Re: How does complex behavior spontaneously emerge in the brain?
How does complex behavior spontaneously emerge in the brain? http://phys.org/news/2013-08-complex-behavior-spontaneously-emerge-brain.html Quoting from article: In a new study published in Nature Physics, a team of researchers from Spain has shown that emergence in neuronal networks can be explained as a noise-driven phenomenon that is controlled by the interplay between network topology and intrinsic neuronal dynamics. In this scenario, a randomly fired pulse propagates through the network and is amplified by noise focusing, which the researchers describe as an implosive concentration of spontaneous activity. "From the experimental point of view, we show that in neuronal cultures, the emergence early in the development of collective spontaneous activity is dominated by the presence of activity waves that initiate in specific regions of the culture, in a similar way as it happens in vivo," lead author Javier G. Orlandi at the University of Barcelona told Phys.org. "And with the help of simulations, we also show that you don't need any special mechanism to explain this behavior, just the right combination of network structure and dynamics. These waves emerge naturally from the noise focusing effect, in which individual firings propagate and concentrate in specific regions to later generate these activity waves." ... [and a few paragraphs later] "The view ofemergence in neural networks as a noise-driven phenomenon differs from the common view in which the bursts of neuronal pulses are controlled by specific leader neurons assisted by the network architecture. In the noise-driven explanation,the nucleation sites do not actively initiate the firing process, but collect and amplify the firing activity that originated elsewhere. An example of how outcomes in highly parallel systems are often driven by indirect causality. The brain does not just work based on simple cause and effect, there is no clear deterministic path that a thought will follow as it moves from some triggering sensorial event or memory through all the steps in its proto-inception in our pre-conscious minds and finally -- if we ever become aware of it -- into the locus of our focused attention. How these transient synchronized neural firing networks grow and also subside -- and based on what feedbacks they gain or lose momentum is of great interest to me and seems quite critical -- IMO -- to understanding the algorithms of awareness and conscious intelligence. From what I have read the synchronization of firing is one of the key ways in which signal is disambiguated from noise by the brain. I have also heard that these highly transient dynamic phenomena are very numerous and that there are many such firing networks operating at any given instant of time. Essentially the algorithm uses the temporal synchronization that is somehow settled upon by the firing network -- not clear to me how a firing consensus is arrived at -- and that kind of like a Christmas tree where say all the red lights flash -- nearly at the same time -- then the green ones and so on. the network (defined as color in this case) really visually pops out at you - versus trying to put it together if random lights were firing off without being synchronized on some time pulse. It is an effective and economical algorithm too. This may be an indication of how the dynamic transient synchronized firing network emerge in the first instance, if further study bears the findings out in an actual living brain as opposed to a neural culture. Consensus building algorithms also seem to play a vital role brain functioning and I have seen studies that indicate the widely distributed consensus networks of neurons -- as opposed to being highly clustered within specialized brain regions -- seem to be critical in decision making by the brain. Decisions seem to be arrived at by consensus building networks of enlisted neurons -- that may have other primary functions, but that also seem to be doing double duty by becoming enlisted in these transient networks. Who knows at this point how it really all works out, but with each new breakthrough and experimental insight we achieve we are beginning to get a first picture. I, for one am fascinated to see how it unfolds and to perhaps, be among the first generation of people who know how our brains work -- as opposed to arguing about how they work from a position of ignorance. -Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 10:55 AM Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > I say quite clearly that and I repeat -- I am not interested in nor do I much > care whether humans are superior or inferior to computers. Take me at my word > when I say I don’t really care one way or the other, that this horse race is > uninteresting to me. I'm sorry Chris, I can't take your word for it because I don't think any rational being would advance a argument in favor of human superiority as incredibly weak as "All measurable processes – including information processing -- happen over and require for their operations some physical substrate"unless they'd already decided what they'd prefer to believe. Perhaps that is how you see it, but what you are seeing is the result of your own spin. I will repeat -- and you either take me at my word or go ahead and make an ass out of yourself by continuing to insist that I must be lying to you... no skin off my back. The point I was actually making in the sentence you quoted is that all processes happen in a local frame of reference, and that there is no universal all knowing point of view. Take me at my word or not.. your prerogative I guess -- its your head you are free to fill it with whatever you choose. > How incredibly pompous of you. Do you go popping into other people’s heads deciding what they believe a lot? >>Not as often as I'd like, I wish I had the ability to detect deception all >>the time but I'm not that good at it, however sometimes its obvious. No point in having a conversation if you have already made up your mind now is there? Either take me at my word or this is rather pointless. >>There is one thing that brains and cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels and the Tianhe-2 Supercomputer all have in common, things inside them happen for a reason or things inside them do not happen for a reason. >> A yes back once again to your idée fixe. And how exactly does that help >> you understand the brain, the CPU or anything at all? This obsession of >> yours – it seems like one to me, for you keep returning over and over again >> to re-stating it. You believe things either happen for a reason or they >> don’t; though you cannot prove it. >>Let me get this straight you are >> skeptical that X is Y or X is not Y and demand proof. Have I really got that >> straight?? No you cannot prove that things in the brain happen because of some proximate definable and identifiable cause or otherwise they must therefore result by a completely random process. In a system as layered, massively parallel and highly noisy as the brain your assumptions of how it works are naïve and border on the comical. The brain is not a based on a simple deterministic algorithm in which the chain of cause and effect is always clear. You seem to fail to grasp how in complex chaotic systems -- such as the brain -- the linkage between cause and effect is not necessarily clear or even possible to work back to. I cannot help you if this is too subtle for how your mind wants to work; that is a deficiency in your own analytical abilities, and I cannot help you there. > Care to elucidate what is so darn original and profound about the tautology > you endlessly come back to? Up to now every tautology has had one great virtue, they are all true; but apparently you think that for the first time in human history you have found a tautology that is false. Have I really got that straight?? You are being pointless and gratuitously argumentative. > continually re-iterating your tautology. The switch is either on or it is off… you say. Everything either happens for a reason or it does not…. Or so you say. I don’t know that this is in fact so. So you really don't know if that is in fact so. Have I really got that straight?? >>The point that free will is a idea so bad it's not even wrong. > And you of >>course are free to believe that if you must…. though I find it a self-imposed >>impoverishment of the soul > So you think that if you have free will then you don't do things for a reason and so are not deterministic and you don't do things for no reason and so are not random. Have I really got that straight?? No you have it all twisted up in your binary way of viewing things. If all your brain is able to model is either or propositions then whats the point of carrying this conversation forward. > > If we are machines then we are surely fantastically complex and highly >dynamic ones. >>>Yes, and so are computers. >Sure, but, even now still orders of magnitude less so than us. Sure, but computers are gaining on us at the rate of about one order of magnitude every 7 years, and there is no end in sight. > You cannot really state that you understand a system, without actu
Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > I say quite clearly that and I repeat -- I am not interested in nor do > I much care whether humans are superior or inferior to computers. Take me > at my word when I say I don’t really care one way or the other, that this > horse race is uninteresting to me. > I'm sorry Chris, I can't take your word for it because I don't think any rational being would advance a argument in favor of human superiority as incredibly weak as "All measurable processes – including information processing -- happen over and require for their operations some physical substrate"unless they'd already decided what they'd prefer to believe. > How incredibly pompous of you. Do you go popping into other people’s > heads deciding what they believe a lot? > Not as often as I'd like, I wish I had the ability to detect deception all the time but I'm not that good at it, however sometimes its obvious. > >>There is one thing that brains and cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels >> and the Tianhe-2 Supercomputer all have in common, things inside them >> happen for a reason or things inside them do not happen for a reason. >> > > A yes back once again to your idée fixe. And how exactly does that > help you understand the brain, the CPU or anything at all? This obsession > of yours – it seems like one to me, for you keep returning over and over > again to re-stating it. You believe things either happen for a reason or > they don’t; though you cannot prove it. > Let me get this straight you are skeptical that X is Y or X is not Y and demand proof. Have I really got that straight?? > > Care to elucidate what is so darn original and profound about the > tautology you endlessly come back to? > Up to now every tautology has had one great virtue, they are all true; but apparently you think that for the first time in human history you have found a tautology that is false. Have I really got that straight?? > continually re-iterating your tautology. The switch is either on or it is > off… you say. Everything either happens for a reason or it does not…. Or so > you say. I don’t know that this is in fact so. > So you really don't know if that is in fact so. Have I really got that straight?? > >>The point that free will is a idea so bad it's not even wrong. >> > > And you of course are free to believe that if you must…. though I find > it a self-imposed impoverishment of the soul > So you think that if you have free will then you don't do things for a reason and so are not deterministic and you don't do things for no reason and so are not random. Have I really got that straight?? > > If we are machines then we are surely fantastically complex and highly >> dynamic ones. >> > >>Yes, and so are computers. >> > Sure, but, even now still orders of magnitude less so than us. > Sure, but computers are gaining on us at the rate of about one order of magnitude every 7 years, and there is no end in sight. > You cannot really state that you understand a system, without actually > understanding the system. > That is a tautology and thus obviously true, but you don't have to understand something to make use of it; we still don't fully understand how aspirin works but it has been curing headaches for well over a century. > > It is false to suggest that one can understand human intelligence or > consciousness, for example, without understanding how it emerges within us > More tautologies, that is to say more true statements, but understanding doesn't enter into it. I don't have to understand Hungarian to copy a Hungarian poem. > it is quite clear that you have no idea what I am talking about. On this > we very much agree. > Yes. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
John -- Not interested in placing any more wear and tear on your brain. Either we discuss or we don't. I was correcting your mischaracterization of two democratically elected and popular leaders who were overthrown in bloody CIA backed coups and replaced by fascist dictators (one of whom had dynastic aspirations). You had mischaracterized these two popularly elected heads of state as 2-bit leaders. I find that to be a strange choice of words to describe a democratically elected head of state. And I said so. Now you could just acknowledge that it may have not been the best way to describe them, otherwise you risk portraying yourself as a - to use your words - "self righteous moral moron." It's your choice really. Oh, and I am not interested in playing the game you seem to want to play. Have a good day, -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 7:51 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: >> And yes half a century ago the CIA over through some 2 bit leaders in Chile and Iran, big deal. > John you are either grossly ignorant of history, or squeeze it like toothpaste through the aperture of your ideological point of view. Chris, before I debate the morality or lack of morality of those 2 historical events with you I need to know if I will be placing wear and tear on my brain cells for no purpose, in short I need to know if you too are a self righteous moral moron. So Chris, what is your honest opinion of the morality of somebody who says "supporting the Nazis was the right thing for the Arabs back then" and "I believe that 9/11 was a good thing"? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > >> And yes half a century ago the CIA over through some 2 bit leaders in >> Chile and Iran, big deal. >> > > John you are either grossly ignorant of history, or squeeze it like > toothpaste through the aperture of your ideological point of view. > Chris, before I debate the morality or lack of morality of those 2 historical events with you I need to know if I will be placing wear and tear on my brain cells for no purpose, in short I need to know if you too are a self righteous moral moron. So Chris, what is your honest opinion of the morality of somebody who says "supporting the Nazis was the right thing for the Arabs back then" and "I believe that 9/11 was a good thing"? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
A professional ass who goes by the pseudonym because he's understandably too embarrassed to give his real name wrote: > Agree or disagree with me, but it's something that can be debated. > Dear Mr. Ass I'm a bit confused by your use of the word "debated". In your previous post you proved your expertise in the art of copying and pasting stuff from the internet that you found on Google, and by saying "supporting the Nazis was the right thing for the Arabs back then" and "I believe that 9/11 was a good thing" you proved your expertise in the art of being a self righteous moral imbecile, but I didn't see any debating. ** > > You, on the other hand, are an ideologue Yes, my ideology is that supporting the Nazis was NOT the right thing for the Arabs back then, and my ideology is that 9/11 was NOT a good thing. And my ideology is that anybody who says such things can not be a good person. And my ideology is that anybody who sits at the feet of such a degenerate cretin and listens with respect while he pontificates about morality can not be a good person either. > who is not capable of reading past the first sentence > You are absolutely correct, I will not continue reading if the post is a critique of the morality of various historical events and the first sentence is "supporting the Nazis was the right thing for the Arabs back then" or "I believe that 9/11 was a good thing". I will not continue reading because that is equivalent to shouting at the top of your lungs "LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY, I AM A MORAL MORON". And Mr. Ass unlike you I am not embarrassed by what I have written so I will give my real name, it is John K Clark. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic
Hi Roger Just persevere. It took ages before he listened to me regarding black holes. All the best. > From: rclo...@verizon.net > To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of > logic > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:22:23 -0400 > > Hi spudboy100 > > Yes, but Penrose ignores all of my attempts to help him, if that's the right > word. > > > Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] > See my Leibniz site at > http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: spudboy100 > Receiver: everything-list,rclough > Time: 2013-08-25, 15:58:49 > Subject: Re: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic > > > > > >Isn't this sort of a neo-Platonism,as expressed by Roger Penrose? > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Roger Clough > >To: - Roger Clough > >Sent: Sat, Aug 24, 2013 8:11 am > >Subject: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic > > > > > > > >Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic > >Brahma is a version of existence, but it doesn't permit actual scientific > >experiments. > >According to Leibniz, there is necessary (permanent) or mental existence and > >contingent or actual existence. But mental existence can only be dealt with > >using > >mind and logic, so is not actual. And actual existence is tentative. > > > > > > > > > >Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] > >See my Leibniz site at > > > >http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > > > >-- > >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >"Everything List" group. > >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > >email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic
Hi spudboy100 Yes, but Penrose ignores all of my attempts to help him, if that's the right word. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: spudboy100 Receiver: everything-list,rclough Time: 2013-08-25, 15:58:49 Subject: Re: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic >Isn't this sort of a neo-Platonism,as expressed by Roger Penrose? > > > >-Original Message- >From: Roger Clough >To: - Roger Clough >Sent: Sat, Aug 24, 2013 8:11 am >Subject: Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic > > > >Leibniz's two types of existence based on the two types of logic >Brahma is a version of existence, but it doesn't permit actual scientific >experiments. >According to Leibniz, there is necessary (permanent) or mental existence and >contingent or actual existence. But mental existence can only be dealt with >using >mind and logic, so is not actual. And actual existence is tentative. > > > > >Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] >See my Leibniz site at > >http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"Everything List" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 06:26:36AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: > It should be mentioned that final causation requires downward causation to > be operative. Why? The principle of least action in Lagrangian dynamics is an apparent final causation, but no downward causation is in play, as there are no levels. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
It should be mentioned that final causation requires downward causation to be operative. See George Ellis for examples of downward causation at the human level. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.2275.pdf Recognising Top-Down Causation George Ellis, University of Cape Town Abstract: One of the basic assumptions implicit in the way physics is usually done is that all causation flows in a bottom up fashion, from micro to macro scales. However this is wrong in many cases in biology, and in particular in the way the brain functions. Here I make the case that it is also wrong in the case of digital computers – the paradigm of mechanistic algorithmic causation - and in many cases in physics, ranging from the origin of the arrow of time to the process of quantum state preparation. I consider some examples from classical physics; from quantum physics; and the case of digital computers, and then explain why it this possible without contradicting the causal powers of the underlying micro physics. Understanding the emergence of genuine complexity out of the underlying physics depends on recognising this kind of causation. It is a missing ingredient in present day theory; and taking it into account may help understand such mysteries as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics: On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change > > So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, > are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, > which one might call the Self. > > The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might > define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. > In other words, the internal active agent of change is final > causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of > life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. > > This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as > an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what > we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as > current models of the mind. > > > Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] > See my Leibniz site at > http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, which one might call the Self. The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. In other words, the internal active agent of change is final causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as current models of the mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, which one might call the Self. The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. In other words, the internal active agent of change is final causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as current models of the mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
