ok then ...I will explain logically how I came to that conclusion

a God wouldn't created anything more perfect than itself because it would no longer be the God it creation would become the God

and a God that create lesser than itself creates imperfection and a perfect God would be incapable of that ...therefore it is not a God

a perfect God would only accend and not decend and therefore would make no creations... perfect or imperfect

For Redykeulous:



There are other people working on that. I just want to paint, and create and have fun.



You implied that the brain had or has certain areas that function to do certain things. If this were true, then a person with half a brain could not do certain things. This is not the case however, as there is a person on record with half a brain that functions normally, ~~ therefore the assertion that you must have a whole brain must be wrong or not always the case. I am not ruling out the possibility that if you were to remove half of your brain that you would function normally in all cases, but I would not say that this would always be the case or be impossible because it has been proven that it is possible, at least in some cases.




How do you know? How do you know what I have read or studied or why I have come to certain conclusions? I don't spend my time pouring over books about how the brain functions. I do read about new discoveries from respected brain authorities on both sides ~~ and I learn from that.



I do not discredit science completely, nor do I completely buy all of it or trust any authority. Authorities disagree. You have to look at both sides.



I find it beneficial to use the best of alternative and real medicine. The mind has the power to heal. The processes of mind effect the body function. This is a proven fact.

Yes I am my own final authority. Always.




I am nowhere near where a fundamentalist is.



In the past I have discovered my source was wrong and I have examined their information for agenda etc. As Tribo has said, the best lie is always mixed with truth. I will also say that even the most accurate "truth" is tainted with lies and assumptions.

Please let me know when and where my discussion seems not open and one sided. Then if some detail is not completely understood, please let us discuss it close up. Tell me something better. Tell me where I am wrong and why. I would appreciate that very much.

Jeannie

P.S. An idea is just an idea. If I knew for certain I was right, and I had proof or knew where I might obtain acceptable scientific proof, I would find it, document it, and then present to others. One day the proof will be available to all. That day has not come yet. But I suspect soon... it will be here. Without my help, I might add.

You say that computers can never become self-aware but humans can.

I ask what is your reason for saying that?

I await your reason.

Because they do not perceive.

The only problem here is that you have already repeatly defined 'percieve' to mean "collect and process information"

And comptuers most certainly can do that. Maybe not your home PC, but there are computers that do this. And they are getting better at it all the time. In fact, they've had computers that can learn on their own since the 1970's.

Crudely back then,... but it's 2008 now. I'm sure there are computers in military labs that are quickly learning all sorts of new tricks.

By your definition of how you are using the word 'perceieve' I would say that you distinction between computers and humans is basically non-existent.

And whatever differences still exist are rapidly fading away.

From a purely philosophical point of view you aren't really saying that humans perceieve and computers don't.

All you are really saying is that humans pereieve better than current computers.

Based on your definition of what you have perviously defined "perceive" to mean, your distinction between computers and humans amounts to noting more than a level of complexity.

So I still hold my same position.

I'm not trying to be hard to get along with Michael.

I'm just going by what you are saying and how you've personally definied your terms.

Based on the position you've given thus far it is my response to you then that the only real difference between a human brain and a computer is a matter of complexity.

That's my response to your assertion.

All I can say is that I believe I do understand what you are saying (or at least what you have said thus far), and my repsonse to you is that based on what you've said then the only difference between a human brain and a computer would be a matter of complexity.

I just don't understand what's wrong with my response?

Unless you want to re-define what you mean by "perceieve".

By the way,

I'm open to a re-definition, or elaboration on what you mean by perceieve.

I'm not trying to back you into a corner. I'm just trying to understand your position.

If anything has backed me into a corner, it has been myself as a result of not being clear enough. Accompany that with my attempts to follow a path which strayed away from the point, while changing my terminology, and you have the key elements which have produced this confused state within our situation.

I thank you for the genuine sincerity felt in your last two posts.

The definition remains the same James, and after re-reading the first 12 pages, it was said by me as such....



It is simple enough.

What has not been discussed yet, and truly needs to be, are the requirements for perception, awareness, self-awareness, and the human condition, as they are all built upon perception, in that order.

You might want to ponder as to whether perception and the ability to perceive are the same thing.

Perception may imply that there is 'something' to perceive.
Does this something have to be something other than self?

Or can an observer with no form perceive itself as an observer with no form?

Try to imagine nothing. What do you see?

Darkness? What is this darkness? Is it nothing? Does darkness exist? Does nothing exist?

If nothing cannot exist, how can you imagine it? If nothing cannot exist, then what does exist?

The one who imagines exists. The observer exists.

Now just shoot me, I'm finished.

When we can repair every possible malfunction of the human anatomy, when we know that much about the human body, we may be able to create a form of robotics capable of perceiving at will, of being influenced by the same hormones and other bodily chemicals as any human being. If that time ever comes upon us, I hope we are wise enough to give that robot a fool proof allotted time period in which to function. Otherwise we may be creating a whole new species and likewise our own demise.

But we are so far from that time, I only know it does not seem possible within the next many generations - so in my view it's not even worthy of thought.



Your quote is "half a brain". Are you picking and choosing the particular sites that are not functioning or are you slicing the brain in half? You see, without the actual case study, there is no way to prove or disprove what you believe. Slicing a brain down the middle may leave a person alive, but they will in no way be normal, or in any way the same as they were.



They are your beliefs. I have attempted to explain that your beliefs may be greatly influenced with the study of how the brain and body are interconnected and how they function to create an emotional, cognitive, and perceptive human being. But in your words:


If you don’t know how things function to begin with, how can you CRITICALLY determine that what you are reading is valid? What source of comparison are you using other than how it fits into your own personal beliefs?

That's fine with me. I'm willing to start with the idea of perception and move forward from there.

However, I still hold that based on this definition a computer can indeed 'perceieve'. In other words, a computer can collect and process information.

So at this stage, you haven't given me any reason to believe that a human brane is any differnt from a sufficiently complex computer.

Perhaps as you build from here you will add something that will differentiate between a human brain and a sufficiently complex computer.

I'm only stating that at this point,(based on what has been presented thus far), I don't see any difference.

If you come up with a significant difference later, as you build upon these ideas, I'll be very excited to see where that difference comes into play.

Right now all I see is that you have the following,...

Perceive = the ability to collect and process information

Awareness requires at least the ability to perceive, but evidently that ability alone is not sufficent for awareness because computers are not aware.

Is that a fare assessment thus far?

Creative:

not to be argumentative here but there is some fault to the following:



Any computer can be programmed to collect information - it's called various things - cookies, data miners

The point is, perception as a definition is only a part of the equation. Perception must be 'AT WILL', and it must be experienced in some way to make it's memory of the perception somthing to be accessed with some other cue such as emotional, place specific, or even metobolical. Without the cues that any human functions with, a computer will not gain awareness or even the same cognitive powers as a human.

There are simply too many variables within the human that we don't currently have enough knowledge of or ability to reproduce.

Ah, I love ya Di...

I feel that the definition I gave of perception is fine though...

Thank you for repeating it accurately, because that accuracy seems to be fleeting within these pages...

The ability to collect information.

A computer does not have the ability to collect information. It is given the ability.

More importantly Di, are the perception requirements. Will is definitely not one of them.

There are all kinds of things which perceive stimulus that do not have a will to perceive.

Simple organisms flee heat because of their perception of it, without conscious thought, awareness, nor will.


Perception Requirements

Perceiver
Stimulus
Perceptual faculty
Survival instinct

Computers do not inherently have a perceiver, therefore they do not truly have one at all. That why it is called artificial.

Survival instinct is the cause of perception. In every case of perception, the perceiver is alive and has the inherent need to survive.

Thus, this is why I say that computers do not perceive. They do not have the requirements. They cannot.

I do not have time to become a brain surgeon. The information about the person with half a brain was a documentary I saw on television. The person actually had only half a brain. An entire half was removed. Half of her skull was basically empty. The other half was the rest of the brain. I am sorry I don't have the name of that person or of that documentary. If I had known that on some future date I would need that information I would have written it all down for you. But I can't see into the future.

I do decide if a thing is valid much the same way everyone else does. If it seems valid, sounds reasonable, I say "this is probably true." It remains on the "probably true" side of the table until something knocks it over to the "probably not true" side.

Now I will tell you what I told Creative. These are my ideas. I am not trying to start a damn religion, or win a Nobel prize, or change the world with a new theory. I am just a simple artist with a creative imagination who seeks the simple truth.

When I find what I believe "may be true" I am willing to share it and discuss other ideas. I am not willing to preach it, prove it, or defend it.

JB

This is a totally irrelevant distinction. In fact, it's no distinction at all.

Humans are also given the ability via millions of years of evolution.

It doesn't matter how you acquired the ability. All that matters is that you have the ability.

I will argue again, that sophisticated modern computers are indeed capable of learning from their own experiences and modifying their own programming (just like humans do!).

Obviously the technology isn't at it's peak yet, but it's definitely progressing.

It is wrong to believe that computer can only be statically programmed to do certain things like an automated blender or something.

There are indeed people who work on 'Artificial Intelligence' programming. And the goal is to get the computers to the point where they can program themselves better than human programmers can program them. That day is coming. I guarantee it.

So the idea that computers are just mundane machines that can only do what their programmers programmed them to do is to truly be unware of where computer technology is heading.

So I'm not impressed in the least by this distinction you've made.

Clealry humans did not build their own brains either. They were also given the basic machinery and initial programming necessary to get them up and running. They aren't starting from scratch.

So I see no distinction here at all.

It doens't matter how you've acquired the ability. All that matters is that you have it.

Hi Creative, I see what you are saying and I concur. Actually I thing we are pretty much saying the same think, I'm just being more difficult.


JB - I think I know the documentary you are speaking of. It was quite a number of years ago. They did surgery because epilepsie was systematically putting holes in that persons brain. There was a theory at the time that removing one the left or right hemisphere of the brain, depending of the one affected would stop the siezures and same the persons life. Since some stroke victims seemed to recover after devastating brain damage they decided it was because some of the OTHER brain material was being utilized as a redirection pattern.

The person stopped having seizures but they were wrong. This person suffers many afflictions and they would never be resolved.

The brain has certain cells that come together to form parts of the brain that preform specific functions. No other part of the brain can fullfil those functions, so taking away half the brain did not work as they expected. And no amount of 'manifesting' could make that person better again.

They no longer use this as a method of treatment. However, they have learned a great deal from the experiment.

I'm sure the updated informaton is on the web somewhere, if you really wanted to verify it. Or you can go on believing what you will.

Where did you get this information?

This is not why computers are called artificial.

They are called artificial because they are man-made and for no other reason.

Moreover, some computers do indeed have an inherent 'perceiver'. That would be an analog computer that I had mentioned before. If anyone ever builds a genuine android they are going to have to use analog technology, in additional to digital technology.

I think you are strictly thinking in terms of digital computers Michael. Where a program is a list of instuctions that reside in individual memory locations and the processor just goes down the list excusting instructions. That is a digital computer. This is how all Personal computers operate. But this isn't the be-all, and end-all to computering by far. Analog computing is definitely going to be involved with any serious android. And analog comptuer does constitute and inherent pereiver.

In fact, that's how it works in animals and humans. Our bodies are basically analog computers. Our brains are a mixture of analog and digital processes. Although we may process digitally in parallel rather than serially . However, that's also a technicality that can be technologically overcome.



Computers most certainly can be programmed to have survival "instincts".



Baloney.

You just aren't fully aware of what's possible in computer technology. That's all.

computers definately have the ability of decision making and learning

James once again, I should have left it alone.

I am not here to impress you.

Computers do not have the ability, nor can man give computers the ability to perceive...

My mistake.



So now you claim that computers inherently have the ability to perceive?

Instincts are only inherent in living beings. They are not programmable, neither is perception, nor awareness.

Computers are not alive, and everything which perceives is.


Could you address the requirements I mentioned?

You're just jumping to way too many conclusions Michael.

You're not demonstrating, that computer can't be sentient, you're just trying to claim it because you seem to want it to be true. Thus lending support to your idea that you have come up with the idea that 'perception' is someting that is unique to life.

You're almost trying to 'sneakily' proclam that 'preception' already is some form of 'awareness'.

And whey I say 'sneakily', I truly believe that you are pulling the wool over your own eyes as well as those you may hope to convince.

Again I refer to Feynman,...

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

I'm just not buying into your premises here.

You're trying to act as though you have established a difference between any possible 'artificial intelligence', and what you consider to be the 'real thing'.

But you're presentation don't wash with me. I do not agree that you have established any such thing. You're just stating it as though it has to be a fact.



And you expect me to accept this?

No. I disagree. You have not established this as being a fact.

Not by a long shot.

And I'm just stating what I feel. I disagree that you have established this, nor have you given sufficient reasons to claim that it must be fact.

You sound more to me like you just need this to be a premise so that you can already claim to have made some sort of headway.

I disagree that you have established this to be fact.