[FairfieldLife] Re: Are we living in the end times?

[Jason]

Variations in the DNA occur due to entropy, the tendency of
order to become disorder.  Biologists themselves admit that
some mutations are harmful, some are beneficial and some are
neutral.

These "variations" are errors made during replication.  The
clumsy replication DNA leads to massive wastages and
casualities, however evolution moves on.

The environment which uses natural selection seems to have
some deterministic pattern, which balances out the random
mutations and capricious changes in the environment.

In what way the particle from the future influences the DNA
is matter of debate. More research needs to be done before
we jump to conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life




--- "s3raphita"  wrote:
>
> but DNA variations can be triggered from the quantum
> level. DNA variations = evolution (if you throw in teeth
> and claws and sexual selection).
>
> Wheeler's delayed-choice variation on the classic
> double-slit experiment has been experimentally verified
> and shows a scientist can effectively decide what happens
> (happened) to a photon billions of years ago.
>
> See here (apologies for the robotic-sounding commentary):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6ageOaS-E
>
>
> --- "Jason"  wrote:
> >
> > Serap, this two way traffic, (bi-directional) between
> > past and future happens only on the Quantum level.
> >
> > On the Classical level, time flows in uni-directional
> > way. In fact, this is what gives the Classical universe
> > it's stability.
> >
> > Scientists have known for quite some time now that
> > evolution is partially deterministic and partially
> > random. My bet is that it's just some kind of
> > mathematical intelligence behind this deterministic
> > pattern.
> >
> > Besides, a lot of scientists like Penrose have indeed
> > started taking consciousness seriously. This Dennett is
> > probably a fringe minority.
> >
> > Consciousness is slowly taking the centerstage.
> > Besides, the technological developments in observing the
> > subjective experiences using brain scans are rapidly
> > progressing.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E
> >
> >

 > > --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
 > > >
 > > > I don't dispute that. The reason you and I are
 > > > having a  human, earthly, animal experience of
 > > > awareness is owing to Darwinian evolution.
 > > > Awareness itself though - the fact that right now
 > > > I'm conscious of the sound of rain falling and the
 > > > smell of my Nag Champa incense - can't be
 > > > accounted for by the men in white coats. In fact
 > > > they're close to giving up on pretending to have a
 > > > solution, which is why Daniel Dennett and pals are
 > > > trying to persuade us we're not actually conscious
 > > > at all. Good luck with that one Danny boy!
 > > >
 > > > Of course we have to leave open the possibility
 > > > that there are unknown factors guiding evolution.
 > > > John Archibald (love it!) Wheeler's suggestion
 > > > that quantum theory shows  we can change the past
 > > > leaves open the neat idea that the future, the
 > > > present and the past are constantly tweaking each
 > > > other (like two travelling waves moving down a
 > > > sound tube in opposite directions) so maybe
 > > > evolution isn't just  about survival of the
 > > > fittest . . .
 > > >
 > > > "We are participators in bringing into being not
 > > > only the near and here but the far away and long
 > > > ago. We are in this sense, participators in
 > > > bringing about something of the universe in the
 > > > distant past and if we have one  explanation for
 > > > what's happening in the distant past why should we
 > > > need more?" - Wheeler.
 > > >
 > > >







 > --- "Jason"  wrote:
 > >
 > > These consciousness theories and quantum theories, don't
 > > actually change the technical aspects of Darwin's
 > > evolution.
 > >
 > > Even if irreducible consciousness did exist, as you
 > > claim, Darwin's theory still remains the same,
 > > unchanged, as sound as ever.
 > >
 > > Many new-agers are so stupid that they think these new
 > > theories negate Darwin.  They don't.  Impersonal
 > > consciousness, impersonal creation, impersonal
 > > evolution.
 > >
 > >
 > > --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
 > > >
 > > > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
 > > > to  show that consciousness can't be reduced to
 > > > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend
 > > > they believe).  Searle is right about that. What he
 > > > wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness being
 > > > irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of the
 > > > Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
 > > > than what is being explained.  That game can't go on
 > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are we living in the end times?

[Jason]

DNA variations are caused by entropy, the nature of the
universe to go from order to disorder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life


Biologists say that some mutations are harmful, some are
beneficial and some are neutral. This is why the process is
wasteful and the casualties are high. But evolution manages
to go on.

The environment uses the natural selection process which has
a deterministic aspect and that balances the completely
random mutations.  The DNA replicates in a clumsy way and
errors creep in. Perhaps the perfectly replicating DNA got
booted out during the early days of evolution.

It's still not clear in what way the particle form the
future influences the DNA, and that is a matter of debate.
Perhaps more research is need before we jump to conclusions.

(My first reply went to the yahoo hibernation chamber, and I
don't know when it will manifest. This is kinda duplicate of
what I sent earlier.)



  --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
>
> but DNA variations can be triggered from the quantum
> level. DNA variations = evolution (if you throw in teeth
> and claws and sexual selection).
>
> Wheeler's delayed-choice variation on the classic
> double-slit experiment has been experimentally verified
> and shows a scientist can effectively decide what happens
> (happened) to a photon billions of years ago.
>
> See here (apologies for the robotic-sounding commentary):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6ageOaS-E
>
>
> --- Jason  wrote:
> >
> > Serap, this two way traffic, (bi-directional) between
> > past and future happens only on the Quantum level.
> >
> > On the Classical level, time flows in uni-directional
> > way. In fact, this is what gives the Classical universe
> > it's stability.
> >
> > Scientists have known for quite some time now that
> > evolution is partially deterministic and partially
> > random. My bet is that it's just some kind of
> > mathematical intelligence behind this deterministic
> > pattern.
> >
> > Besides, a lot of scientists like Penrose have indeed
> > started taking consciousness seriously. This Dennett is
> > probably a fringe minority.
> >
> > Consciousness is slowly taking the centerstage.
> > Besides, the technological developments in observing the
> > subjective experiences using brain scans are rapidly
> > progressing.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E
> >
> >
> --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
>
> > > I don't dispute that. The reason you and I are having
> > > a human, earthly, animal experience of awareness is
> > > owing to Darwinian evolution. Awareness itself though
> > > - the fact that right now I'm conscious of the sound
> > > of rain falling and the smell of my Nag Champa incense
> > > - can't be accounted for by the men in white coats. In
> > > fact they're close to giving up on pretending to have
> > > a solution, which is why Daniel Dennett and pals are
> > > trying to persuade us we're not actually conscious at
> > > all. Good luck with that one Danny boy!
> > >
> > > Of course we have to leave open the possibility that
> > > there are unknown factors guiding evolution. John
> > > Archibald (love it!) Wheeler's suggestion that quantum
> > > theory shows we can change the past leaves open the
> > > neat idea that the future, the present and the past
> > > are constantly tweaking each other (like two
> > > travelling waves moving down a sound tube in opposite
> > > directions) so maybe evolution isn't just about
> > > survival of the fittest . . .
> > >
> > > "We are participators in bringing into being not only
> > > the near and here but the far away and long ago. We
> > > are in this sense, participators in bringing about
> > > something of the universe in the distant past and if
> > > we have one explanation for what's happening in the
> > > distant past why  should we need more?" - Wheeler.
> > >
> > >








 > --- "Jason"  wrote:
 > >
 > > These consciousness theories and quantum theories, don't
 > > actually change the technical aspects of Darwin's
 > > evolution.
 > >
 > > Even if irreducible consciousness did exist, as you
 > > claim, Darwin's theory still remains the same,
 > > unchanged, as sound as ever.
 > >
 > > Many new-agers are so stupid that they think these new
 > > theories negate Darwin.  They don't.  Impersonal
 > > consciousness, impersonal creation, impersonal
 > > evolution.
 > >
 > >
 > > --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
 > > >
 > > > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
 > > > to  show that consciousness can't be reduced to
 > > > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend
 > > > they believe).  Searle is right about that. What he
 > > > wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness being
 > > > irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of the
 > > > Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
 > > > than what is being explained.  T

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[s3raphita]

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[s3raphita]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are we living in the end times?

[Jason]

Serap, this two way traffic, (bi-directional) between past
and future happens only on the Quantum level.

On the Classical level, time flows in uni-directional way.
In fact, this is what gives the Classical universe it's
stability.

Scientists have known for quite some time now that evolution
is partially deterministic and partially random. My bet is
that it's just some kind of mathematical intelligence behind
this deterministic pattern.

Besides, a lot of scientists like Penrose have indeed
started taking consciousness seriously. This Dennett is
probably a fringe minority.

Consciousness is slowly taking the centerstage.  Besides,
the technological developments in observing the subjective
experiences using brain scans are rapidly progressing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E




> --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
>
> I don't dispute that. The reason you and I are having a
> human, earthly, animal experience of awareness is owing
> to Darwinian evolution. Awareness itself though - the
> fact that right now I'm conscious of the sound of rain
> falling and the smell of my Nag Champa incense - can't be
> accounted for by the men in white coats. In fact they're
> close to giving up on pretending to have a solution,
> which is why Daniel Dennett and pals are trying to
> persuade us we're not actually conscious at all. Good
> luck with that one Danny boy!
>
> Of course we have to leave open the possibility that there
> are unknown factors guiding evolution. John Archibald
> (love it!) Wheeler's suggestion that quantum theory shows
> we can change the past leaves open the neat idea that the
> future, the present and the past are constantly tweaking
> each other (like two travelling waves moving down a sound
> tube in opposite directions) so maybe evolution isn't just
> about survival of the fittest . . .
>
> "We are participators in bringing into being not only the
> near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in
> this sense, participators in bringing about something of
> the universe in the distant past and if we have one
> explanation for what's happening in the distant past why
> should we need more?" - Wheeler.
>
>
> --- "Jason"  wrote:
> >
> > These consciousness theories and quantum theories, don't
> > actually change the technical aspects of Darwin's
> > evolution.
> >
> > Even if irreducible consciousness did exist, as you
> > claim, Darwin's theory still remains the same,
> > unchanged, as sound as ever.
> >
> > Many new-agers are so stupid that they think these new
> > theories negate Darwin.  They don't.  Impersonal
> > consciousness, impersonal creation, impersonal
> > evolution.
> >
> >
> > --- "s3raphita"  wrote:
> > >
> > > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
> > > to  show that consciousness can't be reduced to
> > > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend
> > > they believe).  Searle is right about that. What he
> > > wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness being
> > > irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of the
> > > Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
> > > than what is being explained.  That game can't go on
> > > for ever otherwise you have an infinite regress.
> > > Something has (or somethings have) to  be basic and
> > > consciousness [better "awareness"] being   that thing
> > > (or one of those things) it follows immediately that
> > > Darwinian Theory which postulates that  consciousness
> > > is a late development in evolutionary history is
> > > clearly wrong. Q.E.D.

 >
 >
 > --- bobpriced  wrote:
 > >
 > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g
 > >

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[s3raphita]

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[s3raphita]

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[Share Long]

Well, noozguru, I saw what happened once when I dropped my laptop. Does that 
count even though it didn't say ouch?





 From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?
 


  
Yeah, just see what happens if the CPU overheats. :-D 

On 09/18/2013 02:29 PM, Share Long wrote:

  
>noozguru, are you saying that computers attempt to stay in their comfort zone? 
>If yes, what is that for a computer?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bhairitu 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?
> 
>
>
>  
>Computers compute.  They are little like a gazillion calculators.  AI experts 
>have concluded that the human mind  doesn't work that way.  It  learns 
>patterns instead of calculating.  You can "emulate" that with a computer 
>though.  Our minds seem complicated but in really what drives us is trying to 
>stay in a "comfort zone." The simplest creatures also work this way.
>
>
>On 09/18/2013 12:00 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>  
>>Jason,
>>
>>
>>AI in computers are only mimicking the real consciousness of human beings.  
>>Computer intelligence will only be as good as the human programmers who 
>>created it.  For example,  it is a fact that an IBM computer was able to beat 
>>Kasparov in a chess championship setting.  But it was programmed to calculate 
>>possibilities in chess moves by brute force.  The real consciousness comes 
>>from the humans who programmed the computer.
>>
>>
>>IMO, this will hold true for any other developments in AI in the future.  In 
>>the end, computers will only be silicon chips (even quantum chips) pretending 
>>to have human consciousness.
>>
>>
>>--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> > ---  "s3raphita"  wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > The point of the Chinese
Room thought experiment being  
>>> > to show that consciousness
can't be reduced to  
>>> > computation (as the
advocates of AI like to pretend*  
>>> > they believe). Searle is
right about that. 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you mean to say that the
advocates of AI are lying*  
>>> about what they believe? If so,
I thought your comment was 
>>> interesting since *pretending*
is the only way a computer 
>>> program will ever pass The
Turing Test (is it possible the 
>>> programs are advocating for
themselves); Eugene 
>>> Goostman---to date, the
computer program with the most  
>>> successful attempt at The
Turing Test (29%)---got as far  
>>> as it did by *pretending* to be
a 13 year-old Ukrainian  
>>> male who spoke English as a
second language (rumours that 
>>> Share is related to Eugene are
completely unfounded). 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > What he wouldn't go on to
see was that consciousness  
>>> > being irreducible it is
also basic. All explanations of 
>>> > the Cosmos must come down
to some element more essential 
>>> > than what is being
explained. That game can't go on for 
>>> > ever otherwise you have an
infinite regress. 
>>> > 
>>> > Something has (or
somethings have) to be basic and  
>>> > consciousness [better
"awareness"] being that thing (or 
>>> > one of those things) it
follows immediately that 
>>> > Darwinian Theory which
postulates that consciousness is 
>>> > a late development in
evolutionary history is clearly  
>>> > wrong. Q.E.D.
>>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[Share Long]

noozguru, are you saying that computers attempt to stay in their comfort zone? 
If yes, what is that for a computer?





 From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?
 


  
Computers compute.  They are little like a gazillion calculators.  AI experts 
have concluded that the human mind  doesn't work that way.  It  learns patterns 
instead of calculating.  You can "emulate" that with a computer though.  Our 
minds seem complicated but in really what drives us is trying to stay in a 
"comfort zone." The simplest creatures also work this way.


On 09/18/2013 12:00 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote:

  
>Jason,
>
>
>AI in computers are only mimicking the real consciousness of human beings.  
>Computer intelligence will only be as good as the human programmers who 
>created it.  For example,  it is a fact that an IBM computer was able to beat 
>Kasparov in a chess championship setting.  But it was programmed to calculate 
>possibilities in chess moves by brute force.  The real consciousness comes 
>from the humans who programmed the computer.
>
>
>IMO, this will hold true for any other developments in AI in the future.  In 
>the end, computers will only be silicon chips (even quantum chips) pretending 
>to have human consciousness.
>
>
>--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
>
>
>> > ---  "s3raphita"  wrote:
>> > 
>> > The point of the Chinese Room thought
  experiment being  
>> > to show that consciousness can't be reduced
  to  
>> > computation (as the advocates of AI like to
  pretend*  
>> > they believe). Searle is right about that. 
>> > 
>> > 
>--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>>
>> Did you mean to say that the advocates of AI are
  lying*  
>> about what they believe? If so, I thought your
  comment was 
>> interesting since *pretending* is the only way a
  computer 
>> program will ever pass The Turing Test (is it
  possible the 
>> programs are advocating for themselves); Eugene 
>> Goostman---to date, the computer program with the
  most  
>> successful attempt at The Turing Test (29%)---got
  as far  
>> as it did by *pretending* to be a 13 year-old
  Ukrainian  
>> male who spoke English as a second language
  (rumours that 
>> Share is related to Eugene are completely
  unfounded). 
>> 
>> 
>> > What he wouldn't go on to see was that
  consciousness  
>> > being irreducible it is also basic. All
  explanations of 
>> > the Cosmos must come down to some element
  more essential 
>> > than what is being explained. That game
  can't go on for 
>> > ever otherwise you have an infinite regress. 
>> > 
>> > Something has (or somethings have) to be
  basic and  
>> > consciousness [better "awareness"] being
  that thing (or 
>> > one of those things) it follows immediately
  that 
>> > Darwinian Theory which postulates that
  consciousness is 
>> > a late development in evolutionary history
  is clearly  
>> > wrong. Q.E.D.
>> > 
>> > 
>--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>>
>> If the use of adornment could be construed as an
  attempt  
>> to *pretend* to be something other than what we
  are, and  
>> if adornment is an important indicator used by  
>> archeologists to identify Homo sapiens (it takes
  human  
>> consciousness to understand we can influence the  
>> perception of others), when studying the fossils
  of 
>> hominids, is there still hope that computers will
  learn to 
>> lie better and eventually pass The Turing
  Test? 
>> 
>> 
>
>Computers today are savants with the intelligence of a 
>spider or a cockroach.  20 years in the future, they
  will 
>have the intelligence and the intuition of a two year
  old.
>
>There are many facets of intelligence.  Memory power
  and 
>computing power are only one aspect of intelligence.
>
>LQ - This is logic quotient. These people are good in
>maths. logical steps for solutions.
>
>CQ - Corelation Quotient. The ability to core

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[Bhairitu]

Yeah, just see what happens if the CPU overheats. :-D

On 09/18/2013 02:29 PM, Share Long wrote:
noozguru, are you saying that computers attempt to stay in their 
comfort zone? If yes, what is that for a computer?



*From:* Bhairitu 
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:53 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

Computers compute.  They are little like a gazillion calculators.  AI 
experts have concluded that the human mind  doesn't work that way.  It 
learns patterns instead of calculating.  You can "emulate" that with a 
computer though. Our minds seem complicated but in really what drives 
us is trying to stay in a "comfort zone." The simplest creatures also 
work this way.



On 09/18/2013 12:00 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com <mailto:jr_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jason,

AI in computers are only mimicking the real consciousness of human 
beings.  Computer intelligence will only be as good as the human 
programmers who created it.  For example,  it is a fact that an IBM 
computer was able to beat Kasparov in a chess championship setting. 
 But it was programmed to calculate possibilities in chess moves by 
brute force.  The real consciousness comes from the humans who 
programmed the computer.


IMO, this will hold true for any other developments in AI in the 
future.  In the end, computers will only be silicon chips (even 
quantum chips) pretending to have human consciousness.



--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com 
<mailto:fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com>,  
<mailto:jedi_spock@...> wrote:



> > ---  "s3raphita"  <mailto:s3raphita@...> wrote:
> >
> > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
> > to show that consciousness can't be reduced to
> > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend*
> > they believe). Searle is right about that.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  <mailto:bobpriced@...> wrote:
>
> Did you mean to say that the advocates of AI are lying*
> about what they believe? If so, I thought your comment was
> interesting since *pretending* is the only way a computer
> program will ever pass The Turing Test (is it possible the
> programs are advocating for themselves); Eugene
> Goostman---to date, the computer program with the most
> successful attempt at The Turing Test (29%)---got as far
> as it did by *pretending* to be a 13 year-old Ukrainian
> male who spoke English as a second language (rumours that
> Share is related to Eugene are completely unfounded).
>
>
> > What he wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness
> > being irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of
> > the Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
> > than what is being explained. That game can't go on for
> > ever otherwise you have an infinite regress.
> >
> > Something has (or somethings have) to be basic and
> > consciousness [better "awareness"] being that thing (or
> > one of those things) it follows immediately that
> > Darwinian Theory which postulates that consciousness is
> > a late development in evolutionary history is clearly
> > wrong. Q.E.D.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  <mailto:bobpriced@...> wrote:
>
> If the use of adornment could be construed as an attempt
> to *pretend* to be something other than what we are, and
> if adornment is an important indicator used by
> archeologists to identify Homo sapiens (it takes human
> consciousness to understand we can influence the
> perception of others), when studying the fossils of
> hominids, is there still hope that computers will learn to
> lie better and eventually pass The Turing Test?
>
>

Computers today are savants with the intelligence of a
spider or a cockroach.  20 years in the future, they will
have the intelligence and the intuition of a two year old.

There are many facets of intelligence.  Memory power and
computing power are only one aspect of intelligence.

LQ - This is logic quotient. These people are good in
maths. logical steps for solutions.

CQ - Corelation Quotient. The ability to corelate diverse
factors and see how they fit.

MQ - Memory quotient. Ability to recall information is a
type of intelligence and plays a role in survival.

TQ - Tribulation quotient. the ability to deal with
stressfull and chaotic envionment.

EQ - Emotional quotient. The ability to handle emotions and
compartment them. Empathy the ability to put in other's
shoes and see their POV is a type of intelligence.


> > > --- "bobpriced"  <mailto:bobpriced@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g
> > >

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[jr_esq]

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[Bhairitu]

Computers compute.  They are little like a gazillion calculators.  AI 
experts have concluded that the human mind  doesn't work that way.  It  
learns patterns instead of calculating.  You can "emulate" that with a 
computer though.  Our minds seem complicated but in really what drives 
us is trying to stay in a "comfort zone." The simplest creatures also 
work this way.



On 09/18/2013 12:00 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote:


Jason,


AI in computers are only mimicking the real consciousness of human 
beings.  Computer intelligence will only be as good as the human 
programmers who created it.  For example,  it is a fact that an IBM 
computer was able to beat Kasparov in a chess championship setting. 
 But it was programmed to calculate possibilities in chess moves by 
brute force.  The real consciousness comes from the humans who 
programmed the computer.



IMO, this will hold true for any other developments in AI in the 
future.  In the end, computers will only be silicon chips (even 
quantum chips) pretending to have human consciousness.




--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:


> > ---  "s3raphita"  wrote:
> >
> > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
> > to show that consciousness can't be reduced to
> > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend*
> > they believe). Searle is right about that.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>
> Did you mean to say that the advocates of AI are lying*
> about what they believe? If so, I thought your comment was
> interesting since *pretending* is the only way a computer
> program will ever pass The Turing Test (is it possible the
> programs are advocating for themselves); Eugene
> Goostman---to date, the computer program with the most
> successful attempt at The Turing Test (29%)---got as far
> as it did by *pretending* to be a 13 year-old Ukrainian
> male who spoke English as a second language (rumours that
> Share is related to Eugene are completely unfounded).
>
>
> > What he wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness
> > being irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of
> > the Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
> > than what is being explained. That game can't go on for
> > ever otherwise you have an infinite regress.
> >
> > Something has (or somethings have) to be basic and
> > consciousness [better "awareness"] being that thing (or
> > one of those things) it follows immediately that
> > Darwinian Theory which postulates that consciousness is
> > a late development in evolutionary history is clearly
> > wrong. Q.E.D.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>
> If the use of adornment could be construed as an attempt
> to *pretend* to be something other than what we are, and
> if adornment is an important indicator used by
> archeologists to identify Homo sapiens (it takes human
> consciousness to understand we can influence the
> perception of others), when studying the fossils of
> hominids, is there still hope that computers will learn to
> lie better and eventually pass The Turing Test?
>
>

Computers today are savants with the intelligence of a
spider or a cockroach.  20 years in the future, they will
have the intelligence and the intuition of a two year old.

There are many facets of intelligence.  Memory power and
computing power are only one aspect of intelligence.

LQ - This is logic quotient. These people are good in
maths. logical steps for solutions.

CQ - Corelation Quotient. The ability to corelate diverse
factors and see how they fit.

MQ - Memory quotient. Ability to recall information is a
type of intelligence and plays a role in survival.

TQ - Tribulation quotient. the ability to deal with
stressfull and chaotic envionment.

EQ - Emotional quotient. The ability to handle emotions and
compartment them. Empathy the ability to put in other's
shoes and see their POV is a type of intelligence.


> > > --- "bobpriced"  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are we living in the end times?

[Jason]

The point is that, although they are just memory machines
parroting what is told to them, even that requires some
rudimentary intelligence.

But once we develop computers whose memory banks resemble
human brain neural network, they may start thinking for
themselves.

Ultimately in the end, whatever nature can create, man can
create.

Conversely, think of all the people on this planet who just
parrot what is told them, without thinking or having any
understanding about it.  Did your "God" programme them
badly?



--- "jr_esq"  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> AI in computers are only mimicking the real consciousness
> of human beings.  Computer intelligence will only be as
> good as the human programmers who created it.  For
> example,  it is a fact that an IBM computer was able to
> beat Kasparov in a chess championship setting.  But it was
> programmed to calculate possibilities in chess moves by
> brute force.  The real consciousness comes from the humans
> who programmed the computer.
>
> IMO, this will hold true for any other developments in AI
> in the future.  In the end, computers will only be silicon
> chips (even quantum chips) pretending to have human
> consciousness.
>
>



> > ---  "s3raphita"  wrote:
> >
> > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
> > to show that consciousness can't be reduced to
> > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend*
> > they believe). Searle is right about that.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>
> Did you mean to say that the advocates of AI are lying*
> about what they believe? If so, I thought your comment was
> interesting since *pretending* is the only way a computer
> program will ever pass The Turing Test (is it possible the
> programs are advocating for themselves); Eugene
> Goostman---to date, the computer program with the most
> successful attempt at The Turing Test (29%)---got as far
> as it did by *pretending* to be a 13 year-old Ukrainian
> male who spoke English as a second language (rumours that
> Share is related to Eugene are completely unfounded).
>
>
> > What he wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness
> > being irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of
> > the Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
> > than what is being explained. That game can't go on for
> > ever otherwise you have an infinite regress.
> >
> > Something has (or somethings have) to be basic and
> > consciousness [better "awareness"] being that thing (or
> > one of those things) it follows immediately that
> > Darwinian Theory which postulates that consciousness is
> > a late development in evolutionary history is clearly
> > wrong. Q.E.D.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>
> If the use of adornment could be construed as an attempt
> to *pretend* to be something other than what we are, and
> if adornment is an important indicator used by
> archeologists to identify Homo sapiens (it takes human
> consciousness to understand we can influence the
> perception of others), when studying the fossils of
> hominids, is there still hope that computers will learn to
> lie better and eventually pass The Turing Test?
>
>
> --- Jason  wrote:
> >
> > Computers today are savants with the intelligence of a
> > spider or a cockroach.  20 years in the future, they
> > will have the intelligence and the intuition of a two
> > year old.
> >
> > There are many facets of intelligence.  Memory power and
> > computing power are only one aspect of intelligence.
> >
> > LQ - This is logic quotient. These people are good in
> > maths. logical steps for solutions.
> >
> > CQ - Corelation Quotient. The ability to corelate
> > diverse factors and see how they fit.
> >
> > MQ - Memory quotient. Ability to recall information is a
> > type of intelligence and plays a role in survival.
> >
> > TQ - Tribulation quotient. the ability to deal with
> > stressfull and chaotic envionment.
> >
> > EQ - Emotional quotient. The ability to handle emotions
> > and compartment them. Empathy the ability to put in
> > other's shoes and see their POV is a type of
> > intelligence.
> >


> > > --- "bobpriced"  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g
> > >

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[jr_esq]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are we living in the end times?

[Jason]

> > ---  "s3raphita"  wrote:
> >
> > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being
> > to show that consciousness can't be reduced to
> > computation (as the advocates of AI like to pretend*
> > they believe). Searle is right about that.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>
> Did you mean to say that the advocates of AI are lying*
> about what they believe? If so, I thought your comment was
> interesting since *pretending* is the only way a computer
> program will ever pass The Turing Test (is it possible the
> programs are advocating for themselves); Eugene
> Goostman---to date, the computer program with the most
> successful attempt at The Turing Test (29%)---got as far
> as it did by *pretending* to be a 13 year-old Ukrainian
> male who spoke English as a second language (rumours that
> Share is related to Eugene are completely unfounded).
>
>
> > What he wouldn't go on to see was that consciousness
> > being irreducible it is also basic. All explanations of
> > the Cosmos must come down to some element more essential
> > than what is being explained. That game can't go on for
> > ever otherwise you have an infinite regress.
> >
> > Something has (or somethings have) to be basic and
> > consciousness [better "awareness"] being that thing (or
> > one of those things) it follows immediately that
> > Darwinian Theory which postulates that consciousness is
> > a late development in evolutionary history is clearly
> > wrong. Q.E.D.
> >
> >
--- "bobpriced"  wrote:
>
> If the use of adornment could be construed as an attempt
> to *pretend* to be something other than what we are, and
> if adornment is an important indicator used by
> archeologists to identify Homo sapiens (it takes human
> consciousness to understand we can influence the
> perception of others), when studying the fossils of
> hominids, is there still hope that computers will learn to
> lie better and eventually pass The Turing Test?
>
>

Computers today are savants with the intelligence of a
spider or a cockroach.  20 years in the future, they will
have the intelligence and the intuition of a two year old.

There are many facets of intelligence.  Memory power and
computing power are only one aspect of intelligence.

LQ - This is logic quotient. These people are good in
maths. logical steps for solutions.

CQ - Corelation Quotient. The ability to corelate diverse
factors and see how they fit.

MQ - Memory quotient. Ability to recall information is a
type of intelligence and plays a role in survival.

TQ - Tribulation quotient. the ability to deal with
stressfull and chaotic envionment.

EQ - Emotional quotient. The ability to handle emotions and
compartment them. Empathy the ability to put in other's
shoes and see their POV is a type of intelligence.


> > > --- "bobpriced"  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Are we living in the end times?

[Jason]

These consciousness theories and quantum theories, don't
actually change the technical aspects of Darwin's evolution.

Even if irreducible consciousness did exist, as you claim,
Darwin's theory still remains the same, unchanged, as sound
as ever.

Many new-agers are so stupid that they think these new
theories negate Darwin.  They don't.  Impersonal
consciousness, impersonal creation, impersonal evolution.


--- "s3raphita"  wrote:
  >
  > The point of the Chinese Room thought experiment being to
  > show that consciousness can't be reduced to computation
  > (as the advocates of AI like to pretend they believe).
  > Searle is right about that. What he wouldn't go on to see
  > was that consciousness being irreducible it is also
  > basic. All explanations of the Cosmos must come down to
  > some element more essential than what is being explained.
  > That game can't go on for ever otherwise you have an
  > infinite regress. Something has (or somethings have) to
  > be basic and consciousness [better "awareness"] being
  > that thing (or one of those things) it follows
  > immediately that Darwinian Theory which postulates that
  > consciousness is a late development in evolutionary
  > history is clearly wrong. Q.E.D.
>
>
> --- bobpriced  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g
> >

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[s3raphita]

[FairfieldLife] RE: Are we living in the end times?

[s3raphita]