l0rd

Again, we come to the conclusion that you are either denying the possibility that human brain activity will be replicated or that we have a soul. (either of which are reasonable viewpoints) Adrenal it seems you believe in the mysticism of the human "soul" too. So, these simple chemical processes can't be replicated because their outcome (for some reason) must only be ascribed to a living organism? As in most things, there are a multitude of ways to arrive at the same answer. Who says we can't replace human body part X and replace it with robot part Y, and still have it equal the same product? It seems like you think AI technology is trying to, atom-by-atom, construct a human body; all science needs to know to replicate something by machine is its final product, and a piece of hardware that is able to achieve that product. Also, I don't know why you brought up what defines a living thing. My argument wasn't that a robot could be living, but that it could achieve genuine emotion and a the aforementioned "you".

That last sentence gave me brain fart so bad :lol: Ok, now that I've finally figured it out, I don't think it's that illogical. Obviously we haven't succeeded yet in replicating an entire human brain(or soul I suppose) with the technology we have. Having programmed for quite some time, I can say with some certainty that the current computing capabilities we have aren't capable of creating anything as complex as the human mind. We can replicate and even improve on certain aspects of the human persona but never create anything better. For example, a computer, at least one running in a similar fashion to the ones we have today, will never be able to have "free will". I don't mean that in the deep physiological/moral manner that some do; but rather as the ability to chose. When I started school, my professors always made it a priority to stress just one fact: "A computer will do exactly what you tell it to do, nothing more, nothing less". This means that every time a computer appears to be "thinking" for itself, it is merely doing what it is supposed to do when presented with a certain situation. Obviously this comes in incredibly handy for limited applications of the human mind but the in depth things, the ability to chose, the ability to decipher right and wrong, the ability to do things that don't make sense....the way computers are now, at this moment, restrict any truly perfect artificial intelligence. No need to lecture about the lack of randomness in computing. I don't think you can say that there is not a possibility of random code in the future, and thus free will. Even without free will, and without randomness in code, I believe a perceiving mind's ability to "feel" something is not necessarily hindered. There are animals that don't think, acting in a uniform way according to their current situation, and still have the ability to perceive genuinely.

Nice rebuttal. Still, I am concerned that you say these things without any apparent background in robotics or programming. AI's aren't programmed with human traits and emotions, their programmed with command codes to imitate them. Please don't base a scientific argument in Hollywood, and please don't think that my denial of the likelyhood of one esoteric thing means that I'm contradicting myself when I mention a different esoteric thing. Am I even using the word esoteric right here? I'm not sure. Someone help me here. I mean like spiritual, or unique to the human race, something unknown and/or not understood fully. Like the formentioned soul and "fuzzy logic." Anyways, I'm saying this stuff that can't be replicated is based in our biology, not in our spiritual whatchamacallits. Btw, I never said the soul doesn't exist. I just said there's no reason to believe it does. Call it what you want, but seems to me like this un-replicable "thing" within us would have to be nonphysical for it to be totally ruled out of technological possibility (are you describing a soul? hmm). I know my ideas have been conceived from science-fiction, but it is illogical to deny the possibility that in the future, the human mind's brain activity will not be replicated by AI.

Definitely not real. No mainstream news source says he is dead.

I saw something similar to this on a lyric interpretation site. In late May, someone wrote that he would die in a few weeks. I don't see any discussion value here, unless it would be about hacking, which is against TIF rules.

Okay, lets break this down. Emotion is a phenomenon that occurs when a perceiving mind reacts to the world around it. Emotion is obviously not restricted to the confine of human mind, as shown by many animals. Who is to say that if an android was programmed with human traits, reactions, and moods, that it would not feel emotion? How can you say that there is something that makes an animal emotion felt by animals, while saying that the soul doesn't exist? In that you are denying one esoteric thing, and accepting the presence of another(the presence of something "special" un-replicatable by technology)?

Wongtong, a couple more female-written novel suggestions I thought of: The House of the Spirits by Isabella Allende, Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Hurston, Journey into the Whirlwind by Yevgenia Ginzburg.

OH NOES, I have excited Godzilla Goddess!

Exactly! And that's what I'm so excited about. Who's to say energy doesn't perceive without consciousness? :thumbsup: I really hope there is more information around soon! Haha, now reading my post I think you've actually changed my view on a couple things here. But I still don't think that after something has ceased to live, what used to make it up would still retain perception. It requires a complex structure to perceive. [hide=something I was thinking about earlier]Okay, so you know that movie A.I., where that young child robot is manufactured with a personality. After his adopted mother abandons him he searched for thousands of years, longing to get to see his mother again. In the movie he seemingly has a genuine consciousness and emotions. Who is to say that a conscious being has to be made by nature? What separates a robot with emotion and intelligent equivalent to that of a human? All the same pieces are there, why can't a "you" be formed?[/hide]

So you're saying that we share the same energy ideology; however, you believe that particular mass has no consciousness, therefore will experience nothingness? I guess that is kind of like a box jellyfish, it has no brain yet it exists and has the capacity to kill. What I was talking about is the actual existence, in that concept, there is no such thing as nothingness. However, if we are talking about the existence experiencing nothingness, I am still researching as I don't think that one has actually been proven yet, it's still theoretical. Something I do find highly fascinating though is how the box jellyfish has 4 eyes and can process what it sees, yet has no consciousness. How can it process what it sees if it has no brain? It's a mystery. Hmm interesting.. But who is the say that the brain is the only method a living creature must use to perceive the world around it. Think about single-celled organisms and bacteria. I believe these brainless living things still perceive the world, as does the box jellyfish. The very definition of the word "deeper" doesn't mean better. Wouldn't you agree that talking about the metabolization process in the human body is not as "deep" as talking about the impalpable root of human consciousness? Just because all the parts exist when dead from starvation as when alive and healthy, doesn't mean that these parts are the same. You must learn how the body actually takes in the food, makes it a part of the body, then absorbs its energy from there. Food is of no extra importance in this thread than any other bodily function, it is not a quintessential cause of anything.

What the heck, just because eating food maintains the consciousness doesn't mean it is any more important than blood pumping from your heart, which also maintains consciousness. No one is talking about metabolized energy. Just because we used the word "energy" you assumed we were, but we weren't. Stay on topic please, and this will be the last time I'm addressing the irrelevance of your posting in this thread.

Yes, you were the one who brought up the atomic energy part. Consciousness exists as the brain and signals in the brain, all of which are dependent on metabolized energy. I didn't bring it up, it was (presumably) part of someones argument regarding the content of this thread. I already told you, we were not reffering to "energy" as metabolized energy in the human body, stop bringing it up. Eating food is no more important in this argument than knowing that the heart pumps blood.

Nope, atoms get energy from having mass. more info Individual atoms have a certain amount of energy because they are mass. Mass and energy can be substituted for each other. Your brain uses energy it gets from glucose stored in your body, and while it is only 2% of your body weight normally it uses around 25% of the total energy that your body uses. Comparing atomic energy to metabolized energy in the human body is like comparing zebras to the bible. Lets stay on topic here.

Nope, atoms get energy from having mass. more info

I believe that without a complete body, and thus without consciousness, you will be experiencing nothingness. For there to be something to experience after death, we would need to have some way of perceiving it. Separated atoms alone can't perceive in any way shape or form. If they could, and as I said earlier, we would be perceiving things all over the place, given the rapid pace that we molecules. I think Goddess was referring to the actual energy exuded by each and every atom, or esoteric energy that causes consciousness.

Thus proving my point but looking at it in a different way. These physical parts of the body can be compared to a hydrogen atom in the sun. When the atom is expelled, it becomes no more than a drifting hydrogen atom, and is no more of a part of the sun than the hydrogen atoms in your tap water. Our lone body parts are nothing more than meets the eye, but when utilized they create our impalpable consciousness.

I don't believe everything is made out of energy, but rather energy is created by everything. Everything referring to the physical, and consciousness is not physical. I believe it is strictly a byproduct of the human mind interacting with the body.

You only exist as a final product of the body you are made of. Sure, all of the molecules in your body will no longer work towards this creation of the "you" when you die, they will go somewhere else. However, this cycle of molecules still happens when you are alive; in about twenty years from now you will be made of none or a very small amount of the atoms which make up your body today. That is why I think it is irrelevant to talk about your actual body. The poll is addressing your consciousness and the "you" which allows you to perceive.

We live in such a community, where compliments can't be exchanged between men without it being homosexual? I'm not homosexual, but I avoid complimenting of any kind to other males to avoid this very reaction. It seems like some people are so homophobic that they feel the need to interject or accuse someone of being homosexual to affirm their own sexuality.

"Genre(s) - Jazz, house, dance, eurodance, pop, scat rap" Not really techno. Hmmpf, labeling someone a king of something who is not legally one is already ambiguous enough for opinions on his kingship. Although Scatman didn't make techno music, he definitely gave influence to it as a genre.

King of rock - Elvis Presley: Deceased. King of rap - Tupac: Deceased. King of techno - Scatman John: Deceased. King of pop - Michael Jackson: Deceased. King of the Jews - Jesu........ :-# and now... King of commercial and thumbs-upping - Billy Mays: Deceased. 'Tis a sad time for us Oxyclean aficionados. :(

Aye. Not that I have any experience running a family, but it always seems like the families with the most rules implemented are the least happy. I say set example and lead your kids in a direction to make them want to be good, instead of treating them like high-security inmates. Freedom is the is root of forbearance. Oh, and WB Goddess after your posting-respite. :D

Either you are outgoingly honest and brusque or all that Lil' Wayne music is going to your head 8-).

Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible was the first that came to mind, not that I liked it all that much. If you are looking for a very feminine narrative, there is always Anne Frank's diary. I also recently read Outsourcing IT: The Legal Aspects by Rachel Burnett, for a school research paper. :-k

First summer since the 90's that I won't be playing any games.