The Minds of Machines

[zinnat13]

Hi friends,

MQ wrote- if its missing now does it mean its missing tomorrow?

Yes.

MQ wrote- if its missing to you does it mean its missing to all.

Yes. Unless and until, an intelligent like you is able to convince me that I am wrong in my perception.

MQ wrote-
do you mean that artificial has no non-artficial evolution? but maybe it has artificial evolution? like we all have to have all new expensive iphone 4 and all new versions to be come? windows 7 is old wooden leg to us vista users. update your legs faster and more unnoticed like before. nanotechnology is capable of big miracles to come and its not the end of development either.
if you are talking about only biological evolution before humans new gm-technology and all other new ways to mimic and design better biological and other new structures.

MQ, you did not follow my point. By evolution, I simply mean, what happens on its own; without the help from any outside the system.

Although my knowledge of English language is far inferior to you, but, IMHO, what you are suggesting, should be called as development or advancement; not as evolution. At least, it is the general perception. And, I am not challenging that the science has not made any progress.

MQ wrote-
you call it "thinking" when you see a human but you dont call it "thinking" when you see a machine? so what? i have been called many names. you call it "will" if human is doing something but you dont call it "will" when you see a team of robots trying to play football? why? does all that come from your word "mind" if you believe it is only humans thing?

The same logic applies here also.
The definition of will is very simple. It means desire to do anything. I agree that the machines can do many things, which humans can do, and sometimes even better than the humans. But, they must be ordered to do anything, in the first place. Although, there may be various versions of orders and programming is also one of them. Programming is nothing more than a complicated set of standing orders; gradual and step by step and it goes up to the building block of the language of software; 0 and 1, and the process concludes here.

Humans play football because they have desire to play it, but, robots play it because they are programmed or ordered to play it. Hence the difference is ‘will’.

MQ wrote-
seems like we dont know philosophically what even human "will" or "mind" are?

Yes, my friend. You heard me exactly as I uttered.

I do not think that we still know that, what ‘will’ or ‘mind’ is. All we know that how these things work and how they can be used; nothing more than that.

If you know that what ‘will’ is and where it resides, please tell me. I will get you first noble prize for philosophy for sure.

MQ wrote-
should we need philosophy to find it out first, what the hell we are talking about here? can we use even science to find out something we dont know what we are seeking and what are the right methods and tools to use?

Once again yes. We have to know anything, in the first place; only then we will be able to duplicate it; otherwise not. It does not matter that which stream of knowledge is able to do it; philosophy, physic, biology or even someone else.

with love,
sanjay

[Arising_uk]

@A_UK, I better make it clear at the outset that I am not actually a dualist! A major part of the problem I have with artificial consciousness is that the problem is not in building a device that is conscious (whatever that means!), but that we have no good theory or framework for how we should set about building such a machine. Bottom-up or top-down, all we seem to be doing is 'trial and error', in hope rather than expectation that something will come of it.

I think we have fairly good model for what may be needed to build something that we'd ascribed to having consciousness(do you mean self-awareness by this? As I have animals as being conscious), us. So neural nets capture a lot, I think we could model a wants, needs and desires system, i.e. an endocrine and digestive system, etc. When have the sciences ever worked with an expectation that something specific should come of it? That's engineering isn't it?

I think we really need a 'theory of consciousness' to guide us in our attempts to create AC. Certainly philosophers like Dennett and Chalmers etc have proposed ideas, but nothing an engineer could work from! Having spent the odd hour (or many) thinking about this over the years, consciousness seems more 'deep and difficult' than when I started. I think we need a theoretical - perhaps a philosophical - breakthrough, a radical innovation in our thinking to solve this one.

Nah! We just need to wait until the sciences do enough mapping and modeling and then the Engineers and Technicians can get to work. I've no doubt that philosophers can play their part in such things.

Consciousness, free will, qualia... these are things that are more important to us as humans than the strong nuclear force or QCD... but we can't get a 'scientific' handle on them. I find that extremely annoying.

Maybe there are some things just not amenable to the sciences reductionist approach?

I'd prefer it if the solution did not involve mainstreaming dualism into science, but it seems to me we have to find some way of thinking 'outside the box' because we are a bit stuck as things stand.

Depends what you mean? As the fruits of AI research are appearing everywhere it seems to me.

[Arising_uk]

so, what mind and machine are? is mechanical arm an arm which is mechanical? is old car a car which is old?

Yes. Yes. Well, the old thought that machines are what we make seems to hold. now what 'mind' is does seem to raise issues. Can the new computational models give us new metaphors with which to understand 'mind'? Maybe, can't be much worse than the ones we've had so far. But then Biology might rewrite the whole game.

somehow, we were talking about artificial brains which have to be like human brains. dont ask me why? ...

Because someone said there could be no AI and I postulated a model that might be effective.

firstly, can you imagine "emotionally neutral" living human brains? ...

Are there those who act not upon their emotions? I guess so, just as those who act purely upon them. I prefer to imagine emotions as integrated with the other parts of thought.

secondly, can you imagine "emotionally neutral" artificial brains which are like human brains?

In the sense of not having emotions as a content, yes.

i see. robots dont have human brains so they are not thinking like humans? so what? what if they become better thinkers and wipe out the annoyingly stupid arrogant and aggressive human race from earth? do we want to think like worms? can we? do self-accelerating evolved technology in robots have to think like us? can they?

Robots aren't thinking at all? What if who becomes better thinkers? How does a worm think? Yes. What "self-accelerating evolved technology in robots"? Depends what we mean by think like us? Do I think we can create something that the idea AI covers? Maybe, but it might also be biological.

sorry. do babies have built-in "intention" to play chess?

No but they have a built-in ability to play games of patterns.

so, chess machines and chess softwares cant evolve and become better and better anymore?

Depends what you mean by evolve? That we've encoded algorithms and heuristics for chess that beat the best human chess players means, I guess, that in the end the best chess-software can get is the execution of all possible strategies, is it a realtime computable solution? Don't know.

like fishes could not evolve to humans, quite slowly?

The way I understand it is that fishes have already evolved into us, the fishes left are those genes who did not produce a mutation. That they are still there is because they were not in straight competition at the time.

do best chess machines also need machine coders like babies, youngsters and even old people need human life coders in their own infrastructure, culture and social life? why not chess machines are not making any experience of it if their coders get feedback from that experience and starts to improve those machines and softwares? why cant machines have better and better self-learning structures and softwares, autonomous learning? are you looking only yesterday or today and not tomorrows new machines and humans or whatever they will be then?

I'm not arguing that such things may not become possible, although not with chess machines as the difference there is they are not autonomous learning machines, I am saying I'm not sure it right to describe what we call thinking as just brain or I prefer, the CNS, as there are other systems involved in this thing I call perceiving, thoughting and thinking.

i ques that mind and body is together one working system which cant work if only mind is altered too much. like if you put a jet engine in your shiny morris mini and accelerate full speed. good luck!

I agree but we could turbo-charge it and once you get the swing of it it'd still be the fastest mini about.

are you saying that "its contents" can be something without no logic at all? can you think anything without no logic at all? is language also logical, does it have rules and structures?

Are these rules and structures encodable? I think there is no thing that does not obey logic. What I'm saying is that logic is not where the meaning of the terms lie.

i cant believe it took so much time to get dumb humans, according to evolution theorys timeline. shall we give the AI same time that we took to develop from the sea of brainless to the biggest wiseguys on earth?

I think this a mistake in thinking that in Evolution there is any development in the sense of going from something to something for some reason. In Evolutions time-frame we are fire-flies at present.

[zinnat13]

Hi friends,

MQ wrote-

so, chess machines and chess softwares cant evolve and become better and better anymore?

do best chess machines also need machine coders like babies, youngsters and even old people need human life coders in their own infrastructure, culture and social life? why not chess machines are not making any experience of it if their coders get feedback from that experience and starts to improve those machines and softwares? why cant machines have better and better self-learning structures and softwares, autonomous learning? are you looking only yesterday or today and not tomorrows new machines and humans or whatever they will be then?

i cant believe it took so much time to get dumb humans, according to evolution theorys timeline. shall we give the AI same time that we took to develop from the sea of brainless to the biggest wiseguys on earth?

MQ, the same argument of ‘evolution’ is still hold here; autonomous development.

But, I would like to put it differently to clear my perspective in the case of chess playing computer.

Let us accept that a chess playing computer can defeat a grand master, but, it still proves nothing. Let me explain-

Actually, we are so influenced by the result that we are not analyzing the event objectively.

In my opinion, the computer is doing nothing, but, just playing a role of mediator between the grandmaster and the programmers. It has nothing of its own. The knowledge and years of hard work of the programmers is reflecting in the computer in the form of its software or programming.

Hence, the real game is being played between the programmers and the grandmaster. The computer is nowhere in the picture. This notion applies to each and every machine; from a pocket calculator to sophisticated robot. Their thinking is virtual, not a real one. Whatever virtual thinking ability of a machine is visible, is actually thought out by its programmers, prior to the existence of machine. So, my friend, machine is not thinking, but, just reproducing the thoughts of its inventors.

It is a case of simple give and take. Machines simply gives us back, what is given to them; nothing more, nothing less. But, the same is not true in the case of human mind. It has the capacity to change what is given to it.

If we stretch this argument to its limit, then, even books fall under its jurisdiction. What are books? They contain thoughts of someone, and as we read them, the thoughts of the writer pass on to us. They are just mediators like machines. The only difference is that books do not act physically like machines. We cannot claim that a book can think; can we?

It is possible that cumulative knowledge of the programmers may exceed the level of grandmaster, and computer may post a win. So what? Even a world champion of wrestling cannot beat a mob of 100 people on its own. But, in individual capacity, no one from the mob even thinks of challenging him personally. Hence, winning or losing is not the issue at all.

You also seem to be arguing that it is possible that machines would be able to think in real terms in the future. I do not see any problem in this argument. Logically, both options are possible. Machines may be able to think in future or may not. We cannot deny any possibility as this is reasoning. Agreed.

But, my friend, from this point of view, we should accept the theism as well. What is wrong if it says that the existence of God will also be proved physically one day? Are we ready to embrace this argument? Logically, it also seems to be perfect, as it is at the same footing. Mathematically, the probability of the physical proof of the existence of the God and the invention of real thinking machines is equal. Doesn’t it? Correct me if I am wrong.


KP2 wrote-
I better make it clear at the outset that I am not actually a dualist! A major part of the problem I have with artificial consciousness is that the problem is not in building a device that is conscious (whatever that means!), but that we have no good theory or framework for how we should set about building such a machine. Bottom-up or top-down, all we seem to be doing is 'trial and error', in hope rather than expectation that something will come of it.


I can sense what you mean by this. There is nothing wrong in trial and error. It is natural process of learning for all streams of knowledge. Let us see where it leads us. I would like to advise you to go through my above reply to MQ and the one, prior to this post, which was also addressed to him.

KP2 wrote-
I think we really need a 'theory of consciousness' to guide us in our attempts to create AC. Certainly philosophers like Dennett and Chalmers etc have proposed ideas, but nothing an engineer could work from! Having spent the odd hour (or many) thinking about this over the years, consciousness seems more 'deep and difficult' than when I started. I think we need a theoretical - perhaps a philosophical - breakthrough, a radical innovation in our thinking to solve this one.

You are right. But, my dear friend, we have a theory of consciousness since ages. We have to rediscover or rather I should say remold it to be fit in the case of today’s scientific world. Simple rhetoric cannot do it. It should be proved philosophically and physically too.

You also quite rightly said that these phenomena are bit more complicated that they appear prima-facie. KP, the basic problem is that all these things do not come under the jurisdiction of pure thinking. We have to go one step further and must have some sort of experience, only then, we will be able to think over it, in real terms. Till then, it is a bit of paradox.

KP2 wrote-
Consciousness, free will, qualia... these are things that are more important to us as humans than the strong nuclear force or QCD... but we can't get a 'scientific' handle on them. I find that extremely annoying

I must appreciate your intention. You perception of the priorities of the mankind is absolutely right. I do not think that the science, in its traditional version, would be able to handle it ever. But, these phenomena could be proved, and I have faith that that day will come for sure.

with love,
sanjay

[Mark Question]

Hi friends,
MQ wrote- if its missing now does it mean its missing tomorrow?
Yes.

that is not logical, or is it? can we ever find anything if your answer is correct? why do science at all or search clothes in the morning if we never cant find anything?

MQ wrote- if its missing to you does it mean its missing to all.
Yes. Unless and until, an intelligent like you is able to convince me that I am wrong in my perception.

that is not logical, or is it? if it is logical to you then should it be logical to me? then why i am still missing to understand is it logical or not? are atheists missing the god? are theists missing the god? are you? when your keys are missing are all the people on earth missing your keys?

MQ, you did not follow my point. By evolution, I simply mean, what happens on its own; without the help from any outside the system.
Although my knowledge of English language is far inferior to you, but, IMHO, what you are suggesting, should be called as development or advancement; not as evolution.

what you mean by "on its own"?; are development or advancement also "without the help from any outside the system", outside the evolution? outside the environment? does other animals "developed" tools or cultures and other systems inside the evolution system? does other animals have "advanced" many ways inside the evolution? sorry my english.

The same logic applies here also.
The definition of will is very simple. It means desire to do anything. I agree that the machines can do many things, which humans can do, and sometimes even better than the humans. But, they must be ordered to do anything, in the first place. Although, there may be various versions of orders and programming is also one of them. Programming is nothing more than a complicated set of standing orders; gradual and step by step and it goes up to the building block of the language of software; 0 and 1, and the process concludes here.
Humans play football because they have desire to play it, but, robots play it because they are programmed or ordered to play it. Hence the difference is ‘will’.

are you saying that humans are not ordered to do anything, by genes, feelings or social pressure? and that they are not programmed to our body and its memory, brains? do humans also have to decide what to do next, yes or no like 1 or 0 in basic logic? do we die if we dont choose yes or no to do something all the time? or do we choose nothing and act like mindless ones? humans could be ordered to play football at school or they are programmed to play football after they have come out of their mothers pregnant body. and a team of robots playing football could have the desire to play football inside them, right? so how the difference is "will"?

I do not think that we still know that, what ‘will’ or ‘mind’ is. All we know that how these things work and how they can be used; nothing more than that.
If you know that what ‘will’ is and where it resides, please tell me. I will get you first noble prize for philosophy for sure.

so, how can we say that the difference is "will" if we dont know what it is? do we know how it works or how it can be used and still we dont know what it is? what more you need to know to use it if you know how it works or how it can be used? or do you need useless knowledge about it? so, do we know it or not?

Once again yes. We have to know anything, in the first place; only then we will be able to duplicate it; otherwise not. It does not matter that which stream of knowledge is able to do it; philosophy, physic, biology or even someone else.

should we know first what is knowing so that we could know that we know anything or should we know something or can we know anything? would that give also the answer which stream of knowledge if any or all off them(religions, gossips and myths too) should we choose when we are trying to know anything at all or at least, what is knowing?
thank you for reading all this.

[Mark Question]

Yes. Yes. Well, the old thought that machines are what we make seems to hold. now what 'mind' is does seem to raise issues. Can the new computational models give us new metaphors with which to understand 'mind'? Maybe, can't be much worse than the ones we've had so far. But then Biology might rewrite the whole game.

well, well, well. giving all the time we have had from first living creatures to modern humans? so far so good? maybe the whole game rewrites the biology like astrology or alchemy was rewritten?

Because someone said there could be no AI and I postulated a model that might be effective.

ok. imitating natures own tested solutions is good old formula. although theres no space rockets to imitate in nature, only air-to-surface missiles if you see angry birds. so, maybe AI is space rocket to our wet feet on the ground thinking?

Are there those who act not upon their emotions? I guess so, just as those who act purely upon them. I prefer to imagine emotions as integrated with the other parts of thought.

ok. now i see what you mean about "emotionally neutral". if you prefer to imagine emotions as integrated with the other parts of thought then are there those who act not upon their thoughts integrated emotions and are there those who act purely upon their thoughts integrated emotions? what you mean about "integration" here?

secondly, can you imagine "emotionally neutral" artificial brains which are like human brains?

In the sense of not having emotions as a content, yes.

so, what happened to your "emotions as integrated with the other parts of thought"? not having them? not having any thoughts then?

sorry. do babies have built-in "intention" to play chess?

No but they have a built-in ability to play games of patterns.

so? robots cant have that? why?

Depends what you mean by evolve? That we've encoded algorithms and heuristics for chess that beat the best human chess players means, I guess, that in the end the best chess-software can get is the execution of all possible strategies, is it a realtime computable solution? Don't know.

what people mean by evolve, good question. theres evolutive algorithms. evolutive artificial and real life. what you mean by evolve? that in the end the best chess softwares can also mimic human thinking and learning with no need to the execution of all possible strategies, if it is not a realtime computable solution?

The way I understand it is that fishes have already evolved into us, the fishes left are those genes who did not produce a mutation. That they are still there is because they were not in straight competition at the time.

maybe we could also swim happily with higher beeings if we give the AI same time we got to evolve?

I'm not arguing that such things may not become possible, although not with chess machines as the difference there is they are not autonomous learning machines, I am saying I'm not sure it right to describe what we call thinking as just brain or I prefer, the CNS, as there are other systems involved in this thing I call perceiving, thoughting and thinking.

yeah. todays chess machines are not tomorrows chess machines? is autonomous impossible ability to give machines at any level and make it better and better? are there already autonomous robotic factories making new robots? what we call thinking could be cultural like what we call brain, will or mind or cultural? oops.

I agree but we could turbo-charge it and once you get the swing of it it'd still be the fastest mini about.

nope. tuning the whole body gives you faster car. if its only question of better engine then you could drive your crazy mini in formula one. if only your brakes and transmission would not brake under your insanely bigger and bigger every day growing engine powers. but hey, thats development!

I think there is no thing that does not obey logic. What I'm saying is that logic is not where the meaning of the terms lie.

so, theres no logic in the meaning of the terms? senseless or unreasonable meanings of the terms? and the meaning of the terms is a thing that does not obey logic?

I think this a mistake in thinking that in Evolution there is any development in the sense of going from something to something for some reason. In Evolutions time-frame we are fire-flies at present.

"for some reason" was your words, not mine. i think i like your thinking in that case. but if we are fire-flies then what are AIs today? fire-flies flammable farts? can we give them a little more time to conquer the earth, solar system and whole universe?

[Mark Question]

MQ, the same argument of ‘evolution’ is still hold here; autonomous development.

what you mean about autonomous? how autonomous is human baby? how autonomous is robot in 100 years from now? think about first automobiles and nowadays common self-parking satellite-navigated talking internet-cars and highways all over the earth.

In my opinion, the computer is doing nothing, but, just playing a role of mediator between the grandmaster and the programmers. It has nothing of its own. The knowledge and years of hard work of the programmers is reflecting in the computer in the form of its software or programming.

Actually, we are so influenced by the result that we are not analyzing the event objectively: is also human doing nothing, but, just playing a role of mediator between the grandmaster-software and his chess club, proud parents and his selfish genes? he/she has nothing of his own? The knowledge and years of hard work of the whole human culture is reflecting in the player in the form of its skills or learnings?

Their thinking is virtual, not a real one. not thinking, but, just reproducing the thoughts of its inventors.

both the machine and the human player? is their mutual inventor the evolutions ever changing environment?

It is a case of simple give and take. Machines simply gives us back, what is given to them; nothing more, nothing less. But, the same is not true in the case of human mind. It has the capacity to change what is given to it.

are you sure it is not only a question of complexity? maybe it just looks like humans are more than basically reacting agents?

If we stretch this argument to its limit, then, even books fall under its jurisdiction. What are books? They contain thoughts of someone, and as we read them, the thoughts of the writer pass on to us. They are just mediators like machines. The only difference is that books do not act physically like machines. We cannot claim that a book can think; can we?

some people could think that some books have own mind and soul and it will open the pages that it wants you to read. some people see dogs, cars, gods or NPCs in virtual worlds and games as they see humans. we humans are intelligent, are we? even stones and dead leafs react to their environment! creepy?

It is possible that cumulative knowledge of the programmers may exceed the level of grandmaster, and computer may post a win. So what? Even a world champion of wrestling cannot beat a mob of 100 people on its own. But, in individual capacity, no one from the mob even thinks of challenging him personally. Hence, winning or losing is not the issue at all.

cumulative knowledge of the culture that has raised the human individual seldom even thinks of challenging a pocket calculator in its own field? so what?

You also seem to be arguing that it is possible that machines would be able to think in real terms in the future. I do not see any problem in this argument. Logically, both options are possible. Machines may be able to think in future or may not. We cannot deny any possibility as this is reasoning. Agreed.

no. i am just asking and learning from people with more knowledge than i have.

But, my friend, from this point of view, we should accept the theism as well. What is wrong if it says that the existence of God will also be proved physically one day? Are we ready to embrace this argument? Logically, it also seems to be perfect, as it is at the same footing. Mathematically, the probability of the physical proof of the existence of the God and the invention of real thinking machines is equal. Doesn’t it? Correct me if I am wrong.

maybe. i was just wondering what you mean by "god" or "thinking"? i am still.

and thank you again.

[zinnat13]

Hi MQ,

MQ wrote- that is not logical, or is it? can we ever find anything if your answer is correct? why do science at all or search clothes in the morning if we never cant find anything?

that is not logical, or is it? if it is logical to you then should it be logical to me? then why i am still missing to understand is it logical or not? are atheists missing the god? are theists missing the god? are you? when your keys are missing are all the people on earth missing your keys?

My argument will hold unless and until, someone will prove me wrong. It is my assumption that AI could not be created ever. I have right to assume it in the same way as you can assume that science would be able to get it one day. Both are assumptions and have same weight.

But, to settle the case, we shall have to wait for the day, when either AI will be invented or we shall conclude that it is not possible.

Assumptions may or may not come with logic as they rely more on belief. Belief may be scientific or even a religious one.

Science is trying to invent AI. It is its duty and it should try to perform its duty sincerely.

The key of all of us are missing. That’s why we are discussing this issue. If anyone of us would have his keys, the issues would have settled long ago and this conversation between you and me might not happen. Our argument is sufficient evidence to prove that keys are missing.

MQ wrote- what you mean by "on its own"?; are development or advancement also "without the help from any outside the system", outside the evolution? outside the environment? does other animals "developed" tools or cultures and other systems inside the evolution system? does other animals have "advanced" many ways inside the evolution? sorry my english.

what you mean about autonomous? how autonomous is human babyis also human doing nothing, but, just playing a role of mediator between the grandmaster-software and his chess club, proud parents and his selfish genes? he/she has nothing of his own? The knowledge and years of hard work of the whole human culture is reflecting in the player in the form of its skills or learnings?

Newton told us that time is perpetual but Einstein proved that time is relative. It was his effort by all means. This is mental evolution. This the precise way; how the knowledge of mankind has been evolved; gradually and step by step. Any alien did not whispered the formula of E= mc2 in the ears of Einstein.

We take help from the storage of the knowledge of mankind to take a start, but, we do not tend to stop or remain there. Every generation adds something to the store. That’s why and how we evolve.

The same should be in the case of machines, if we want to hold them as autonomous, thinking and without the help from outside the system. Machines do not follow the Darwinism.

Every chess player learns chess from books, but, he also invents some of his original moves also.

MQ wrote- how autonomous is robot in 100 years from now? think about first automobiles and nowadays common self-parking satellite-navigated talking internet-cars and highways all over the earth.

My friend, logic does not imply future. We may have assumptions for future. That is not an issue. But, we cannot take future for granted that it will unfold exactly as we assume. What if tomorrow we be the judgment day as scriptures say?

How can we be so sure that machines will able to think in real terms in 100 years? It may happen in 10 years or may not happen ever. Who knows?

MQ wrote- are you saying that humans are not ordered to do anything, by genes, feelings or social pressure? and that they are not programmed to our body and its memory, brains? do humans also have to decide what to do next, yes or no like 1 or 0 in basic logic? do we die if we dont choose yes or no to do something all the time? or do we choose nothing and act like mindless ones? humans could be ordered to play football at school or they are programmed to play football after they have come out of their mothers pregnant body. and a team of robots playing football could have the desire to play football inside them, right? so how the difference is "will"?

My dear friend, you are still missing the root cause.

You are right to the some extent that we do not do all the time, what we desire to do. Sometimes, there may me some other forces, which could compel us to refrain from our will. But you are forgetting that the will is still there. This will is the root difference. We sometimes go by the will and sometimes by the compulsions; but, the will always remains. It is entirely different thing that it can be fulfilled or not.

Robots may play football, when they are ordered. Children may play football when they are ordered, even if they do not have will. They will still play, but, their mode or involvement in the play will be entirely different, if it is against their will. They will just pretend to play.

This is where the real different lies. This is where the mind, thinking and thus, will comes into the play. Robots will just play identically always. They cannot change their level of commitment.

A ROBOT CANNOT THINK THAT; WHAT IS ALL THIS BULLSHIT TO KICK THE BALL USELESSLY HERE AND THERE?

I would like you to answer me some very simple questions; why we play football? What is its purpose? Is it implies something useful and productive? Why so many people use to gather to see some other playing? Why spectators use to create Mexican wave while watching? Is all this logical?

The answers to these questions will tell you the difference between the will and the command, and thus, humans and machines.

MQ wrote- So, how can we say that the difference is "will" if we dont know what it is? do we know how it works or how it can be used and still we dont know what it is? what more you need to know to use it if you know how it works or how it can be used? or do you need useless knowledge about it? so, do we know it or not?

Wise argument.

Understanding something and using something are to entirely different phenomena. They are not synonymous. There is no need to overlap them.

This is the problem of philosophy and philosophers too. Both of them do not want to look beyond the books. The real world has all the answers. It is not difficult to conceive.
A fish can swim, but, she does not have to know the Archimedes principle for that for sure. Today a child of 5-6 years can use a mobile phone, but, he needs not to be as intelligent as Graham Bell for that.

Mankind has created the mechanism to store and pass on the posteriori knowledge to the next generations, for whom it becomes priori. That’s how, the mankind has been evolved. This is the only difference between the animals and humans. The knowledge of animals is only posteriori; as they do not have much access to priori knowledge.

All we know about the will or even the mind, is that these things work for us. My dear friend, this is all philosophy is all about. No one knows exactly what the will is and how our mind manifests it.

Of course, one may consider it useless. This notion will be proved very fruitful. This is exactly what we tend to do in general. But MQ, if we want to create AI, then we must know these phenomena, in the first place. How can we duplicate a thing, which we do not know? It is impossible.

MQ wrote- should we know first what is knowing so that we could know that we know anything or should we know something or can we know anything? would that give also the answer which stream of knowledge if any or all off them(religions, gossips and myths too) should we choose when we are trying to know anything at all or at least, what is knowing?

MQ, I must appreciate you for this question.

Philosophy takes birth from this very question and this is its grave also.

I do not think that I am competent enough to answer it precisely.

I do not see any difference in all the streams of knowledge.

Science deals with physical things, philosophy and psychology concentrates on thoughts, while spirituality and religions try to understand the remainder, which remains after the exclusion of body and the brain; mind and consciousness.

What is knowing?

My friend, it is really a difficult and long one too. As far as I understood is that-

Knowing is what, that manifests the real understanding of the issues and it is possible by only two ways; either by experience in person or by intense visualization of the event of experiencing.

with love,
sanjay

[artisticsolution]

If mankind ever develops AI to the point of being indistinguishable from man, that will be the day Mankind becomes God.

[Mark Question]

If mankind ever develops AI to the point of being indistinguishable from man, that will be the day Mankind becomes God.

what you mean by god? the one that has always been and always is?
what if AI developes to the point where mankind becomes stupid animals, industrial raw material, pets, last ones in the zoo or slaves to it?

[Mark Question]

My argument will hold unless and until, someone will prove me wrong. It is my assumption that AI could not be created ever. I have right to assume it in the same way as you can assume that science would be able to get it one day. Both are assumptions and have same weight.

Assumptions may or may not come with logic as they rely more on belief. Belief may be scientific or even a religious one.

my assumptions was only hypothetical ones to compare your assumptions that you belief. not the same weight of belief in my assumptions. check your scales.
your argument may hold in some religions but in philosophy it is common way to rationalize, justify your believes, is it not? in science belives rely more on testing, is it not so?

This is mental evolution.

Every generation adds something to the store. That’s why and how we evolve.[/b]

The same should be in the case of machines, if we want to hold them as autonomous, thinking and without the help from outside the system. Machines do not follow the Darwinism.

Every chess player learns chess from books, but, he also invents some of his original moves also.

so, if theres biological and mental evolution then why not artificial evolution, artificial genes, mutations, life and all like there is in mental evolution too mental genes, mutations and all?

every generation adds something to the store also in artificial products like cars, computers or newest iphones in apple store. if you want to hold them as autonomous, thinking and without the help from universes solar system, natures ecosystems, cultural and economical systems etc. then you have to wait if they do some day like humans do or not like humans but much better, or what? thats why and how iphones also evolve in apple store?

every bacteria or bird also invents some of his original moves also? maybe AI today is at that level? (or is it, in secret military labs?)

My friend, logic does not imply future. We may have assumptions for future. That is not an issue. But, we cannot take future for granted that it will unfold exactly as we assume. What if tomorrow we be the judgment day as scriptures say?

How can we be so sure that machines will able to think in real terms in 100 years? It may happen in 10 years or may not happen ever. Who knows?

logic is used when doing predictions, right? do humans need rationally logical predictions in their daily life? assuming the future is not the issue but if we are not talking about only religious believes and assumptions then logical thinking about different logical assumptions is the issue, or is it?

how can we be sure about anything at all, who knows?

My dear friend, you are still missing the root cause.

You are right to the some extent that we do not do all the time, what we desire to do. Sometimes, there may me some other forces, which could compel us to refrain from our will. But you are forgetting that the will is still there. This will is the root difference. We sometimes go by the will and sometimes by the compulsions; but, the will always remains.

their mode or involvement in the play will be entirely different, if it is against their will. They will just pretend to play.

This is where the real different lies. This is where the mind, thinking and thus, will comes into the play. Robots will just play identically always. They cannot change their level of commitment.

A ROBOT CANNOT THINK THAT; WHAT IS ALL THIS BULLSHIT TO KICK THE BALL USELESSLY HERE AND THERE?

no, i am not "forgetting that the will is still there. This will is the root difference" in you assumptions that you belief so much. can we say that "will" is your root belief in this subject?
what "other forces, which could compel us to refrain from our will" there is than physical, biological, social, mental forces and are those forces more natural than those forces which moves robots? are mental forces also physical, biological and social or not? is "will" something unnatural or supernatural to you? not of this world?
the "mode of involment" or "level of commitment" is "where the real different lies"? are we talking about more complex modes or higher levels in human body than in nowadays robots body? so what? are you saying that machines are not going to be more complex every day? i dont even know how my new complex or "higher level" mobile phone will do some basic tasks like making phone calls to right persons and when i want it!
what you mean that robot cant think: "what is all this bullshit"? is that thinking if robot says that to you? is that thinking if human says that to you? what is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVT4T7OR3iQ

I would like you to answer me some very simple questions; why we play football? What is its purpose? Is it implies something useful and productive? Why so many people use to gather to see some other playing? Why spectators use to create Mexican wave while watching? Is all this logical?

The answers to these questions will tell you the difference between the will and the command, and thus, humans and machines.

all seems very complex behavior to me. is there some strong feelings evolved or chemical drugs like endorphine or adrenaline involved? do we need more tests with children and dogs like doctor pavlov did so well? or do we just like to assume, believe and praise the football? it is like a religion in many countries, is it not? or would it be some kind of social pressure relief valve? or something higher level activity in humans?
was these the answers that tell me the the difference between the will and the command, and thus, humans and machines, now and forever?
and why machines cant act as funnily as humans? why robots wont play football, drink and dance? or do they?

Understanding something and using something are to entirely different phenomena.
A fish can swim, but, she does not have to know the Archimedes principle for that for sure. Today a child of 5-6 years can use a mobile phone, but, he needs not to be as intelligent as Graham Bell for that.

are we talking about fishes not using human understanding? or babies not using academical understanding? is understanding useless? and i will use your first sentence here soon..

Mankind has created the mechanism to store and pass on the posteriori knowledge to the next generations, for whom it becomes priori. That’s how, the mankind has been evolved. This is the only difference between the animals and humans. The knowledge of animals is only posteriori; as they do not have much access to priori knowledge.

is it so if both humans and animals have genetic knowledge to the next generations and cultural knowledge also?

All we know about the will or even the mind, is that these things work for us. My dear friend, this is all philosophy is all about. No one knows exactly what the will is and how our mind manifests it.

"Understanding something and using something are to entirely different phenomena" here too? does your understanding work here or in your mind? are you using it or working it? does it work and is it "All we know about the will or even the mind, is that these things work for us"?

if we want to create AI, then we must know these phenomena, in the first place. How can we duplicate a thing, which we do not know? It is impossible.

if we want to create WILL, then we must know these phenomena, in the first place? how can we duplicate a human will or mind, which we do not know? is it impossible to have and raise new babies to new individual adults? what biology and culture can do, we cant?

I must appreciate

Philosophy takes birth from this very question and this is its grave also.

I do not think that I am competent enough to answer it precisely.

I do not see any difference in all the streams of knowledge.

Science deals with physical things, philosophy and psychology concentrates on thoughts, while spirituality and religions try to understand the remainder, which remains after the exclusion of body and the brain; mind and consciousness.

i make mexican wave to philosophy for that question. and blow my vuvuzela of wisdom.

What is knowing?

My friend, it is really a difficult and long one too. As far as I understood is that-

Knowing is what, that manifests the real understanding of the issues and it is possible by only two ways; either by experience in person or by intense visualization of the event of experiencing.

so, what if knowing is knowing only according to itself?
and thank you for answering, and reading all this or this last sentence.

[Arising_uk]

well, well, well. giving all the time we have had from first living creatures to modern humans? so far so good? maybe the whole game rewrites the biology like astrology or alchemy was rewritten?

Not sure what you mean by "so far so good?"? Astrology seems to still be about. Was it the 'game' that re-wrote alchemy to chemistry? Doubt it as I don't think the 'game' thinks, acts or has intentions at all, with respect to life that is.

ok. imitating natures own tested solutions is good old formula. although theres no space rockets to imitate in nature, only air-to-surface missiles if you see angry birds. so, maybe AI is space rocket to our wet feet on the ground thinking?

Maybe, more likely to me is that such research as is being done in computing, biology and chemistry will change what we think about our thinking about consciousness and self-consciousness.

ok. now i see what you mean about "emotionally neutral". if you prefer to imagine emotions as integrated with the other parts of thought then are there those who act not upon their thoughts integrated emotions and are there those who act purely upon their thoughts integrated emotions? what you mean about "integration" here?

That when you have a thought or a think then the emotions should be congruent, in balance, fit with, the images, sounds, smells, etc. that thoughts and thinks consist of.

so, what happened to your "emotions as integrated with the other parts of thought"? not having them? not having any thoughts then?

That'd depend what you want to build. I think such machines may have thoughts but they'd not be the same as ours other than we can imagine emotionless rationality.

so? robots cant have that? why?

Didn't say they couldn't, just why babies could.

what people mean by evolve, good question. theres evolutive algorithms. evolutive artificial and real life. what you mean by evolve? ...

DNA replication but I'd accept any functional equivalent.

that in the end the best chess softwares can also mimic human thinking and learning with no need to the execution of all possible strategies, if it is not a realtime computable solution?

Not sure if the solution to that is relevant to the fact that current best chess software does copy the grandmasters approach to playing chess.

maybe we could also swim happily with higher beeings if we give the AI same time we got to evolve?

Maybe, not sure. Don't think time has much to do with such things evolving, not that I think theres anything out there currently evolving, well maybe in a few small cases.

yeah. todays chess machines are not tomorrows chess machines? is autonomous impossible ability to give machines at any level and make it better and better? are there already autonomous robotic factories making new robots? what we call thinking could be cultural like what we call brain, will or mind or cultural? oops.

I think todays chess machines are pretty much tomorrows machines now. I think it may be true that in chip design machines may be making the improvements but not in an evolutionary sense more mathematical.

nope. tuning the whole body gives you faster car. if its only question of better engine then you could drive your crazy mini in formula one. if only your brakes and transmission would not brake under your insanely bigger and bigger every day growing engine powers. but hey, thats development!

Who's talking about F1? Looks to be mainly minis around and power always wins in equivalent chassises.

so, theres no logic in the meaning of the terms? senseless or unreasonable meanings of the terms? and the meaning of the terms is a thing that does not obey logic?

Propositions obey logic and the logical operators don't have a reference in the world in the same sense as the terms I think. I think you can only find true or false, necessary, impossible, and possible or contingent in basic logic. I think there is a structure to terms, so that they are not meaningless but may be unreasonable.

"for some reason" was your words, not mine. i think i like your thinking in that case. ...

I thought the "for some reason" might be raised. Just to clarify, I mean there is no reasoning behind the process. Glad you liked the thought.

but if we are fire-flies then what are AIs today? fire-flies flammable farts? can we give them a little more time to conquer the earth, solar system and whole universe?

There aren't any AIs so far, as far as I can tell that is.

[zinnat13]

Hi MQ,

First of all i must apologize for being so late in replying.

you said-
my assumptions was only hypothetical ones to compare your assumptions that you belief. not the same weight of belief in my assumptions. check your scales.
your argument may hold in some religions but in philosophy it is common way to rationalize, justify your believes, is it not? in science belives rely more on testing, is it not so?

MQ, I would like to advise you very sincerely to go through all my previous posts once again and please find out where I mentioned about God or any religious ideology. It is only the assumption manifested by you.

I am challenging the possibility of AI only on philosophical or logical reasons. I am ready to accept that AI can be created by humans, if you can proof it by reasoning.

On the other hand, it looks to me that you have illogical belief. You are saying that science relies on testing and I am in total agreement with this notion. But, my friend, where is the proof? You want to declare your belief or assumption as proof that science would be able to create AI one day. MQ, ask anyone else, other than me and you will able to know that it is your belief only, not an evidence.

On the scale of logic, your assumption and as well as mine, have equal weight. Your assumption will be proved that day only, when science would be able to create AI, not before that.

you said-
so, if theres biological and mental evolution then why not artificial evolution, artificial genes, mutations, life and all like there is in mental evolution too mental genes, mutations and all?

every generation adds something to the store also in artificial products like cars, computers or newest iphones in apple store. if you want to hold them as autonomous, thinking and without the help from universes solar system, natures ecosystems, cultural and economical systems etc. then you have to wait if they do some day like humans do or not like humans but much better, or what? thats why and how iphones also evolve in apple store?

MQ, I am neither against scientific development nor denying it. I respect science not less than philosophy and religions. But, I am against being called it as evolution. It should be considered as development or advancement, simply because, it is done not by machines in their own capacity. It is and will be done only by humans, and we all know that we are not machines.

you said-
every bacteria or bird also invents some of his original moves also? maybe AI today is at that level? (or is it, in secret military labs?)

I answered it more than once. We cannot predict future, because it is reasoning not fact. None of us could tell what is going to happen even tomorrow.

you said-
logic is used when doing predictions, right? do humans need rationally logical predictions in their daily life? assuming the future is not the issue but if we are not talking about only religious believes and assumptions then logical thinking about different logical assumptions is the issue, or is it?

You answered it all by yourself as below.

you said- how can we be sure about anything at all, who knows?

I have to repeat myself that prediction is not fact, but, only reasoning.
We have the whole of history of science as an evidence to proof it.
I do not remember the name of that physicist right now, who claimed in the first half of last century that; the physics, as we know it, is going to over in six months.
I do not need to tell you that how many times science corrected itself.
Let us recall the prediction of Newton that time is eternal which proved wrong by Einstein.

Now even the postulation of Einstein that nothing can travel faster than light, which is considered even as a fact since a century, is became under the scanner as science found that there are some sub atomic particles that could travel more than the speed of light.

So, my friend, contrary to the general perception, there is no certainty about future, even in the science. Hence, we should accept that it is impossible to tell exactly how events will unfold in future. We can only assume, guess, imagine, predict etc but never could be sure.

you said-
No, I am not “forgetting that the will is still there. This will is the root difference” in you assumptions that you belief so much. Can we say that “will” is your root belief in this subject?

what “other forces, which could compel us to refrain from our will” there is than physical, biological, social, mental forces and are those forces more natural than those forces which moves robots? Are mental forces also physical, biological and social or not? is “will” something unnatural or supernatural to you? Not of this world?

the “mode of involment” or “level of commitment” is “where the real different lies”? are we talking about more complex modes or higher levels in human body than in nowadays robots body? So what? Are you saying that machines are not going to be more complex every day? I I even know how my new complex or “higher level” mobile phone will do some basic tasks like making phone calls to right persons and when I want it!

what you mean that robot cant think: “what is all this bullshit”? is that thinking if robot says that to you? Is that thinking if human says that to you? What is it?
all seems very complex behavior to me. is there some strong feelings evolved or chemical drugs like endorphine or adrenaline involved? do we need more tests with children and dogs like doctor pavlov did so well? or do we just like to assume, believe and praise the football? it is like a religion in many countries, is it not? or would it be some kind of social pressure relief valve? or something higher level activity in humans?
was these the answers that tell me the the difference between the will and the command, and thus, humans and machines, now and forever?

and why machines cant act as funnily as humans? why robots wont play football, drink and dance? or do they?

MQ, you are still betting on the future. I think I have made myself clear enough in this context.

you said-
are we talking about fishes not using human understanding? or babies not using academical understanding? is understanding useless? and i will use your first sentence here soon..

Yes, you can afford that luxury.

you said-
is it so if both humans and animals have genetic knowledge to the next generations and cultural knowledge also?

Humans can able to pass on most of their earned knowledge to the next generation, along with that part also, which was passed on to them from their previous generations. Animals do not have any storage system like humans but their genetic system covers this deficiency through genetics, though very slowly. Perhaps, this is Darwinism.

you said-
"Understanding something and using something are to entirely different phenomena" here too? does your understanding work here or in your mind? are you using it or working it? does it work and is it "All we know about the will or even the mind, is that these things work for us"?

Although your language is not clear, but I can sense, what you are trying to say. Perhaps, you are mentioning that I do know mind but use it. You are right. My friend, I cannot claim that I know my mind completely, but, at least me and other humans like me, can try to do that. We are best placed in this earth to do that because; at least we know our deficiency and try to overcome that.

MQ, let me tell you that is exactly what philosophers use to do. The whole of philosophy is nothing more than the search of these phenomena.

As far as I know, philosophy rates three philosophers as all time greats; Descartes, Kant and Wittgenstein. And, my friend, all three of them devoted their whole lives to find the answer of the question of mind only, and still, none of them was able to come up with clear answers.

you said-
if we want to create WILL, then we must know these phenomena, in the first place? how can we duplicate a human will or mind, which we do not know? is it impossible to have and raise new babies to new individual adults? what biology and culture can do, we cant?

MQ, let me clear myself. It is myth that we willingly create, invent or manufacture new babies. It happens automatically and by default. We are just a part of this process called life. Throw this notion out of your mind that we control this process.

Your last sentence is absolutely right. We cannot do what biology can do. If this was not true then we would had been created AI long ago.

MQ, even animals are able to do that; even they do not have the mental status of humans.

you said-
i make mexican wave to philosophy for that question. and blow my vuvuzela of wisdom.

so, what if knowing is knowing only according to itself?

My dear friend, I simply failed to dig anything out from these two sentences. Perhaps, it is beyond by capabilities.

with love,
sanjay

[Mark Question]

Was it the 'game' that re-wrote alchemy to chemistry? Doubt it as I don't think the 'game' thinks, acts or has intentions at all, with respect to life that is.

like selfish genes or memes evolution also do or should do? the evolution think, act and have intentions?

Maybe, more likely to me is that such research as is being done in computing, biology and chemistry will change what we think about our thinking about consciousness and self-consciousness.

and those are also natural things? are we also part of nature that we can imitate?

That when you have a thought or a think then the emotions should be congruent, in balance, fit with, the images, sounds, smells, etc. that thoughts and thinks consist of.

sounds nice. reminds me the ancient principle of harmony. like when you have to have harmonic circles in all planetary movement like they once had in ptolemaic system. elliptical orbits was out of the harmonic questions. so be it if you say so.

DNA replication but I'd accept any functional equivalent.

is it so that all scientific theories are functional theories, also dna based evolution theory, and not the last word in field?

Not sure if the solution to that is relevant to the fact that current best chess software does copy the grandmasters approach to playing chess.

and do softwares and machines copy grandmasters approach well or could those do it even better, like human novice players try to copy grandmasters approach by learning to be better and better with support of other players, books and all chess culture coders they can get?

Don't think time has much to do with such things evolving, not that I think theres anything out there currently evolving, well maybe in a few small cases.

you dont think time has much to do with evolving things? why? is human race as new as bible seems to say to many atheists and some theists, some 27 000 years from first man and maybe 6000 years from planet earth? and how much time are you giving to AI developers to fulfill your thoughts about AI? thank you for all that.

I think todays chess machines are pretty much tomorrows machines now. I think it may be true that in chip design machines may be making the improvements but not in an evolutionary sense more mathematical.

yes, they might be "tomorrows machines now", thats a good point but what they might be tomorrow? think about stone age people thinking about new iphone in mammoth leather case.

Who's talking about F1? Looks to be mainly minis around and power always wins in equivalent chassises.

chassises are made for last certain amount of power. non-drivable and 2fast4your wallet wearing out chassis is no good. you need to tune up your minis whole body, believe me. i have playstation 2 and some driving games to drive mad my neighbours. original body with huge power is thirsty, slippery, dangerous and breakable piece of bull shit. no offence. teens have those do-it-yourself time bombs with burning rubbers.

Propositions obey logic and the logical operators don't have a reference in the world in the same sense as the terms I think. I think you can only find true or false, necessary, impossible, and possible or contingent in basic logic. I think there is a structure to terms, so that they are not meaningless but may be unreasonable.

are you maybe reasoning unreasonable? how is unreasonable unreasonable if you can reason it?

There aren't any AIs so far, as far as I can tell that is.

if there are any AI according to you then there are any AI to you if there are some AI to some other people?

[Mark Question]

Hi MQ,
First of all i must apologize for being so late in replying.

if you look the history of philosophy you see that you have all the time you need. me too.
old chinese saying was like if you wait long enough you will see your enemies bodies going down the river. western dementia will do the same. oh, and the zeno! yes, his tortoise was fast enough in philosophy. what is 2000 years of thinking in here if not this days subjects?

MQ, I would like to advise you very sincerely to go through all my previous posts once again and please find out where I mentioned about God or any religious ideology. It is only the assumption manifested by you.

nope. there is no assumptions about your religious ideology. i just said: "your argument may hold in some religions but in philosophy it is common way to rationalize, justify your believes, is it not? in science belives rely more on testing, is it not so?" i did not say that you hold your arguments in some religion, did i? i said: "your argument may hold.." so, its up to you what you think of your own arguments.

I am challenging the possibility of AI only on philosophical or logical reasons. I am ready to accept that AI can be created by humans, if you can proof it by reasoning.

do you think that i have made any propositions about AI? am i doing propositions or challenging them if i end my sentences like this? it is a question mark, used when you question something, is it not? i also can challenge you to proof by reasoning the possibility of no AI, that AI cant be created by humans, can i?

On the other hand, it looks to me that you have illogical belief. You are saying that science relies on testing and I am in total agreement with this notion. But, my friend, where is the proof? You want to declare your belief or assumption as proof that science would be able to create AI one day. MQ, ask anyone else, other than me and you will able to know that it is your belief only, not an evidence.

was i saying or did i only ask if: "in science belives rely more on testing, is it not so?" so, wheres my belief in that question if i am questioning it? if atheist asks: "can god fart?", is he theist? get your proofs where you can get them.

On the scale of logic, your assumption and as well as mine, have equal weight. Your assumption will be proved that day only, when science would be able to create AI, not before that.

yeah, equal weight in your logical mind. no offence.

MQ, I am neither against scientific development nor denying it. I respect science not less than philosophy and religions. But, I am against being called it as evolution. It should be considered as development or advancement, simply because, it is done not by machines in their own capacity. It is and will be done only by humans, and we all know that we are not machines.

do we all know what you know? can you proof that? are you saying that there is no people who thinks they are some kind of machines or that evolution should be called as development or advancement? can you proof that too? and what you mean by "their own capasity"? does autonomous robots not have your "own capasity"?

I answered it more than once. We cannot predict future, because it is reasoning not fact. None of us could tell what is going to happen even tomorrow.

so, why we have weather broadcasts in tv and who on earth can tell you what is happening now, today or what happened yesterday, without reasoning and with facts(if "we cannot predict future, because it is reasoning not fact")?

I have to repeat myself that prediction is not fact, but, only reasoning.

please, repeat yourself. because i have to ask what fact is to you if not only reasoning; what you have seen or what you think fact is?

MQ, you are still betting on the future. I think I have made myself clear enough in this context.

am i? have you? pardon me asking more if you know better.

Humans can able to pass on most of their earned knowledge to the next generation, along with that part also, which was passed on to them from their previous generations. Animals do not have any storage system like humans but their genetic system covers this deficiency through genetics, though very slowly. Perhaps, this is Darwinism.

so, you dont think that evolving animals dna is no storage system like humans for information?
so what if humans have brains, dont some other animals have brains too? and social learning and history too? what you mean by "deficiency"?

My friend, I cannot claim that I know my mind completely, but, at least me and other humans like me, can try to do that. We are best placed in this earth to do that because; at least we know our deficiency and try to overcome that.

so, to you deficiency is deficiency to know ones mind? maybe to humans but why to bacteria, trees or ants? do you want them learn to play football too? why?

MQ, let me tell you that is exactly what philosophers use to do. The whole of philosophy is nothing more than the search of these phenomena.

As far as I know, philosophy rates three philosophers as all time greats; Descartes, Kant and Wittgenstein. And, my friend, all three of them devoted their whole lives to find the answer of the question of mind only, and still, none of them was able to come up with clear answers.

philosophy may be a good example about deficiency but what about this famous phrase: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"? plato who, you ask?

MQ, let me clear myself. It is myth that we willingly create, invent or manufacture new babies. It happens automatically and by default. We are just a part of this process called life. Throw this notion out of your mind that we control this process.

there has been talking about genetically engineered babies for wealthy parents as a whole new business and better birth control plans and technology also for educated people and overpopulated earth. dont ask me why.

Your last sentence is absolutely right. We cannot do what biology can do. If this was not true then we would had been created AI long ago.

is it!? are we not part of biology too? if not then what AI has to do with doing the same as biology do? is there wild AIs in the forest? and what is biology if not a branch of science?