Faith in permanent death

[Copernicus]

Yes, thank you. I know exactly what hardware and software are and how they work and this is getting way off track without you yourself, adding anything to it or explaining any meaningful position.

Penumbra was correct about Windows 7 being an "emergent" phenomenon on your computer. It is an emergent system that is something more than the constituents that interact to cause it. I understood perfectly what she meant when she said that.

How do you think genuine self-aware intelligence will be possible in computers?

The same way it is possible in physical brains. BTW, did you know that parallel processing can be simulated on single CPUs? Have you ever taken a course in AI programming techniques?

 

[Otherright]

Penumbra was correct about Windows 7 being an "emergent" phenomenon on your computer. It is an emergent system that is something more than the constituents that interact to cause it. I understood perfectly what she meant when she said that.


The same way it is possible in physical brains. BTW, did you know that parallel processing can be simulated on single CPUs? Have you ever taken a course in AI programming techniques?

Her original posting was unsatisfactory, she refined her definition.


The same way it is possible in physical brains? Prove it. Then solve these simple problems, and when you do, invite me to Oslo.

Brains are analogue; computers are digital.
The brain uses content-addressable memory.
The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.
Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.
Short-term memory is not like RAM.
No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.
Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.
Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.
The brain is a self-organizing system.
Brains have bodies.

 

[Otherright]

But like I said earlier, quantum computing might hold the key to it. I think quantum mechanics hold the key to everything, including spirituality.

 

[Koldo]

The same way it is possible in physical brains? Prove it. Then solve these simple problems, and when you do, invite me to Oslo.

Brains are analogue; computers are digital.
The brain uses content-addressable memory.
The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.
Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.
Short-term memory is not like RAM.
No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.
Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.
Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.
The brain is a self-organizing system.
Brains have bodies.

All these problems can be solved by creating a computer capable of simulating the human brain.
Possible at this moment? Not.
Impossible forever? Not possible to say at this moment.

 

[Copernicus]

The same way it is possible in physical brains? Prove it.

You have a habit of not answering questions posed to you, but you feel uninhibited about demanding answers from others. Your position is essentially an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how to prove a claim true has no bearing on whether it is true or false.

It is not necessary for me to prove anything, but I can explain why I consider it plausible that we can create self-aware machines. We know that every mental function correlates with physical activity in a brain. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume a causal connection between that physical activity and mental events. For one thing, we know that we can invariably control conscious activity by introducing physical changes to brain chemistry. If a brain's physical activity can give rise to cognition, then there is no reason to assume that other physical media would be incapable of producing it. Perhaps we will discover some unique property of physical brains that suggests otherwise, but we have not discovered it yet.

Then solve these simple problems, and when you do, invite me to Oslo.

These are not "problems". You have tried to provide a list of differences between computers and brains, but the list is completely irrelevant. I'll provide brief comments, but you really need to learn more about AI programming.

Brains are analogue; computers are digital.

So what? Analogue and digital computers can perform the same calculations.

The brain uses content-addressable memory.

Which can be simulated in computers. Did you not know this?

The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.

Did you not realize that parallel computing can be implemented in single-cpu computers? Also, are you unaware of the existence of parallel computing? I don't get what you hope to accomplish by this list.

Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.

Why do you think that processing speed matters or will always be an issue? I don't. In any case, brains (and bodies), like computers, are full of "clocks"--cycles that can be used to measure the passage of time. If brains had no "clocks", humans would not be able to create music or move rhythmically.

Short-term memory is not like RAM.

It does not need to be. You can use computers to simulate brain activity.

No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.

I agree, but why is this even relevant? Software is just the set of instructions that dictate a sequence of cpu executions. The emergent system is caused by the hardware activity, whether software-driven or not.

Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.

Irrelevant. The complexity can be computationally simulated.

Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "processing" here. That is a very general term. Memory is a very complex thing, and there are different components of the brain that seem to play functional roles with respect to memory. The brain is not functionally homogeneous.

The brain is a self-organizing system.

So? You can create computer applications that exhibit self-organizing behavior. Again, I get the impression that you are completely ignorant of AI programming techniques, not to mention other types of programming.

Brains have bodies.

So do robot "brains".

 

[Father Heathen]

I view it as irrational to assume that death is permanent.

How is it irrational when there is no evidence to the contrary?

 

[839311]

How is it irrational when there is no evidence to the contrary?

We don't have evidence about whether or not the cosmos is infinite. We don't have evidence about whether or not the cosmos is eternal. Would you say that it is irrational to assume one way or the other based on personal fancy? Or can we use our reason to come up with arguments in favor of the various possibilities?

The fact that there is no evidence to the contrary doesn't prove that human physical death is permanent. The mere fact of your existence should tell you that its possible for you to exist. So why couldn't you exist again? Why couldn't you have existed before? Are you going to make another assumption and assume that the cosmos did not exist prior to the big bang, just because our physicists can't figure that out yet and don't have the evidence?

You have faith that death is permanent, nothing more.

 

[zenzero]

Friend 839....,

Faith in permanent death

The TRUTH that something dies is also TRUE as much is that something never dies and this requires a different understanding which needs to be understood.
A BEING is like water which is solid [ice] at one end i.e. the human form and vapour at the other end [spirit] which cannot be seen.
The body of that state of ice dies is true for the human body too but that it transforms to vapour or spirit cannot be seen is also true.
Love & rgds

 

[839311]

The TRUTH that something dies is also TRUE as much is that something never dies and this requires a different understanding which needs to be understood.

A BEING is like water which is solid [ice] at one end i.e. the human form and vapour at the other end [spirit] which cannot be seen.
The body of that state of ice dies is true for the human body too but that it transforms to vapour or spirit cannot be seen is also true.
Love & rgds

Perhaps. So what do you think it is like to be 'vapour'?

 

[zenzero]

Friend 839...,

Perhaps. So what do you think it is like to be 'vapour'?

There is no perhaps as it is already there.
What every being is, is at one end solid and vapor at the other.
The vapour does not feel anything to be in any state as its all the same.

Love & rgds

 

[839311]

The vapour does not feel anything to be in any state as its all the same.

I don't get it. You'll have to go into more concrete ideas, and try not to put too much of a mystical spin on it for my sake

 

[Koldo]

You have faith that death is permanent, nothing more.

Faith is a not good choice of word here.
It would be like saying that scientists have faith that the gravity exists.
It just sounds...odd.

At the end of the day we just make use of Occam's razor, and let it be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there evidence for a permanent death? If not, belief in a permanent death is faith-based.

This is demonstrably false. We have ample evidence that thought is a product of the circuitry of a functioning brain, even though
our understanding is quite primitive. When the brain dies, & the circuitry has no signs of functioning (eg, thought, control of the
body, electrical activity), then it is reasonable to presume that thought also stops functioning. So belief that permanent death
happens is based upon logical arguments with premises of physical laws & processes. To believe that thought survives the device
which supports it, & to do so without evidence, is not reasonable. This is not to say that it is impossible, but rather that it would
be an undetectable supernatural event. Belief in such would be magical thinking.

 

[zenzero]

Friend 839,

I don't get it. You'll have to go into more concrete ideas, and try not to put too much of a mystical spin on it for my sake

Sorry, presently am not in any position to be able to address the issue you mention; however there exists immense scope for you to transcend the mind to be in oneness in understanding of what am discussing.

Love & rgds

 

[Otherright]

@ Copernicus you are bold
You have a habit of not answering questions posed to you, but you feel uninhibited about demanding answers from others. Your position is essentially an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how to prove a claim true has no bearing on whether it is true or false.

Read through, I explained it repeatedly. I have no problem answering questions.

It is not necessary for me to prove anything, but I can explain why I consider it plausible that we can create self-aware machines. We know that every mental function correlates with physical activity in a brain. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume a causal connection between that physical activity and mental events.

Right, you've made a presumption, that's all.

For one thing, we know that we can invariably control conscious activity by introducing physical changes to brain chemistry. If a brain's physical activity can give rise to cognition, then there is no reason to assume that other physical media would be incapable of producing it. Perhaps we will discover some unique property of physical brains that suggests otherwise, but we have not discovered it yet.

All current research is leaning in the direction that consciousness is formed as an emergent property at the quantum level.


So what? Analogue and digital computers can perform the same calculations.

But the human brain doesn't process information in the same way and you know it doesn't and that has a huge impact on its ability to be self-aware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable_memory

I don't get what you hope to accomplish by this list.

Hey, these aren't my issue. These are the issues of people trying to create AI. My issues lie in consciousness and neurology.


Again, I get the impression that you are completely ignorant of AI programming techniques, not to mention other types of programming.

No, I'm not an expert in it, but I'm not ignorant of it. Let me tell you what I do know a little bit about, neurology. I don't have to be an expert in AI programming to tell you that they are not even remotely the same thing. But since you are obviously an expert in AI, then you know the challenges, and you should know this list.

 

[Copernicus]

...Therefore, it is reasonable to presume a causal connection between that physical activity and mental events.

Right, you've made a presumption, that's all.

No, I've made a conclusion based on plainly observable evidence.

All current research is leaning in the direction that consciousness is formed as an emergent property at the quantum level.

This generalization is utterly false. There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is connected to the quantum level, although there is a popular pseudoscientific movement that is sometimes called "quantum mysticism", which advocates a connection.

So what? Analogue and digital computers can perform the same calculations.

But the human brain doesn't process information in the same way and you know it doesn't and that has a huge impact on its ability to be self-aware.

I think that you have completely missed the point. Computers can be programmed to simulate the same type of information processing that goes on in a human brain. We are already building autonomous robots that react to their environments in increasingly sophisticated ways. In principle, we should be able to build machines that behave like people. Self-awareness is a goal of AI nowadays.

Hey, these aren't my issue. These are the issues of people trying to create AI. My issues lie in consciousness and neurology.

I'm sorry but your list has nothing at all to do with AI. It is just an attempt to list differences between brains and computers that ignores the fact that computers can be configured to do what human brains do.

No, I'm not an expert in it, but I'm not ignorant of it. Let me tell you what I do know a little bit about, neurology. I don't have to be an expert in AI programming to tell you that they are not even remotely the same thing. But since you are obviously an expert in AI, then you know the challenges, and you should know this list.

I know that the things you list as challenges are not challenges at all in AI. As for neurology, you have yet to show how it is unreasonable, in principle, to think that we can build machines that can replicate neural behavior.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

What ever happens to you I definitely don't think and religious believe or a ritual of 18 rote learnt words with a small christening mug of water("I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost") will make any difference to you whatsoever.

 

[LuisDantas]

But the human brain doesn't process information in the same way and you know it doesn't and that has a huge impact on its ability to be self-aware.

That is an ungrounded statement. The human brain is a physical object that processes information on fairly well-understood principles based on electrical currents.

There is no good reason to assume, much less state, that it has any inherent significant difference to computers that can't ever be overcome.

If anything, the way it can be reproduced by biological means is much more unique than its information processing capabilities.

As for you demanding proof that death isn't permanent, I can only assume that you are very enamoured to the idea that it isn't. It isn't reasonable to doubt something that has been established literally billions of times with only legendary and very rare challenge.

 

[Nooj]

.....why have you decided to put your faith in the idea that when we die we permanently cease to exist?

It feels right.

Atheism would be far more attractive to people if it acknowledged the possibility of life after death.

Atheism doesn't say anything about the afterlife. Atheism is a position regarding gods.

Why should being attractive be a consideration?

 

[PolyHedral]

Brains are analogue; computers are digital.

You could build an analogue computer, it just wouldn't be useful. Additionally, it's a mathematical fact that a detailed enough digital signal can perfectly duplicate a given analogue one.

The brain uses content-addressable memory.

What do you mean? Associative memory is a data structure, not anything to do with the hardware.

The brain is a massively parallel machine; computers are modular and serial.

Watson had 2,880 processors. The Blue Gene P supercomputer has half a million. That is not "serial" by any sense of the term.

Processing speed is not fixed in the brain; there is no system clock.

Asynchronous hardware was investigated, though I didn't see anything come of it.

Short-term memory is not like RAM.

[citation needed]

No hardware/software distinction can be made with respect to the brain or mind.

On the contrary, the vocabulary makes the distinction. The brain is a squidgy thing made out of billions of cells; the mind is the software being ran by the brain.

Synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates.

We can make artificial neurons, if it's a problem.

Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain.

Field Programmable Gate Arrays and memristors both perform similar functions. You could integrate both into a computing system if you had reason to.

The brain is a self-organizing system.

The brain has a Von Neumann assembler attached to it. That's cheating.

Brains have bodies.

Computers have robots. So?