James,

To answer the question concerning the difference between a biological brain and a computer, I will attempt to clarify, although I am surprised that you would call this feat unusualin any way.

Humans have desires, wants, and needs.

Humans have self-adaptable perception.

Humans can distinguish.

Humans can reason.

Human learn to believe that they know.

Humans have self-awareness.

Humans have a will.

Humans have perceptual faculties.

Etc.



But the biggest difference to me is in the fact that humans can willfully learn more. Humans can choose what to believe.

That is an obvious statement, and I agree, but that is not the question.

The question is ... how do you explain that? What is the Will?

JB

JB,

With all due respect, which comes via James being considered a friend of mine, that was the question... his question.

To address yours.

The will is personal desire.

Creative, If all that exists is self and the void THERE IS NO OTHER KNOWLEDGE.

The "collection of information" about self would be simple.

There is not that much information. Self is just the observer of the void. All there is to observe is the void. That is all there is.

Use your imagination.

Or else go spend a few weeks in a sensory deprivation tank.

JB

I don't think so. The will is the power of self direction.

But each to his own opinion.

JB

Everything you've stated here is based on what? Your home PC?

I can only suggest that you have no clue how far true comptuer technology has come. There are computers out running programs that exhibit much of what you have stated here.

The only that we can never know for sure is whether the comptuer actually feels what it can be programmed to claim to feel.

In all honesty Michael your answer here only suggests to me that you are quite ignorant of what's already possible with computers.

If someone built a robot body that you could not distiquish from a real living human. And they programmed to have it act and say everything that you would expect a human to act and say. Then how could you know the difference?

If the comptuer robot looks at you with a sad face and tears in it's eyes and says that it's hurting inside. How could you know that it isn't really experiencing pain?

I don't think you've made any headway here at all.

Moreover, when I say 'suffciently complex' I don't necessarily mean robots that we are capable of building today. You have to imagine far into the future. Robots that emulated human behavior so well that you can't tell them apart.

How are you going to stand there and say you know that robot can't be truly experienceing it's existence?

You can't say one way or the other Michael.

No one can.

You especially can't say one way or the other, if you are going to claim that humans are nothign more then biological brains.

In fact, if you take that stance, then it seems to me that you would have to support the idea that computers that are sufficiently complex aren't any different from a human.

Don't forget Michael, a sufficently complex computer WILL be able to LEARN from its own experiences. Whether it's sentient or not.

In fact, NASA already has robots that do this!

The distances in space with their time lags for communication prohibit direct remote control. The NASA robots have to think for themselves. And the DO!

Agreed.



Agreed, but only with the ability to distinguish between self and nothing(void). But as we both agree nothing cannot exist, therefore void does not either. The only thing which could have existed in that example would be self.

It only follows that self, when it is all that exists, has no ability to distinguish between itself and itself.

One finger cannot point at itself.



Not agreed self cannot observe without having conscious thought, and conscious thought requires perception.

Which brings about, once again, the imperitive question... how does the self observe without the ability to perceive?



Imagination is the source of make-believe and the void in this example. I am more interested in that which has at least some basis in logic, fact, and/or knowledge.




Ok...

There is where your folly lies. Imagination rules the world.
It is the core of all creation. It is what you have that computers cannot have.

People underestimate the power of imagination. They call it "make believe."

You can pit intellect and knowledge against imagination and imagination will always win. Intellect and knowledge is useless and static without creative imagination.

I will leave this train of thought now. It is so far off the track to waste my time with.

JB

Okay, then, if that is all you are interested in. I have gone way past logic, fact and/or knowledge and dared to venture into IDEAS AND IMAGINATION.

You have to ~~ in order to get out of the box. If all you want is facts, you are barking up the wrong tree then.

Let me know how it works out for you. Seriously.

JB

Some people must win in some way or another...

I concede... glady...

Enjoy yourselves..

Yes and I call them the eyes of infinity.

When the self split, (divided) it could not distinguish between itself and itself. They were all the same and the void was just the appearance of darkness.

That is why you will never find the first one that was "God" because in the beginning It could not distinguish itself from itself and so there were many, but they were all the same, and yet they were all one.

Oops.... I'm using my imagination here. You wouldn't understand that. No fact, no knowledge, no proof. Just ideas.


JB

I'm very seriously believing that you are out to 'win' Michael. And that's all you care about anymore. You used to be so interested in truth. But now you seem to have shifted into a very 'competitive' style of debate.

You say,...



You also, seem to be suggesting that a physical brain is necesarily for thought.

Yet, you start a whole new thread, entitled "The Biggest Mistake" and you state the following about God,...



Where is your logic, fact, and/or knowledge to support such a statement?

And if you believe a physical brain is necessary for the ability to 'think'. Then can this God you describe think? Does it have a physical brain?

How can you demand logic, fact, and/or knowledge from us, and then trun around and start hypothesizing about a God thaht is far different from us?

What logic, facts, and/or knowledge are you using to draw this conclusion?

The pantheisic God would certainly be quite different from a human. Yet you deny that we can be manifestation of such a God.

Now you talk about a God that is quite differnt from humans. But how is it going to be related to humans? Are we direct manifestations of it? Like pantheism suggests? Or are we totally separate from it, similar to the biblical picture of a God?

If you have a description of this God and can back it up using logic, fact, and/or knowledge. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what you have.

I'm always open to knew ideas. I'm not locked into pantheism. It's just the best I've personally come up with thus far. I'll take better if you can describe something better.

Since you have already claimed that you believe that we are far different from God, can you share with us the ways that you believe we are different.

How are we related to God?

Are we direct manifestations of God?

Are we seperate entities from God that God merely created?

What's the idea you got there?

(I'll post this in your other thread too, since it's more applicable to that topic)

James,

This side topic concerning perception and awareness began with my response to your initial response regarding chaos, or perfectly random disorder. That response ended with this question.



Now since then, our conversation and most of it's twists and turns were guided by your and JB's responses which entertained different aspects that I believe were meant to draw parallels, but failed in doing so until the point of being irrelevant.

It is quite obvious to me that you two believe differently than I do, and that is ok, really... no sweat, nor ill will.

I feel that I had directly quoted you and then responded based upon the quote. Whereas you two have interpreted my words into something else that was not equal to what I had said, and then extrapolated upon those false assessments. I just wanted you to address the points which I did make, several times... quite clearly.

Now here once again, the topic has been full circle. Di has actually brought up the conscious aspect again, without it being addressed either, and remember, it was the first question that I asked.

So I ask you then, how long should one be required to continue to repeat themselves in order for their words to be correctly addressed without the difference ever being recognized?

It is not about winning for me James. It is about a respectful means of discourse which entertains both sides of the discussion. It is quite helpful to stay on track, and refrain from the snide and rude comments that JB frequently says, only to later act as if she has not.

Computers cannot become aware of themselves, we can and do.

O boy...great minds think alike.

I went through that too. All the "If God exists" questions. Been there done that. I can tell you this...that everything does happen in God's timing. He doesn't forget us. I also think that we need to agree in our belief of what God's word is saying & where we dont agree we need to ask Him to bring us into agreement with Him. He will too. In spite of what things look like...we need that stubborn faith. To him who overcomes... uses his faith in God that is. We will see miracles happen if we hold onto our belief in God.

The adventurer in me thinks...what would it be like if I made it through the end times??? I don't have a problem rollin' up my sleeves to do the dirty work but I'm just not sure I am brave enough. LOL

BTW, I'm looking for a godly dangerous adventurous type of guy. Know anybody? ;)

Go with God GF~~~

What's up with the boards???? they seem to not process yet when I abort & try again it posts twice ???? hmmm...

Once again you make an obvious statement of which I cannot disagree. The question is WHY? WHY CREATIVE, WHY?

If an advanced computer rivals the human brain why can it not become aware of itself and why can't it have imagination? (Of which you dismiss as "just make believe.")

And your above response to Abra does not answer his questions. Why do you demand facts, logic, knowledge from our ideas or conclusions and yet you do not offer any to support your own?

JB

It has no soul!!
A computer is a Tool.
A very smart blender!!!

Exactly. It has no soul, and no will.

Ok Michael, I respect your desire for meaningful cerebral intercourse. However, I still hold that you haven't made a point. It's not a matter of who's write or wrong. It's a matter of what points have been made.

As you point out I asked the question,..



After all the dust settles you make the following proclamation,..



I ask, "What is your evidence for this?'"

Can you know this? What is your reason for claiming that this is true?

~~~

You seem to be taking the stance that a physical brain is necessary for thought. And you seem to be also taking the stance that awareness is not a meaningful concept without the ability to perceive and then you go on to define perception as the ability to collect and process information.

Well computers can certainly collect and process information. And they can be programmed to do this in very elaborate ways that include an ability to learn from experience. So by your definition here computers can perceive.

Yet you claim,...



I ask, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

How do you know that a sufficiently complex computer could not become aware of itself.

I ask you,... WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between a computer and a human that enables a human to become self-aware and a computer not.

If you can't explain what the difference is, then how can you make your claim in the first place?

You seem to be implying that human consciousness is entirely due to the existence of a physical brain.

Both Jeannie and I are suggesting that there needs to be something more to it than just the physical brain.

You seem to be arguing that a physical brain is not only all that is necessary, but that without a physical brain any form of 'awareness' would be impossible.

That's your claim.

So I don't understand how you can then turn around and say that computers can't become self-aware, when they clearly fit all the criteria that you claim is necessary to become self-aware. They only thing that they could possibly be lacking is a certain level of complexity. But we can certainly imagine a computer in the future being as complex as a human brain.

Therefore, if it is equal to the human brain in complexity and what it can do then why wouldn't it also be able to become self-aware?

You have not justified your position.

You claim that human awareness can only be accomplished via a brain (a biological computer)

But then you go on to claim that awareness could not possible be accomplished via a non-biological computer?

Where's your justification?

What's DIFFERENT?

You haven't logically justified your position.

You just arbitrarily state that computers cannot become self-aware, but you haven't given a reason to support that arbitrary statement.

Fanta wrote:

It has no soul!!
A computer is a Tool.
A very smart blender!!!

JB wrote:

Exactly. It has no soul, and no will.

Now here, both Fanta and JB claim that a computer can't become self-aware.

However Fanta believes humans have a spiritual soul and JB also believes that there is more to a human being than just the physical brain.

But Michael, is trying to claim that there can be no consciouness (no awareness) no "sentient being" without a physical brain.

So if humans are nothing more than their brains, then why couldn't computers also become sentient and self-aware if here is no need for a 'underlying spiritual awareness'?

I tend to lean toward the spiritual element myself. I side with Fanta and JB. (though not necessarily in the details) I simply side with the idea that we are ultimately spiritual beings somehow connected up (interfaced) to our human expeirence via our brain.

But Michael, seems to be suggesting that without a physical brain there can be no 'awareness' (no non-physical spiritual being that can be aware of anything without using a physical brain)