Agi And Personhood

[old_nick]

Nope.

I cited peer-reviewed cited documents arguing otherwise. And your evidence is where?

The simple fact remains that you cannot choose if you are not conscious..

Choice is the act of judging from a tree of options and selecting from among them. Consciousness is not required for that, merely evaluation. Evaluation does not require conscious effort. Indeed, the vast majority of choices we ourselves make do not even register in our consciousness.

Equivocation. When you speak of experiencing something, you are speaking of the interaction of your consciousness with your environment. A person who is truly unconscious experiences nothing, not even dreams or the passage of time...

From the OED:

Knowledge resulting from actual observation or from what one has undergone.

As I said, pattern matching aptitude over accessed memory. Consciousness is not required. Merely the ability to access memory of events undergone and derive meaningful data from it.

If you wish to suggest that a philosopher has nothing to add on this subject, I will be curious as to why you posted all of this in the philosophy section of the forum.

Because I am discussing the philosophy underlying the nature of personhood, an abstract concept. Whereas consciousness is not an abstract concept, it is a result dependent upon physical phenomena. If you'd like to quote the gentleman's thoughts on personhood, have at it, I'd like to hear what he thinks. But as consciousness is a physical phenomenon, it'd best be served by studies of such physical phenomena. A philosopher's view, however interesting, is really meaningless in terms of the underlying mechanistic processes.

Otherwise, I'll have to take that as a fairly lame attempt at well-poisoning.

I'm not poisoning the well at all. I am not posting unsavory information about him as a person in an attempt to discredit him as a person. A poisoning of the well tends to sit a little close to an ad hominem. At best I would be using appeal to authority in my own sources, though even that would be a stretch on my part. No, posting that a philosophy professor is ill-suited to discuss an issue he is not trained in is not a poisoning of the well. A good try, though.

[Bro. Hex]

Emulation is to match or surpass a given accomplishment. A sociopath doesn't emulate emotions. The word you're looking for is simulate which is an imitation of an action or quality. There is a distinction there and an important one.

I don't mean to to nit-pick, but ...

em·u·late/ˈemyəˌlāt/

Verb:

• Match or surpass (a person or achievement), typically by imitation.
  
• Imitate.
  

I think the word that would fit your intended meaning is: either "manifest" or "exhibit".

[old_nick]

I don't mean to to nit-pick, but ...

em·u·late/ˈemyəˌlāt/

Verb:

• Match or surpass (a person or achievement), typically by imitation.
  
• Imitate.
  

I think the word that would fit your intended meaning is: either "manifest" or "exhibit".

It says typically, it is not a hard and fast limitation of the definition. My use is still 100% accurate and will remain as emulate is a much more apt description for the processes undergone during an emotional state, at least in terms of state systems.

[Atwater Vitki]

Well, since you asked for opinions....

"1)First the use of artificial, should the word artificial be used? ... I prefer the phrase machine intelligence, which is in somewhat common use already.

2)For those who believe in souls ...do you think a machine intelligence would have a soul? ... I am genuinely curious about how those who do believe in such things would approach it.

3)Marriage. Should "adult" machine intelligence be allowed to wed other machine intelligence? ... I see no reason to limit their personal freedom for arbitrary distinctions."

(1) Machine Intelligence is a good enough distinction, seems to me, would be comprised some form of computer driven "individual" or another. Binary. Yes/No, On/Off, Right/Wrong.... that, as others have pointed out removes all areas of gray to a purely black or white "consciousness", if that is even remotely what a AI or MI could obtain. Yes, I do understand that "computers" have also evolved into something a bit more than mere binary coding, ah Quantum Computations or something like that, but still based on practically the same method of achieving results. Regardless of the many "resources" shown above does not show me or prove to me that MI/AI could be capable of "emotions". Emulation requires a conscious decision, therefore I also have to agree that 'manifested' or 'exhibited' responses are better terms. Even organic computers, as have been suggested in other theories, would still be in the "artificial" category, regardless of the physical makeup of those components. (A long time, good friend of mine works on "thinking" and "self teaching" programming at HP. His evaluation is is , regardless of the end result, it all still begins with basic programming being applied by a human. The fact that it can make choices, based on it's accumulated experiences and past processes, does not make the computer alive or truly a thinking machine. Highly capable, but not "alive". Guess we'll see what the future holds for the industry.)

The possibility of emotional responses being added to the "tree of choice" the calculated outcome would not be based on "love" or "hate", lust, envy, greed, anger, affection.. etc etc any of the numerous emotional states, the outcome would merely be based on the longer list of available choices applied to the situation, not true emotion. Bottom line is, the range of emotions we "humans" experience are something quite unique to homo-sapiens. Some animals such as high primates and even other mammals have a short list of basic emotional response mechanisms, but are not processed through the same means as we do; i.e.; logic, rationale, reasoning. I'd like to believe my cats are all capable of "love" as their actions of affection sure seem to indicate that, but the purring fur-bucket in my lap right now is I'm sure, just "content" with itself at being warm and comfy. (Animal lovers, please don't misconstrue my words, I'm sure you understand what I mean! )

(2) Nope, just don't see how/where AI/MI would ever have the same emotional index that humans do, regardless of the astronomically high improbability of having a "soul". Science can explain nearly every atomic structure of the human body, understands cell structure, synapse connections, DNA and RNA sequencing, etc etc etc, but the "Spark of Life", the kick switch, to us being conscious human beings, with a conscience, still evades science. That one simplistic little detail is why I firmly believe in a "Soul". IMO, our soul is what separates us HU-mans from the high primates and all other forms of living matter. Call it what you will, explain it away with all the data and resources you wish, but until science can explain "what" gives us this unique separation from all other lifeforms, not just a meat sack with a pulse and the instinctual ability to feed itself, I'll continue to call it a "Soul". The mere fact we can idealize our own mortality and conceptualize "Faith" and "Belief", be those theosophies right, wrong or indifferent, divides us most conclusively from other known "life" here on Earth.

(3) As far as the ability to marry, I'm certain the courts would give that the same amount of attention to this as anything else....at least decades of "opinions" by Chief Justices...and in the end would come up with something grand like "SATA Coupling" or "Artificial Intelligence Interfacing", but "marriage" would remain exclusive to HU-mans. One only need look at the mess the courts have made of the LGBT community of human beings and the right to marry to see that one coming.

Yup, just my opinion on the topic, I'm not out to disprove or sway anyone else's same.

Blessings of Peace,

[old_nick]

Atwater, I'll be giving a detailed reply later(in a good way, I think you'll enjoy it, but I am pinched for time at the moment). My question is, as a rune reader, if machine intelligence does get to at least a human level in terms of emotion, creativity, intelligence, et cetera, do you think it would derive the same level of insight from runes that you feel yourself and other human rune readers to?

[Atwater Vitki]

Atwater, I'll be giving a detailed reply later(in a good way, I think you'll enjoy it, but I am pinched for time at the moment). My question is, as a rune reader, if machine intelligence does get to at least a human level in terms of emotion, creativity, intelligence, et cetera, do you think it would derive the same level of insight from runes that you feel yourself and other human rune readers to?

Same, that will require a detailed answer later....something I'll have to put preconceived ideas about aside. I look forward to an exchange on that...actually quite an interesting question.

Blessings Be,

[old_nick]

Binary. Yes/No, On/Off, Right/Wrong.... that, as others have pointed out removes all areas of gray to a purely black or white "consciousness", if that is even remotely what a AI or MI could obtain.

Except that is not what machine intelligence would be. The building blocks at the lowest levels would of course occur as binaries. But guess what, so it is in your brain as well. The vast majority of neurons function with binary output. Indications are that what we perceive as consciousness is a result of emergence, that is to say a great many relative simple things working to create an incredibly complex thing. Consciousness appears to be an emergent process coming from the combination of our brain's functions. There is no reason or indication to believe machine intelligence would be otherwise. So we wouldn't be giving a simple list of boolean values(binary truth values) with fire.good = false, sex.good = true, and suchlike. But a whole composite structure which is itself designed to dynamically grow or shrink based upon the perceived experiences of the machine intelligence itself. These dynamic and interrelated values would form aspects of the mi's memory and would be accessed via neural networks(which are algorithms that are themselves designed to mimic aspects of the human brain and find their way into everything from Google search to stock market predictors). I'll give a quick primer on neural networks(albeit simplified, no need for heads exploding this morning) as they are of great importance to understanding the subject.

Neural networks are, as I noted, are an algorithm set designed to replicate the way biological neural networks function. In your brain, biological neurons are interconnected through a great web of synapses. Exciting one of these causes a sort of chain reaction causing the signal to fan out and excite other neurons. The most interesting impact this has, in my opinion, is on memory. Neuron pathways to one another are strengthened by repetition and record data nonspecifically. If you've ever been browsing your memories and remarked at how quickly you can go off on side tangents, this is why. Your memory is triggering not only the event you're recalling, but every other related memory that has triggered strong synaptic growth along those neurons. Neural networks in computers work the same way. It builds a base neuron as a collection of information and then creates mathematic depth between the neurons forming connections between them. I'll borrow a small example memory database off the net for us to use(Jets vs Sharks is common in tutorials demonstrating neural networks, so anyone interested in learning can likely search a portion of this table and find ready to use examples of code behind it). This example is one using data mining with neural networks. I'm choosing it because it employs a fuzzy approach to unknowns which could be applied to deriving emotional states, emulating the predictive nature of intelligent interaction, et cetera.

The coloumns represent their names, affiliations, ages, highest level of education, marital status, and criminal occupations.

Art Jets 40 jh sing pusher

Al Jets 30 jh mar burglar

Sam Jets 20 col sing bookie

Clyde Jets 40 jh sing bookie

Mike Jets 30 jh sing bookie

Jim Jets 20 jh div burglar

Greg Jets 20 hs mar pusher

John Jets 20 jh mar burglar

Doug Jets 30 hs sing bookie

Lance Jets 20 jh mar burglar

George Jets 20 jh div burglar

Pete Jets 20 hs sing bookie

Fred Jets 20 hs sing pusher

Gene Jets 20 col sing pusher

Ralph Jets 30 jh sing pusher

Phil Sharks 30 col mar pusher

Ike Sharks 30 jh sing bookie

Nick Sharks 30 hs sing pusher

Don Sharks 30 col mar burglar

Ned Sharks 30 col mar bookie

Karl Sharks 40 hs mar bookie

Ken Sharks 20 hs sing burglar

Earl Sharks 40 hs mar burglar

Rick Sharks 30 hs div burglar

Ol Sharks 30 col mar pusher

Neal Sharks 30 hs sing bookie

Dave Sharks 30 hs div pusher

So, through testing excitory/inhibitory connections, we can derive information on unknown variables and make predictions built upon it. Let us say we excite the affiliation Sharks, then each individual Shark has the same level of excitation, a general recollection so to speak. But then let us say we excite the age 30 and marital status married as well. So this collection would allow us to derive various pieces of information from it. One being that each of them has been to college. Doing this gives us an ability to predict the chances of a future Shark being college educated. If he is 30 and married, we are safe to assume some higher education. Now, this is a simple example with few connections and an readily apparent result because of the connection being 100% between married 30 year old Sharks, which makes it nice as an example. But let us imagine a table with millions of rows and columns that dyanmically grow and shrink depending on experience and result. The results are less readily apparent and will have numerous contradictions, conflicts, and unexpected actions. This is how our brain appears to work(in part) and how a machine intelligence would work(in part) as well. Simple enough in principle, but when combined and emergent, incredibly complex.

So it's not really an issue of a simple yes or no, but of something being born of a dynamic complexity. This, I think, is where you hit some confusion. And, agree or not, I hope you appreciate the depth of complexity attainable(also, how cool math is).

Yes, I do understand that "computers" have also evolved into something a bit more than mere binary coding, ah Quantum Computations or something like that, but still based on practically the same method of achieving results.

A bit of a misunderstanding meriting an explanation(not as long as on neural networks, I promise). A quantum computer still works through a binary response just as traditional computing. So it's not practically the same, it's exactly the same. The difference comes in superposition, which allows a cubit to hold every possible state at once. The same basic math and boolean logic remains. Even the "cycle time" involved in iterative computations. But collapsing the state would make the apparent time to us drop dramatically. It's a bit esoteric and prone to making the head explode, but useful beyond words.

Regardless of the many "resources" shown above does not show me or prove to me that MI/AI could be capable of "emotions".

The citation resources above were posted in response to the claim no evidence supports consciousness as an emergent property, not directly to the intelligence and sentience of MI. Now, if those qualities are emergent as the data suggests, it would indeed sufficiently demonstrate that an MI could become capable of full intelligence, sentience, and sapience. That would be beyond argument. The question would then become whether or not we could ever develop the computational complexity required to realize it. Which is much more open to debate.

Emulation requires a conscious decision, therefore I also have to agree that 'manifested' or 'exhibited' responses are better terms.

I have to disagree on emulation requiring consciousness. Let us look at human communication as an example. Much of our communication is not at a conscious level and involves direct emulation in conveyance of ideas. Emulating the posture of a person with whom one is talking, for example, is a subconscious response to being friendly to what they have to say. If you want to see if a person likes what you have to say, change your posture and see if they follow suit. If you want to make a person friendlier and more prone to listening to you, adopt a posture similar to their own. Without constant attentiveness, a person betrays a great deal of information about their true thoughts and are easily swayed to yours. Why? Emulation as communication. It's how we've evolved and existed long before consciousness.

Even organic computers, as have been suggested in other theories, would still be in the "artificial" category, regardless of the physical makeup of those components.

I assume you mean DNA computing here. It's really not suited to generating a full machine intelligence. Too many trade offs for functionality. Hypothetically doable, but better solutions exist.

(A long time, good friend of mine works on "thinking" and "self teaching" programming at HP. His evaluation is is , regardless of the end result, it all still begins with basic programming being applied by a human. The fact that it can make choices, based on it's accumulated experiences and past processes, does not make the computer alive or truly a thinking machine. Highly capable, but not "alive". Guess we'll see what the future holds for the industry.)

It sounds like he works in data mining, which does indeed require steady training of the software. What I am describing is a framework that works much like a child. Born a blank slate which learns, develops, and matures over time. If a human having a hand in the birth of such a thing means it is artificial, then all humans are artificial as well. Data mining software seeks specific information from a collection of known data. It's a specific purpose tool and requires constant human tinkering. A fully sentient, sapient, intellignt MI would not.

The possibility of emotional responses being added to the "tree of choice" the calculated outcome would not be based on "love" or "hate", lust, envy, greed, anger, affection.. etc etc any of the numerous emotional states, the outcome would merely be based on the longer list of available choices applied to the situation, not true emotion.

No, emotional state wouldn't be dependent on a decision tree but full state awareness, which is how human emotion works as well not a set of switches but of complex interactions involving multiple states at multiple points in our wetware. It wouldn't be given a list of emotions from which it selects one and runs with it. Emotion would be an emergent property of aa whole host of factors.

Bottom line is, the range of emotions we "humans" experience are something quite unique to homo-sapiens. Some animals such as high primates and even other mammals have a short list of basic emotional response mechanisms, but are not processed through the same means as we do; i.e.; logic, rationale, reasoning.

This is patently false. Many animals have the full range of emotion we do and even employ logic and reasoning. The difference is their depth of intellectual understanding of those emotions. We are not unique in our emotional states, study the bonobo for a time and you'll see this. We aren't even unique in having logic and reasoning. We just have a greater depth of intelligence fueling that logic and reasoning. We aren't even unique in tool use. There are chimps in Senegal that have developed spears which they use for hunting and its use is spreading as they teach one another. There is even the beginnings of knife use by breaking the shaft of the spear to give them a short handle. So no, we aren't unique, just better able at what we do at an intellectual level. The last time I checked, having less intelligence did not mean the mentally handicapped were without emotion, cxu ne?

I'd like to believe my cats are all capable of "love" as their actions of affection sure seem to indicate that, but the purring fur-bucket in my lap right now is I'm sure, just "content" with itself at being warm and comfy. (Animal lovers, please don't misconstrue my words, I'm sure you understand what I mean! )

They are quite capable of love. Just not the same intellectual depth of understanding it as you are.

(2) Nope, just don't see how/where AI/MI would ever have the same emotional index that humans do, regardless of the astronomically high improbability of having a "soul".

I hope I've explained well how such a matched emotional index(even surpassed) is possible.

Science can explain nearly every atomic structure of the human body, understands cell structure, synapse connections, DNA and RNA sequencing, etc etc etc, but the "Spark of Life", the kick switch, to us being conscious human beings, with a conscience, still evades science.

Conscience appears to be a trait evolved to lend itself to social solidarity of our animal. You see highly similar traits in most grouping animals. And it would be incorrect to say either of those things evade science. We may not fully understand the whole of the mechanism of conscience, but we have seen how it functions in terms of the brains inhibitory response and are even capable of altering it to a degree with more and more knowledge of its functioning being uncovered every day. And as for us being alive, that is relatively well explained as well. The debate on when life begins is not one of general ignorance but of determining the point at which we cease treating our chemical processes as just chemical processes and consider them to be life in their own right. Our spark of life is just proteins unfolding. And we know more about the ways in which they unfold every day. We're a great big chemical process stretching back over eons.

That one simplistic little detail is why I firmly believe in a "Soul". IMO, our soul is what separates us HU-mans from the high primates and all other forms of living matter. Call it what you will, explain it away with all the data and resources you wish, but until science can explain "what" gives us this unique separation from all other lifeforms, not just a meat sack with a pulse and the instinctual ability to feed itself, I'll continue to call it a "Soul". The mere fact we can idealize our own mortality and conceptualize "Faith" and "Belief", be those theosophies right, wrong or indifferent, divides us most conclusively from other known "life" here on Earth.

But we're not unique and any separation we see is a result of ego. We're more intelligent. We process data slightly better than our nearest living kin and slightly less well than some of our departed kin(neanderthals had a higher intelligence than we). That doesn't make us special. It doesn't make us unique. Soul would be the only difference we have, the only way we're more unique than anything else. And it's imaginary. Humans created an imaginary thing to make ourselves unique. It's kind of sad and relatively telling of the human ego and its desire to be special.

(3) As far as the ability to marry, I'm certain the courts would give that the same amount of attention to this as anything else....at least decades of "opinions" by Chief Justices...and in the end would come up with something grand like "SATA Coupling" or "Artificial Intelligence Interfacing", but "marriage" would remain exclusive to HU-mans. One only need look at the mess the courts have made of the LGBT community of human beings and the right to marry to see that one coming.

People opposing civil rights is no decent reason to oppose civil rights. Do you think the LGBT community should be denied the ability to marry because "One only need look at the mess the courts have made of the mixed race community of human beings and the right to marry to see that one coming." Of course not. It is a ridiculous proposition.

Yup, just my opinion on the topic, I'm not out to disprove or sway anyone else's same.

I enjoyed reading your opinions and was glad to see you obviously put a lot of thought into the post. I don't mean to sound argumentative with my response. I believe an opinion is as valid as it is informed so I wanted to share a bit of insight into the concepts involved to help correct some misunderstandings and the like.

Blessings of Peace,

Have a groovy day.

Same, that will require a detailed answer later....something I'll have to put preconceived ideas about aside. I look forward to an exchange on that...actually quite an interesting question.

Blessings Be,

Yes, the question hit me when considering how people who believe in it tend to view divination as something more than an intellectual phenomena, but as something coming from deeper within.

It would be interesting, I think, to see if something akin to spirituality developed among machine intelligence. Then I'd get to argue against superstition with digital priests and shamans. The mind wanders.

[old_nick]

Broke the quotes somewhere and not seeing where. Could it be the length?

[Atwater Vitki]

Broke the quotes somewhere and not seeing where. Could it be the length?

Yes, it may be the number of quotes. I'm not sure, but I think there is a limit. Perhaps one of the admins could help with that answer?

And thank you for the detailed explanation, some convincing evidence to say the least. It's an awful lot for this ol' head to absorb, but I will apply my new found understandings to the question you posed, before posting...only one change I may consider at this point, but not done "absorbing" yet either!

I will post later today.

Blessings of Peace or Have a groovy day,

Whichever bloats the foat!!

Which Btw brings up a question:

Do you believe MI/AI could ever develop a sense of humor?

(Of course this goes back to many episodes of Star Trek, (Spock) ST New Gen (Cmdr Data) and more recently "Bi-Centennial Man" (Robin Williams)

[old_nick]

Yes, it may be the number of quotes. I'm not sure, but I think there is a limit. Perhaps one of the admins could help with that answer?

I thought perhaps it was a limit. I am unfamiliar with the software used for this forum so wouldn't go more beyond internal speculation. Nick 1, forum software 0.

And thank you for the detailed explanation, some convincing evidence to say the least. It's an awful lot for this ol' head to absorb, but I will apply my new found understandings to the question you posed, before posting...only one change I may consider at this point, but not done "absorbing" yet either!

I am glad you liked it. It's a topic of vested personal and professional interest to me and one I become as excited as a child on Christmas morning when discussing. I really believe it is where the future of our species is heading. Full AI, more complete BCI, greater depth of available body modification, et cetera. It makes me hopeful, really. As I see it, science has a history of providing us data useful to fulfilling the broken promises of superstition and religion. I see no reason this trend will stop. My dissertation was in networked immersive virtual realities. I may write up a small layman's overview of it when I move on to the mind uploading thread.

I will post later today.

Looking forward to it.

Blessings of Peace or Have a groovy day,

Whichever bloats the foat!!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foat

For a laugh.

Which Btw brings up a question:

Do you believe MI/AI could ever develop a sense of humor?

I think it would have to. The qualities required for intelligence, sapience, and sentience would require it, really. It's humor might be strange to us given its pleasure mechanisms and memories would be somewhat different, but for it to have sufficient scope of memory and emotion, humor would have to exist, to my mind.

[Atwater Vitki]

Nick,

I appreciate the far more than expected, in-depth response to explaining the nature of MI/AI. Quite a lesson that leads to many more questions, but for now, would it be okay for me to c/p your response to a .doc or .txt (word) file? I would enjoy being able to compare notes and able to read offline at my leisure.

“My question is, as a rune reader, if machine intelligence does get to at least a human level in terms of emotion, creativity, intelligence, et cetera, do you think it would derive the same level of insight from runes that you feel yourself and other human rune readers to? ”

“Heck no!” is as close to what my original thought was that I can post here. I will also have to quote you here as for my answer regarding the ability of a MI being able to do a rune reading. "....it's not really an issue of a simple yes or no, but of something being born of a dynamic complexity."

However, upon a bit more deliberation and thought, this has manifest itself into a multiple part answer. I do not agree that MI could reach an emotional state, in full as compared to humans, but I'll go with the possibility of at least a basic level being achieved. Something along the lines of what a cat or a dog may have and as improbable as I think it may be, perhaps even the “emotional state” obtained by higher primates could be considered. Just for the sake of being a bit open minded about it.

For the general mass of people, with the “usual” questions that are conferred upon the divination process, I would have to say it might be possible that a MI could indeed provide a suitable answer. I say that with the assumption that the MI has been given the enormous amount of history, logic, probabilities, motives and background insight into each of the runes. That said, I also apply that to the atypical request of “When will I meet Mr./Ms. “Right”? or “What do the runes think the outcome of my job interview will be?” Both of those, it is embarrassing to mention, how many times I have been asked.

A true, heart felt, Life Path Reading can take up to several hours or more and requires far more than a simple “Toss and Tell” as I call the “usual”. Regardless of the many runic academics that do not believe in any form of divination, a detailed, Life Path Guidance is what the divination process has been about since the first mentions of it in the sacred texts.⁽¹⁾

Let me give a short example of what I mean:

Take

uruz

, the second rune in the Elder Futhark. The aurochs rune. It represents a “u” in the alphabet and the numerological equivalent of “2”. It also encompasses the many facets of the aurochs; all things concerning with the herding such as grass lands, grazing, social animal attributes, climates and seasonal effects on the herd. Then there is the human consumption of which the choosing, slaughtering, cooking and preservation of the meat is considered. The skins, bones, sinew, hoofs etc for human uses. Then there is the breeding and raising of the calf, the territorial range and boundaries of the Alpha Bull, the buying, selling and trading of calves and cows for continued breeding selection and all the things that go along with that aspect. After all that, the acknowledged attributes of the animal of strength, being a mighty fighter, domestication for plowing or free range and many other factors are considered.

All of these factors, and the many more not listed, are taken into account by the “human reader” when making a determination as to how the rune would apply to an individual's reading. Whether the runes came up in prime or reversed order and its relationship to the other runes cast that are either placed, or have fallen next to it. (Depending on whether a “pull” or “casting”) We then add into the mix the divination process itself, the ability of the male or female reader⁽²⁾ and the comprehension skills of the person being read. So just in this rather limited example there are literally hundreds of things to be considered and sorted through to even begin to get to the nuts and bolts of a proper reading. It can, and does, wear out even a seasoned Reader to consider all of the various factors involved in an in-depth reading.

Let's assume that the MI has acquired the thousands of pieces of data required to have a sufficiently adequate data base of information from which to formulate its “reading”. Can the MI read people's eyes and body language, or would it merely mimic those things in a person to "person" reading? Would it be able to filter all the information through and actual experienced life or merely "programmed" life? Could it comprehend the slight nuances between instinctual and learned thought processes that must be filtered through in order to get a full meaning of all things concerned? And even if it could, would it then be able to apply the theoretical and theosophical aspects applied by the pantheon of gods and goddesses that also influence the ever so subtle differences in interpretation of each rune?

But of course, when we're talking about the masses and the flippant “need for guidance” it doesn't matter if the daily “horror-scope” or other postings in periodicals are the source or someone's life's blood is at their disposal. By tomorrow, they'll have forgotten every word and pass like the butterfly from flower to flower looking for something sweeter to nibble on.

If however, that rare individual comes along that respects the runes, tarot or any other form of divination for what its intended purpose is really meant to reveal, they will take that advice and apply it to their life, for Life and actually get a great deal of knowledge from it.

So this is why, at my commercial outlet, I simply give my “10 for 10”, ten minute read for ten bucks and have a number of regulars. On occasion, I'll get a serious inquiry and the feel of the whole process is quite different. Every now and again I'll get updates from people that are amazed, years later, how well the reading they had the patience to endure, is still providing them direction.

Could a machine provide that? I'd say perfect for the “10 for 10'ers” but I'm not so sure on a true, in-depth Life Path Reading as intended by the ancients and tradition.

Blessings of Peace,

Nick, just to let you know, some of what I responded above, did in fact change based on your explanation above from what I wrote yesterday. I even deleted several paragraphs based on statements provided in your answer, no sense covering redundant ground. Math and algorithms are not my field of study, and being a previous research and development mechanical designer/machinist (Sony Commercial Electronics) my main interests would be in the mechanical structure of the MI, not the “Mother board or chip set”.

I do realize that many of our human functions, even brain activity are indeed very machine like. Being a “human” who has experienced an awful lot in Life, been to many different countries, held a variety of jobs, associated with many different social strata...it is very difficult for me to fully accept any machine having the full range of emotions, conscious awareness or ability to reason in the same manner a human being does.

Difficult, but as time goes on, perhaps not impossible.

I also think that the sciences should begin now to redefine sentient and sapient life, before the issue of MI's come...I'm just very suspicious of how our system works and know that once an agenda has been set up for a specific thing, bias comes out of every crack in the wall!

Oh yeah, and one last thing, the comment on marrying...I believe, that should MI prove to be what you envision it to be, that somewhere along the line, yes indeed, "they" should be allowed to marry, providing a provable definition of "sentient/sapient life". I'm also sure the entire "definition process" would be made a mess of in the courts based on the known bias and prejudice of "human" judges, politicos and government officials. I meant, the mess that our political and legal system (courts) makes of every little thing is the "wrong" in society, not what can be defined by learned, thinking, rational people.

In our short history of America, I also believe, a good many learned, thinking, rational people have put those positive attributes aside to arise to their lofty positions of governance of the masses.

Reyn til runa!

Actually, I don't think I've had to break down the processes involved in a rune reading since taking my verbal Apprenticeship Exams at the Gild over 25 years ago to become a Vitki. Rune divination is far more than a simple process. It entails a bucket full of emotions, instincts and intellect that far surpass a simple a+b=c as far as a true, in-depth reading goes.

References:

(1) These texts are available only to certain High Redes and Yrmin-Drightens of the various Rune-Gilds. I've seen, but have not been allowed to read, two of these ancient manuscripts in Uppsala, Sweden and another set at Universitet in Stockholm.

My personal opinion is this is why there are so many high level Nordic/Germanic History academic nay sayers against rune divination because they are not privy to these texts. The Gilds have been a sacred, secretive right since around 450BCE and the best of them have held to these time honored traditions for nearly 2,500 years. That in and of itself is why I have so much faith in the ability of some of the Gild Ásatrú Folk that have kept these traditions alive for so long. What I have learned from the High Redes and Drightens (top dogs) is something I hold very dear to my heart and feel a great sense of honor in being trusted with even the tid-bits I've been given.

(2) Yes, the gender of the reader does have an influence on the reading. It is due to the experienced Life mentioned and that men and women have very different mind-sets towards numerous things. Naturally this is not a bad thing, but in explaining this answer to the question does have bearing. There are in fact gender specific Rune-Gilds and both, male and female associated, requiring at least 5 years of study within a mingled gild before applying to the “Frey” or “Freyja” branches.

[old_nick]

It'll be a while before I can respond, sometime this evening, likely. But yes, go ahead and save copies to browse through as you like. If you're looking for some related suggested reading while doing it, I suggest any primer on genetics algorithms for some theory on fuzzy solutions and anything on Hopfield Nets as a simple run on neural networking practice(they're about as easy as it gets in my opinion).

[Atwater Vitki]

LOL on the foat!! Honestly, I had no idea!

One other thing you mentioned above Nick, being "passionate about" your MI/AI work.

There is an emotion that I find a bit of difficulty in understanding just "how" a 'machine' could develop, regardless of the type of "software".

You have a passion for MI/AI as I do about the runes, I personally find it very difficult to explain, in short, just exactly what it is that makes the runes such a emotional thing for me. Only because I understand my own passion about a topic, can I understand yours for MI. Do I feel the same about MI? Well no, because I'm not involved with it. However, if I were to be on the R&D mechanical aspects of design/machining/building it, like I was for the BVE and DTR at Sony, I suppose I could be. Odhinn! I miss the smell of cutting fluid and blue print paper in the morning!! (OOops, guess that "dated" me didn't it?)

You may come to understand the runes, but could you ever become passionate about them? Probably not.

Having that overwhelming, nothing else matters, focused passion for something is an attribute of our emotional response I find great difficulty in accepting a construct of aluminum, latex and circuit boards could ever achieve. (Somehow I envision the MI as being quite similar to Commander Data (Bruce Spiner) on STNG...a rather featureless, and expressionless near human in appearance.)

Have a groovy, Blessed Day!

[Atwater Vitki]

"It would be interesting, I think, to see if something akin to spirituality developed among machine intelligence. Then I'd get to argue against superstition with digital priests and shamans. The mind wanders."

But let's wander ahead 500 years.

Scenario:

In 2173 a comet hits the earth and wipes out all "human life" and the MI "rebuild", being the only intelligent life left. Let's say 10% of the animals and 50% of oceanic life also remained.

By 2390 most of civilization has been reconstructed and rebuilt on the damaged, but partially still embedded memories of the several thousand MI's that were left after the "Fireball in the Sky". All of the original MI's had basically worn out. All they left in their memory chips was the idea of the "Creator" and being humanoid in appearance were "created in His image" "His"= Old Nick, who built the first fully functioning MI, sometime before the Great Fireball.

As those original memories were uploaded into the rest of the MI's thinking, it remained an unused, unnecessary memory for another 200 years.

2499 rolls along and some MI, a bit bored with his existence stumbles across that memory while cleaning out files and doing a full defrag on his hard drive and goes "Whoa! We were created in Old Nick's image!?! What is an "Old Nick"? Due to the comet, many of the orig MI's memories were corrupted and all records of humans and the original MI's are gone, forever, but this one MI, let's call him Abraman II, processes these few little tid-bits of information and comes up with the idea that if "We, the MI's were "created", that must mean everything else was too!" Oh whoa hey! "Dudes! Aaron III and Jacob 6! C'mon over here! Upload this stuff man!"

By 2512 nearly all MI's have uploaded this little tid-bit an thus dawns a new, universally accepted thought process for MI's.... "Old Nick created the heavens and the earth and us too! This has to be one awesome, Omnicient MI!" (MI's were created in "his image" = Old Nick was MI to their concept of thinking)

With nothing else to compare notes with, who knows what the MI's 500 years in the future would "think" about their Beginning.....

With an open mind, just process the thought and you could easily be arguing known belief with MI priests and shaman in the future!

Blessings of Peace,

I better stop here and copyright this line of thought, Spielberg could make gazillions off this one!!! Avatar™, ha! MI the New Frontiers (©2011 DKjono)....priceless!

[mark 45]

even tho you both have lost me,my question is to rev al.in the scenerio you just used,you have basically said that "christianity" would be the"belief system",execpt that in this case"old nick"is god(actually i find humor in that on several levels).i'm wondering why mi/ai would have questions concerning creation?i know most humans do,therefore the plethera of beliefs,non beliefs,and plain"i don't know".

anyhow,before i get to far off topic,i am still at somewhat of a loss.on some levels,i understand in terms of commander data,and even asimov.and some i even sense could relate to the foundation series.

[Fawzo]

I don't see how 1 and 0 's can have emotions. They may be able to mimic emotions like the emoticons, But is she really as ecstatic as she seems

[Dan56]

I don't see how 1 and 0 's can have emotions. They may be able to mimic emotions like the emoticons, But is she really as ecstatic as she seems

Apparently emotions, love, and beliefs are just neurological phenomena and nothing more. Remove that part of the brain and you have a machine, or short circuit the ones and zero's of a software program and you have a human.

[Atwater Vitki]

even tho you both have lost me,my question is to rev al.in the scenerio you just used,you have basically said that "christianity" would be the"belief system",execpt that in this case"old nick"is god(actually i find humor in that on several levels).i'm wondering why mi/ai would have questions concerning creation?i know most humans do,therefore the plethera of beliefs,non beliefs,and plain"i don't know".

anyhow,before i get to far off topic,i am still at somewhat of a loss.on some levels,i understand in terms of commander data,and even asimov.and some i even sense could relate to the foundation series.

Mark, for one, you hit the nail on the head! In my scenario I stated a "bored MI" cleaning out its hard-drive/memory cache and came across this tid-bit of left over info.

I'm giving the MI a human factor of the ability to be "bored" and finding something to occupy itself with. The big question, in my mind, is could an MI ever even get bored??? That is yet another "human" emotional state. If an MI could not do so, then obviously not fully human.

I used the model of Christianity as most folks here can follow that scenario, but also based it due to some of my own thoughts/beliefs as to "how" it came into being per se. Remember, I do believe in "God", just not the way things are represented in certain Holy texts. To me, what has been created, in writing, by humans concerning our "salvation" and our relationship with "God" is as much a power trip and controlling mechanism as a programmer would have over the first MI's.

An MI experiencing an "I don't know" moment would be interesting and the crux of my scenario above. Of course its all speculation and summarizing, but since Nick has asked about our thoughts concerning MI/AI I thought I'd throw that in the mix. On some levels I can see how MI's could have near human factors, but I'm not 100% convinced they could ever reach a level of true comparison, therefore, the more human comparison questions we raise about MI's the better understanding we may achieve of Nick's proposal.

Blessings of Peace,

[mererdog]

I cited peer-reviewed cited documents arguing otherwise.

And you believe the work is so conclusive that there is no room for disagreement over the findings? Or you simply agree with the findings and don't like it when others don't?

And your evidence is where?

That would be a reversal of the burden of proof, no?

Indeed, the vast majority of choices we ourselves make do not even register in our consciousness.

That statemente is patently impossible to prove empirically.

From the OED:

The definition you cite does not fit your original usage. Equivocation.

Whereas consciousness is not an abstract concept, it is a result dependent upon physical phenomena.

The same could be said of personhood.

But as consciousness is a physical phenomenon

Consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. Note that you cannot touch it. It is a conceptualization used to explain the purely subjective phenomenon of awareness.

A philosopher's view, however interesting, is really meaningless in terms of the underlying mechanistic processes.

So it was well-poisoning. I thought so. Well-poisoning is the attempt to preemptively disprove an argument by attacking it's originator. To say that someone's view on a subject is meaningless, merely because of qualities of the person (in this case, the fact that he is a philosopher) is classic well-poisoning.

[old_nick]

And you believe the work is so conclusive that there is no room for disagreement over the findings? Or you simply agree with the findings and don't like it when others don't?

By all means, disagree. But be expected to give references and evidence to show why you disagree. I cited sources that were peer-reviewed and have multiple citations. Thus far your argument boils down to a "because I said so".

That would be a reversal of the burden of proof, no?

I said: "The evidence as it stands indicates that consciousness(or more appropriately the illusion of consciousness) is merely a byproduct of other actions."

You replied: "No, it doesn't."

I replied with appropriate sources indicating that my statement is indeed accurate. If you have anything better, present it. If not, I would very much like for you to tell me and everyone else here that you do not and that you are merely giving an uninformed opinion on the matter.

That statemente is patently impossible to prove empirically.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Indeed, it HAS been demonstrated empirically as far back as Libet's experiments in the 80s on readiness potential. And it has been more recently been shown in studies on cognitive bias such as choice blindness and inattentional blindness. Our brains choose what they do and do not filter every given moment and more often than not, we're entirely unaware of it.

The definition you cite does not fit your original usage. Equivocation

Indeed it does fit. Try again.

The same could be said of personhood.

No, it cannot. Unless of course you are speaking of legal personhood which would be a granted characteristic not an inherent one. Try again.

Consciousness is not a physical phenomenon. Note that you cannot touch it. It is a conceptualization used to explain the purely subjective phenomenon of awareness.

Touch is not the defining characteristic of a physical phenomena, however. So your very starting basis is skewed and my point remains. Consciousness is a brain state. A composition of parts firing in a particular manner.

So it was well-poisoning. I thought so. Well-poisoning is the attempt to preemptively disprove an argument by attacking it's originator. To say that someone's view on a subject is meaningless, merely because of qualities of the person (in this case, the fact that he is a philosopher) is classic well-poisoning.

Again no and again for the very same reasons I specified above. And unless he is presenting a neurological view on this neurological issue his view is meaningless. He didn't, however, present a neurological argument. He presented a philosophical argument to a neurological issue. He worked with what he knew, and there is no fault in working with what one knows. It just happens that what he knows is not applicable to the argument. Try again.

I'll work up some responses to other posts shortly. I particularly want to tackle your hypothetical religion, Atwater_Vitki.