      > > planet might exist.
                      > >
                      > > This issue of what may count as initial evidence is a proper AI
                      > question. I
                      > > believe that the questions of what constitutes enough specification
                      > > or generalization and how much open mindedness would be best for moving
                      > > toward greater insight is major issue. Although I cannot answer those
                      > > questions I have found a opening here. One is found by restating the
                      > > assertion as a possibility and the other is a play between
                      > > generalization and specification. So if there is no strong evidence
                      > for a
                      > > strong assertion it can be weakened to a statement of possibility.
                      > And if
                      > > specific evidence does not exist (the aliens from Andromeda
                      > announced their
                      > > intention to take over Google) then a statement may be made more
                      > general (is
                      > > there a possibility that aliens exist on other planets in other star
                      > > systems?)
                      > >
                      > > The method of greater generalization however, seems to stand in
                      > contrast to
                      > > the original statement that all mind (or consciousness) is
                      > spiritual. That
                      > > statement seems to suffer from being too strong and too general.
                      > However,
                      > > the subject of the excess of generalization is that "all
                      > consciousness is
                      > > spiritual". If someone said that some conscious thoughts are
                      > spiritual, its
                      > > denial would seem more absurd because many people do feel that the
                      > concept
                      > > of spirituality makes sense to them. So the strategy of making a
                      > statement
                      > > more general seems to conflict with predicate generalization of
                      > formal logic
                      > > that excludes the possibility that there may be more than one galaxy of
                      > > generalization to an idea. The statement that "all consciousness
                      > is..." is
                      > > a statement of absolute generalization. However, it actually narrows our
                      > > choices of evidence because we would have to find evidence of the
                      > assertion
                      > > for all consciousness! If we say that "some consciousness is..." we
                      > > actually have more possible evidence to choose from because only a
                      > few cases
                      > > have to be demonstrated to support the statement. I haven't quite
                      > figured
                      > > this out, but it seems like it might be important.
                      > >
                      > > Jim Bromer
                      > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:33 AM, Daniel <daniel.burke@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Your statement that "Consciousness is 100% a spiritual function",
                      > is based
                      > > > on what independently reproducable facts? The future is not set
                      > and not
                      > > > predictable, so you cannot say what will be developed in the
                      > future. I for
                      > > > one have seen no direct evidence of spiritual function in the brains
                      > > > mechanisms. It it all just a matter of complex interaction of
                      > cells. It is
                      > > > only a matter of time before we figure out how it works.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Dan
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc Garry
                      > > > <buz90a@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Dear all,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                      > do bear
                      > > > in mind
                      > > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                      > you will
                      > > > never
                      > > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling silicon
                      > > > chips. The
                      > > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                      > artificial
                      > > > 'self
                      > > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Yours
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • surya s.
                      Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still conscius and self aware ? Regards,
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 31, 2011
                        Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still "conscius" and "self aware"?

                        Regards,
                        Surya Sumpeno
                        ***
                        --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "James J Youlton Jr" <youjaes@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time.
                        >
                        > We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness are, but let’s instead look at our world’s most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part of our lives. I remember when there wasn’t an Internet, but now I can’t imagine life without it.
                        >
                        > When something happens in the world, net traffic increases dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we haven’t realized it yet. We know we can’t control it any more and it is not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.
                        >
                        > Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only question is, how do we say “Hello”?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > From: Michael Gullatte
                        > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM
                        > To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                        >
                        >
                        > I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
                        > accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
                        > themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
                        > adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
                        > intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
                        > reading its environment and having understanding of self.
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"
                        > <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>
                        > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                        >
                        > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
                        > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
                        > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.
                        > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?
                        >
                        > If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
                        > alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
                        > consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
                        > ours, in part because it has no language ?
                        >
                        > Bernard wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
                        > > <daniel.burke@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
                        > > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
                        > > >
                        > > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
                        > > biology/cell based".
                        > > >
                        > > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Dan
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
                        > > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Dear all,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                        > > do bear in mind
                        > > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                        > > you will never
                        > > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
                        > > silicon chips. The
                        > > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                        > > artificial 'self
                        > > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Yours
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > Colleagues.
                        > >
                        > > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
                        > > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
                        > > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
                        > > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
                        > > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
                        > > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
                        > > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
                        > > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
                        > > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
                        > > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
                        > > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
                        > > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
                        > > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
                        > > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
                        > > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
                        > > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
                        > > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
                        > > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
                        > > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
                        > > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
                        > > appears to have lost interest in it!
                        > >
                        > > Bernard
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Praveen Ritolia
                        And if Internet/AI/Computer become so intelligent that it starts having consciousness and reacts, there may be chance of Judgment Day ( wherein machines will
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jun 1 4:48 AM
                          And if Internet/AI/Computer become so intelligent that it starts having consciousness and reacts, there may be chance of Judgment Day ( wherein machines will take control of the world ) Terminator ☺

                          ________________________________
                          From: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of surya s.
                          Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:22 AM
                          To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness



                          Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still "conscius" and "self aware"?

                          Regards,
                          Surya Sumpeno
                          ***
                          --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "James J Youlton Jr" <youjaes@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time.
                          >
                          > We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness are, but let’s instead look at our world’s most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part of our lives. I remember when there wasn’t an Internet, but now I can’t imagine life without it.
                          >
                          > When something happens in the world, net traffic increases dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we haven’t realized it yet. We know we can’t control it any more and it is not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.
                          >
                          > Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only question is, how do we say “Hello”?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > From: Michael Gullatte
                          > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM
                          > To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                          >
                          >
                          > I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
                          > accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
                          > themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
                          > adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
                          > intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
                          > reading its environment and having understanding of self.
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"
                          > <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>
                          > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                          >
                          > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
                          > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
                          > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.
                          > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?
                          >
                          > If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
                          > alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
                          > consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
                          > ours, in part because it has no language ?
                          >
                          > Bernard wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                          > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
                          > > <daniel.burke@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
                          > > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
                          > > >
                          > > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
                          > > biology/cell based".
                          > > >
                          > > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Dan
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                          > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
                          > > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Dear all,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                          > > do bear in mind
                          > > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                          > > you will never
                          > > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
                          > > silicon chips. The
                          > > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                          > > artificial 'self
                          > > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Yours
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > Colleagues.
                          > >
                          > > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
                          > > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
                          > > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
                          > > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
                          > > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
                          > > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
                          > > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
                          > > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
                          > > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
                          > > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
                          > > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
                          > > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
                          > > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
                          > > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
                          > > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
                          > > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
                          > > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
                          > > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
                          > > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
                          > > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
                          > > appears to have lost interest in it!
                          > >
                          > > Bernard
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >


                          ________________________________
                          DISCLAIMER
                          This email is intended only for the person or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information which is confidential and privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or any other use of the said information by person or entities other than intended recipient is unauthorized and prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and contact the sender.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Praveen Ritolia
                          And if Internet/AI/Computer become so intelligent that it starts having consciousness and reacts, there may be chance of Judgment Day ( wherein machines will
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jun 1 4:49 AM
                            And if Internet/AI/Computer become so intelligent that it starts having consciousness and reacts, there may be chance of Judgment Day ( wherein machines will take control of the world ) Terminator ☺

                            Rgds,
                            Praveen

                            ________________________________
                            From: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of surya s.
                            Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 6:22 AM
                            To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness



                            Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still "conscius" and "self aware"?

                            Regards,
                            Surya Sumpeno
                            ***
                            --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "James J Youlton Jr" <youjaes@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time.
                            >
                            > We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness are, but let’s instead look at our world’s most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part of our lives. I remember when there wasn’t an Internet, but now I can’t imagine life without it.
                            >
                            > When something happens in the world, net traffic increases dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we haven’t realized it yet. We know we can’t control it any more and it is not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.
                            >
                            > Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only question is, how do we say “Hello”?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > From: Michael Gullatte
                            > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM
                            > To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                            >
                            >
                            > I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
                            > accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
                            > themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
                            > adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
                            > intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
                            > reading its environment and having understanding of self.
                            >
                            > ________________________________
                            > From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"
                            > <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>
                            > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                            > Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
                            > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                            >
                            > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
                            > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
                            > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.
                            > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?
                            >
                            > If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
                            > alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
                            > consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
                            > ours, in part because it has no language ?
                            >
                            > Bernard wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                            > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
                            > > <daniel.burke@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
                            > > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
                            > > >
                            > > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
                            > > biology/cell based".
                            > > >
                            > > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Dan
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                            > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
                            > > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Dear all,
                            > > > >
                            > > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                            > > do bear in mind
                            > > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                            > > you will never
                            > > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
                            > > silicon chips. The
                            > > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                            > > artificial 'self
                            > > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Yours
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > Colleagues.
                            > >
                            > > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
                            > > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
                            > > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
                            > > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
                            > > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
                            > > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
                            > > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
                            > > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
                            > > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
                            > > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
                            > > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
                            > > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
                            > > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
                            > > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
                            > > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
                            > > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
                            > > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
                            > > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
                            > > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
                            > > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
                            > > appears to have lost interest in it!
                            > >
                            > > Bernard
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >


                            ________________________________
                            DISCLAIMER
                            This email is intended only for the person or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information which is confidential and privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or any other use of the said information by person or entities other than intended recipient is unauthorized and prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and contact the sender.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • James J Youlton Jr
                            I imagine the Internet would be as conscious as you or I when we are asleep. Cheers, James Youlton From: surya s. Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:51 PM To:
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jun 1 7:03 AM
                              I imagine the Internet would be as conscious as you or I when we are asleep.

                              Cheers,
                              James Youlton


                              From: surya s.
                              Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:51 PM
                              To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness


                              Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still "conscius" and "self aware"?

                              Regards,
                              Surya Sumpeno
                              ***
                              --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com, "James J Youlton Jr" <youjaes@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time.
                              >
                              > We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness are, but let’s instead look at our world’s most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part of our lives. I remember when there wasn’t an Internet, but now I can’t imagine life without it.
                              >
                              > When something happens in the world, net traffic increases dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we haven’t realized it yet. We know we can’t control it any more and it is not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.
                              >
                              > Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only question is, how do we say “Hello”?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > From: Michael Gullatte
                              > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM
                              > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                              >
                              >
                              > I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
                              > accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
                              > themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
                              > adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
                              > intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
                              > reading its environment and having understanding of self.
                              >
                              > ________________________________
                              > From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"
                              > <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>
                              > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
                              > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                              >
                              > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
                              > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
                              > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.
                              > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?
                              >
                              > If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
                              > alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
                              > consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
                              > ours, in part because it has no language ?
                              >
                              > Bernard wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                              > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
                              > > <daniel.burke@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
                              > > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
                              > > >
                              > > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
                              > > biology/cell based".
                              > > >
                              > > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Dan
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
                              > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
                              > > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Dear all,
                              > > > >
                              > > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
                              > > do bear in mind
                              > > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
                              > > you will never
                              > > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
                              > > silicon chips. The
                              > > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
                              > > artificial 'self
                              > > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Yours
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > > Colleagues.
                              > >
                              > > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
                              > > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
                              > > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
                              > > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
                              > > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
                              > > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
                              > > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
                              > > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
                              > > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
                              > > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
                              > > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
                              > > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
                              > > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
                              > > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
                              > > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
                              > > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
                              > > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
                              > > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
                              > > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
                              > > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
                              > > appears to have lost interest in it!
                              > >
                              > > Bernard
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • cav edwards
                              ... I can see the idea that the internet could be self-aware and or conscious. I wonder if the net were able to do the above, would it have reached
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jun 3 5:58 PM
                                In the email thread I was thing this:
                                > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of

                                > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play

                                > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.

                                > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?

                                I can see the idea that the internet could be self-aware and or conscious.
                                I wonder if the net were able to do the above, would it have reached conciousness or self-awareness ?

                                --- On Wed, 1/6/11, James J Youlton Jr <youjaes@...> wrote:

                                From: James J Youlton Jr <youjaes@...>
                                Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                                To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Wednesday, 1 June, 2011, 15:03
















                                 

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • cav edwards
                                ... I can see the idea that the internet could be self-aware and or conscious. I wonder if the net were able to do the above, would it have reached
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jun 3 6:01 PM
                                  In the email thread I was thing this:
                                  > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of

                                  > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play

                                  > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.

                                  > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?

                                  I can see the idea that the internet could be self-aware and or conscious.
                                  I wonder if the net were able to do the above, would it have reached conciousness or self-awareness ?

                                  Is it a sensible benchmark ?

                                  Is it still just conjecture, are we using the right language even !?!?!?!


                                  --- On Wed, 1/6/11, James J Youlton Jr <youjaes@...> wrote:

                                  From: James J Youlton Jr <youjaes@...>
                                  Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
                                  To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Wednesday, 1 June, 2011, 15:03


























                                  I imagine the Internet would be as conscious as you or I when we are asleep.



                                  Cheers,

                                  James Youlton



                                  From: surya s.

                                  Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:51 PM

                                  To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com

                                  Subject: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness



                                  Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody
                                  touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still "conscius" and "self
                                  aware"?



                                  Regards,

                                  Surya Sumpeno

                                  ***

                                  --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com, "James J Youlton Jr" <youjaes@...> wrote:

                                  >

                                  > I usually donât comment here, but I would like to at this time.

                                  >

                                  > We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what
                                  consciousness and self awareness are, but letâs instead look at our
                                  worldâs most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious
                                  and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as
                                  it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other
                                  and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is
                                  growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part
                                  of our lives. I remember when there wasnât an Internet, but now I canât
                                  imagine life without it.

                                  >

                                  > When something happens in the world, net traffic increases
                                  dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we
                                  havenât realized it yet. We know we canât control it any more and it is
                                  not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best
                                  friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a
                                  friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.

                                  >

                                  > Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing
                                  and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only
                                  question is, how do we say âHelloâ?

                                  >

                                  >

                                  >

                                  > From: Michael Gullatte

                                  > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM

                                  > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com

                                  > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness

                                  >

                                  >

                                  > I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly

                                  > accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes

                                  > themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be

                                  > adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true

                                  > intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by

                                  > reading its environment and having understanding of self.

                                  >

                                  > ________________________________

                                  > From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"

                                  > <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>

                                  > To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com

                                  > Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM

                                  > Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness

                                  >

                                  > Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of

                                  > sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play

                                  > 'what-if' scenarios with that information.

                                  > Is this potentially what consciousness is ?

                                  >

                                  > If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an

                                  > alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve

                                  > consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to

                                  > ours, in part because it has no language ?

                                  >

                                  > Bernard wrote:

                                  > >

                                  > >

                                  > >

                                  > >

                                  > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com

                                  > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"

                                  > > <daniel.burke@> wrote:

                                  > > >

                                  > > >

                                  > > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true

                                  > > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".

                                  > > >

                                  > > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%

                                  > > biology/cell based".

                                  > > >

                                  > > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.

                                  > > >

                                  > > >

                                  > > > Dan

                                  > > >

                                  > > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com

                                  > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc

                                  > > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:

                                  > > > >

                                  > > > > Dear all,

                                  > > > >

                                  > > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but

                                  > > do bear in mind

                                  > > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so

                                  > > you will never

                                  > > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling

                                  > > silicon chips. The

                                  > > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of

                                  > > artificial 'self

                                  > > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.

                                  > > > >

                                  > > > > Yours

                                  > > > >

                                  > > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.

                                  > > > >

                                  > > > >

                                  > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                  > > > >

                                  > > >

                                  > > Colleagues.

                                  > >

                                  > > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the

                                  > > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention

                                  > > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a

                                  > > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain

                                  > > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become

                                  > > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason

                                  > > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological

                                  > > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect

                                  > > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal

                                  > > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying

                                  > > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically

                                  > > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and

                                  > > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously

                                  > > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not

                                  > > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable

                                  > > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as

                                  > > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.

                                  > > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in

                                  > > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI

                                  > > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky

                                  > > appears to have lost interest in it!

                                  > >

                                  > > Bernard

                                  > >

                                  > >

                                  >

                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                  >

                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                  >

                                  >

                                  >

                                  >

                                  >

                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                  >



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.