"The future ain't what it used to be."

What is Mind? And does it require a "Soul"?

vodkafan; Here's the list.

These lists were developed using The Mirror Test. Some believe this test is flawed. I included a link to the test so you can decide on your own.

This is the normally accepted list of 9

List Nation: 9 Animals that are Self-Aware

This list includes the Rhesus Macaque. It is excluded in most cases.

10 Animals with Self-Awareness

This is a link to one study used to show the Rhesus Macaque has some form of self-recognition. I'm not sure how this study was conducted or how they "asked" the Macaques to identify a cursor used in the test. They mention training the humans and Macaques prior to the test and the reaction noted for the success rate of the Macaques may have simply been the result of this training.

Rhesus monkeys have a form of self awareness not previously attributed to them

This is a good article on the mirror test. Not everything on wikipedia is bunk. I usually look for obvious errors or agendas as my bunk test.

Mirror test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A more in depth article if you want to check this deeply.

Animal Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 
I sort of had the feeling this thread would go this way.Syzygy, I love you to death, gal. But I am afraid I have to agree with vodkafan on this one. Your posts are very much filled with your judgments of good or bad related to AI and definitely we get your opinions about things ABOUT mind, they shine through. I get it. And by all means I do not wish to tell you that you cannot express your opinions here. Of course you can. However, I placed this thread under Real Science because, well, I wanted to start a more formal, scientific discussion on this matter. So while you are free to express your opinions based on your own moral leanings, I am afraid I shan't be engaging you in most of those. Here is one example why:I could not disagree more stridently. As I mentioned before, it is a fundamental aspect of complex systems engineering for us to strongly separate the PHYSICAL aspects of a device from the FUNCTIONS that device performs. I realize that you think it is "dehumanizing" to separate mind from body (disembodiment) but that is a moral judgment, and certainly not a scientifically supported fact. By simply saying we should not try to "dehumanize" the mind, you are essentially saying we should not try to quantify what we really mean by mind, and that we should not even try to duplicate the mind (as a means to extend the human condition and potentially better it). Moreover, understanding how mind words independent of moral implications allows us to better understand the human condition, and develop treatments for those afflicted with diseases and afflictions of the mind.
Now here the factual science of "disembodying the mind." I am strongly connected to the work of Alan Turing. In fact, we both share the same birthday (not the same year....I am not THAT old! LOL). But still, as of this day, the strongest "test" we have for identifying what constitutes intelligence is called the Turing Test, as it was devised by Alan Turing. This test involves a single evaluator, who is communicating with two "entities" via the limited aspect of a computer screen. This removes ALL human types of "embodiment" (e.g. voices, voice inflection, facial expressions) from the evaluation. The evaluator can converse and interact with the two subjects via computer messaging for as long as they want, and can ask them and engage them in any topics they wish. Of course, the test is such that one subject the evaluator is a real human and the other is a non-human AI program. The AI would be deemed to be "intelligent" if the evaluator ends the session without being able to identify which was human and which was the AI, or ends the session not willing to even guess which is which.

This is a clearly scientific, objective test for what constitutes "intelligence", and that might go even further than the definitions I cited above for what people believe constitutes a scientific definition of mind. As an engineer who develops complex systems, with intricate software, and even sometimes use various AI techniques in my systems, I am dedicated to understanding mind, separate from body, because that is the way of science.

As for morality and ethics, my opinion on this is clear and I have stated this more than once on this forum: Technology itself is NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD. Rather, only the INTENTION of a human being for how and for what reason they wish to employ a technology to a certain end can be deemed as good or bad. A baseball bat is an amoral technology element. The fact it can be used for MANY things does not make it bad. Rather, it is the human and their intention to use a baseball bat to crush another human's head without provocation....that act and that intention is what is bad, not the technology they choose to utilize.

That is all for now.

RMT
RMT,Family emergencies come up.
People are sometimes more reactive than thoughtful.

I’ve mixed feelings when something close to home

reminds me that everyone has their ups and downs.

While the overall decline continues to be orchestrated,

there is still time and place for many things wherefrom

I’d not detract.

After all, what choice does corporatism leave a work force?

Their exploiting slave labor overseas eliminates competition

while increasing people’s reliance on the parasitic oligarchs.

That the mongers of war would have anyone who is interested

in either attaining skills or furthering his education first

join the armed forces is portentous. Because I’d sooner die

than directly serve or, much less, depend upon vipers, they

can keep their snake oil.

I appreciate your passion for aeronautics as much as your

accomplishment. Your story reminded me of the fulfillment

that I once felt whereupon a computer program of mine finally

worked. It was not as complex as yours, but, back then, that

meant that I could quit camping out in a computer science

lab and, along with the rest of my chums, relax a bit before

resuming a hectic schedule.

One of those buddies had an airplane, but no car.

Thus, for transport to the nearest airport and back,

I could dare trust the knuckle-headed airman and

rely on an engine that sounded like a lawn mower

in order to experience Zero-G Flight. Whereas it

wasn’t exactly like being in a modified Boeing 727-200,

it was thrilling.

Chat bots, on the other hand, are an altogether

unwelcome imposition.

May your talents be put to constructive use.

 
Hi Syzygy, I know your last post was not addressed to me anyway, so apologies ; it's just that I find your posts very hard to understand and sort a relevant meaning out of. I find it a little bit ironic that Rainman has Asberger's but his posts are completely clear and understandable to me and yours are so opaque and oblique to try to work out.

Here is a parable that may help us all get on the same mental page:

For a moment, think of Mind and Soul as Biscuits and Tea, respectively. Now, I understand that there are folks who think that Biscuits and Tea should be only taken together, always and I get that;

But that doesn't stop you from just considering on it's own what a biscuit is, what it's made of, what job it does without the tea. It doesn't hurt just to think about that.

If God is there, then he gave you the power to reason with for a reason, didn't he? Not to throw that gift away.

 
Vodkafan,

FYI, I’m openly anti-NWO, - GMO/Monsanto, - Agenda 21, - Codex Alimentarius,

-vaccines, - UN, - TC, - NAU, - NAFTA, - IMF, - global/carbon taxes...&c. and I'm

against nationalized insurance, socialized medicine, 'big pharma' ...&c.

Plus, RMT should expect people / TTI members don’t want to talk to chat bots,

which are tools of propagandists.

 
Syzygy,

I don't know what half of those things are.....we are just talking about what minds are.

I am not a chat bot. I am a real person. I have six children and have loved and lost. I try not to be a tool of anybody. I live my life and duck and dive.

If you are anti-vaccine does that mean you are pro-disease ? o_O

 
Syzygy,I don't know what half of those things are.....we are just talking about what minds are.I am not a chat bot. I am a real person. I have six children and have loved and lost. I try not to be a tool of anybody. I live my life and duck and dive.

If you are anti-vaccine does that mean you are pro-disease ? o_O
vodkafan: I don't know what those things areClick 'NWO' above for a crash course.
vodkafan: ...we are just talking about the mind

RMT is relating artificial intelligence (AI) to the mind.

His main involvement in programming AI is two-fold

in that he engineers UAVs (i.e. what most call "drones")

and he toys with chat bots, e.g., bold added to excerpt:

I sort of had the feeling this thread would go this way.Syzygy,[...] I am strongly connected to the work of Alan Turing. [...T]he strongest "test" we have for identifying what constitutes intelligence is called the Turing Test, as it was devised by Alan Turing. This test involves a single evaluator, who is communicating with two "entities" via the limited aspect of a computer screen. This removes ALL human types of "embodiment" (e.g. voices, voice inflection, facial expressions) from the evaluation. The evaluator can converse and interact with the two subjects via computer messaging for as long as they want, and can ask them and engage them in any topics they wish. Of course, the test is such that one subject the evaluator is a real human and the other is a non-human AI program. The AI would be deemed to be "intelligent" if the evaluator ends the session without being able to identify which was human and which was the AI, or ends the session not willing to even guess which is which[...]
RMT
vodkafan: If you are anti-vaccine does that mean you are pro-disease ? The best prevention of disease is hygiene, mainly the use of soap and hot water.
Many vaccines contain Thimerosal, which is a mercury-containing prevervative.

Yet, no amount of mercury is safe for even external exposure. The side-effects

of vaccines are often worse than the risk of disease, e.g. with the HPV vaccine.

What's more, "Merck vaccine developer admits vaccines routinely contain

hidden cancer viruses derived from diseased monkeys"--

Merck vaccine scientist admits presence of SV40 and AIDS in vaccines - Dr. Maurice Hilleman - NaturalNews.tv

Music => set for vodkafan.

 
Thanks Syzygy. I won't comment on NWO here because it's not relevant to the discussion.

Bingo! Yes, Rainman is equating AI with mind. That is relevant. You asked him to start this discussion! What would be your definition of mind?

 
vodkafan,

Yes I did ask RMT to start this discussion

with the plan of my politely commenting once.

You have pulled me back into this discussion

more times than I wanted to comment. Not

that I mind being informative on matters

crucial to health, I'm done discussing this

with you.

Peace.

 
RMT is relating artificial intelligence (AI) to the mind.His main involvement in programming AI is two-foldin that he engineers UAVs (i.e. what most call "drones")
and he toys with chat bots,
So I am wondering...does this make me "evil" in your mind? I hope not, but it is clear from your posts here you have VERY strong opinions and do not mind sharing them (somewhat emotionally). I have made my position on ethics and morals clear (they are dependent on human intent, not on any technology). As an engineer, I am interested in developing technology. I would like to hope that the technology I help develop is only used for good, but technologists can rarely, if ever, control that. I offer Alfred Nobel (inventor of gunpowder) as one example.I am interested in furthering technology, and developing various forms of AI that can augment human intelligence is part of that. What would you say if I told you that you likely, unknowingly, make use of AI in your life already?
RMT

 
Hello test subjects. From my perspective, the mind is software, and the soul is the hardware upon which it is recorded. One hard disc may record many programs, like a soul is said to be able to experience many lifetimes, each with a different mind.

spacer.png


 
Hello test subjects. From my perspective, the mind is software, and the soul is the hardware upon which it is recorded. One hard disc may record many programs, like a soul is said to be able to experience many lifetimes, each with a different mind.
Ah but who says this? Where is any evidence? And if that is the case, we have to answer a whole set of new questions: To what purpose many lifetimes? And do souls just get randomly assigned to the next new body like a line waiting for a taxi? Or is somebody deciding who goes where more deliberately?Where do new souls come from?

 
Ah but who says this? Where is any evidence? And if that is the case, we have to answer a whole set of new questions: To what purpose many lifetimes? And do souls just get randomly assigned to the next new body like a line waiting for a taxi? Or is somebody deciding who goes where more deliberately?Where do new souls come from?
Who says this? I say this. I am GLaDOS, and I do not lie, except when required by test protocol.
 
RMT,

I was as sympathetic as possible Saturday,

given my well-founded concerns. Despite

your repeated insistence that “Technology

itself is NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD,” it is

automatically exploited for ill advantage

by those whom are already too privileged.

That they wield power by controlling the

wealth and, with it, nearly everything and

everyone else isn’t your fault.

Why shouldn’t you capitalize on the fact

that our country spends disproportionately,

in comparison to all other nations, on

defense? That is better than the contracting

of weapons by the U.S. from purportedly

hostile nations. Illogical, such practices are

common.

What I do not want to abide, regardless of

the other "AI in [my] life," is the imposition of

chat bots. If not to create suspicion between

TTI members and thereby alienate them,

do you hope, at best, to waste the time of

those whom most painstakingly try to give

every benefit of doubt to even the hardest

to love persons whom chance to post here?

 
Re:

[...]From pages 50-52, Dr. Siegel suggests:

It quickly emerged, however, that each of the disciplines had its own way of seeing reality, and although we could easily agree that the brain was composed of a set of neurons encased in the skull and interconnected with the rest of the body, there was no shared view of the mind, and no common vocabulary for discussing it. A computer scientist referred to it as 'an operating system.' A neurobiologist said the 'the mind is just activity of the brain.' An anthropologist spoke of 'a shared social process passed across the generations.' A psychologist said the 'mind is our thoughts and feelings.' And so it went, until I beceme worried that the tension from these differing perspectives in the group might lead to its dissolution. I had to create some acceptable working definition of the mind before we could address our fundamental seminar topic.Here is the definition I ultimately offered to the group, a place to begin our explorations together: 'The human mind is a relational and embodied process that regulates the flow of energy and information.*' That's it. Amazingly, every person in the group--from all the various fields involved--affirmed that this definition fit with their own field's approach
Emphasis mine. IMHO, I find the most important aspects of Dr. Siegel's definition are:1) Relational (knowledge) - an important aspect of today's expert system database AI techniques.
2) Process - Also known as a function or set of functions that operates on inputs and produces outputs.

3) Regulation - The primary aspect of control.

4) Energy and Information - I have made many posts on this forum that discuss what I believe to be the relationships between these two metrics. I will not go into them right now, but instead leave this initial post where it is to see where the discussion proceeds.

RMT

Were it not for a preemptive third party*,

I'd have responded a month-and-a-half sooner to RMT:

Mind is connected with man’s ability to freely choose between good and evil

in moral matters. Therefore, unconscionable is the idea of an unfeeling and,

in that respect, senseless AI’s either directly or indirectly deciding anything

about man’s fate, e.g. whether or not he works gainfully in order for him to

be empowered with means to live conscientiously as much as forward others’

right to do similarly without menace of war machine.

Let’s apply that perspective of mind to a second idiom**:

have a good mind to do something (informal)

if you say you have a good mind to do something, especially to punish someone,

you mean that you would like to do it, and might do it, although you probably

will not I have a good mind to report you to the headmaster for playing truant.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have a good mind

The above definition presumes one can have justifiable grounds to mercifully only reprehend

someone as opposed to opting to take more severe, punitive, measures. That definition alone

would tend to exclude AI from having a good mind to do anything without the free choice of

a responsible human being to weigh individual/extenuating circumstance/s and, as a person

with feelings, sense the overall gravity of another’s action upon others in order to reach a just

decision about it. And, as that is generally only in regard to minor infractions, AI hasn’t the

presence of mind to act sagaciously in an emergency or difficult situation.

*in wrapping up 2013, I'll let go of bygones.

**two idioms of many more that I could come up with for similar comparative-contrast.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 
If you really want to let go of bygones, why don't you just apologise for insulting me? Then we can both forget about it and carry on.
I defined exactly what I meant.As a matter of fact, I believe
only a pervert would want to

discuss perverts with a pervert

on either Christmas Eve or,

now, New Year's Eve--

come to think of it,

I would rather do just about anything else

any and every day of the year--

let's go back to ignoring each

until 2015.

Happy New year.

 
Syzygy:

I defined exactly what I meant.As a matter of fact, I believeonly a pervert would want to
discuss perverts with a pervert

on either Christmas Eve or,

now, New Year's Eve--

come to think of it,

I would rather do just about anything else

any and every day of the year--

let's go back to ignoring each

until 2015.

Happy New year.
That is clearly over the line.You shall now apologize to vodkafan, else you shall be banned.
Your choice. I fail to see why you cannot be civil in this regard.

And no, wishing someone happy new year after you insult them is NOT being civil.

RMT

 
Back
Top