You can't program AI, if you could it would have been done by now. If we ever create an AI, it will be through Neural Networks.

You can rest assured that there are quite a few labs currently attemping to build an andriod.

The US military is certainly amoung them. Although, they may not care if it even remotely resembles a human. If it look like an army tank they'd probably be tickled pink.

Also, they couldn't care less if it achieves true sentience. On the contrary, they probably wouldn't accept it as a true 'life form' no matter how sentient it actully became.

After all, we can't even prove that humans are sentient. The only proof we have is our own personal experience.

When it came down to 'proving' that it is truly sentient, it would basically be impossible to prove. The best I could hope to do is build a machine that emulates a human being so well that you couldn't tell!

I could never prove that it's sentient. I can't even prove to you that I'm sentient! Just as you can't prove your sentience to me.

So all I'm really saying is that I could build a machine that would appear to have the behavior of a sentient being.

JB...

I am wondering how you have come to the conclusion, based upon Webster that awareness is first?

The definitions are posted, could you copy and extrapolate?

I do not understand your inference.

Neual Networks are 'programmed'.

They are analog computers.

And of course that's what I would use Spider.

Just the same, we would still be using a lot of digital comptuers during the development process.

I've already stated that I would use analog computers. I would build what I call an Anadigdroid. It would be a combination of analog and digital computers.

It would also be the first sentient life-form ever built by humanity so don't expect it to be perfect. It would be extremly crude (compared with humans). I've already stated that as well.

Will it be truly 'sentient'?

Like I say, we can't even prove that humans are truly sentient. We can't only experience sentience for ourselves, we can't prove the sentience of another.

The military also couldn't care less if it could be given Free Will.

On the contrary, they wouldn't even want it to have Free Will.

They would be happy just to have an automated robot that can do what it's told to do.

Actually if they stick with using purely digital comptuers for a brain I don't think they'd need to worry about it ever becoming senient, or alive, or gaining free will.

Not in this aspect of the conversation James... but just wanted you to know that I have no hard feelings over our discussion...

It's all good here Michael, never any hard feelings.

I tried sending you an email, but your email preferences forbid it.

Let me just repeat a cliche I once heard, "If anything I do or say can be taken in more than one way, always take it in the best way possible"

Creative: Did this come from Webster?



Perhaps Webster did not state which came first. Webster is simply stating what "Aware" implies,~~~ which is "vigilance in observing or alertness in drawing inferences..."

But: How can one observe or "have experiences" if one is NOT aware first?

But you are the one who stated that perceiving requires the (attaining of) awareness.

I was simply agreeing with that statement that you made.

This is what you wrote:


But then you interpreted that to mean:




And I said no, because you have to be aware and able to draw inferences in order to "experience" something.

Your statement was: Perceiving requires the attaining of awareness."

That means that you cannot truly perceive unless you are aware. Therefore to perceive means more than just "collecting and processing information."

"Aware is to have knowledge..." (Webster) if you have no knowledge of your experience, can you honestly claim to have experienced anything?

***

Note on the quantum level:
Waves, energy and Vibrations hold information. Everything in existence is energy and information in the form of vibrations which are moving or standing waves. Standing waves are stored information. Stored information is useless unless it is accessed and used by an aware observer.

Perhaps you did not agree that Webster meant awareness must be first. I thought you did. I was simply in agreement with that.

I don't believe Webster said anything that would refute the idea that awareness must come first.

I suppose you could interpret it either way you wanted to.

JB

What does it take to "have knowledge?"

1.) It takes an aware observer. (one who can draw inferences)
2.) It takes experience.
3.) It takes memory that the observer can access.

What is memory?
1.) A standing wave. It is stored information of the experience.

JB

Oh Jeannie Beanie Baby Doll

You spark my mind into raging flames of imagination.

You're precisely correct, a memory is a standing wave. However we can abstract that notion to imply that any consistent pattern or form can be considered to be a 'standing wave'.

With this in mind I was pondering how computers memorize things and 'perceive' their memory. Assuming they could 'perceive'.

In other words, if I was the android what would I sense, feel, or see as memory?

Well, trying to think in terms of being a digital computer is impossible. There is no vantage point in a digital computer that could be considered to be the 'self' or the pineal gland as you say.

The CPU certainly couldn't be the 'self'. It's just a processor that processes a few bits of information in a serial fashion. the processor itself, could never 'sense' the entire picture of it's memory simultaneously. All that it could ever 'sense' at any given moment in time is a mere few bits, sometime being mere program instructions, and sometimes being data. There's no way to even imagine a CPU becoming sentient.

There is also no way to imagine a digital memory becoming sentient. That would be like trying to imagine a piece of paper becoming sentient because it has word printed on it. That's really all a digital memory is. It's just electronic sheets of paper so-to-speak.

There really isn't much left in a digital computer other than some clocks chips that interface the memory to the CPU. There's nothing in the digital computer that could even remotely be seen as becoming sentient.

However, as Spider was kind enough to point out, with a Neural Net sentience might be possible.

Neural Nets are analog computers, which is precisely what I have said are paramount all along.

For those who are not familiar with an analog computer let me try to briefly explain how one works.

An analog computer is a collection of OP AMPS (operational amplifies). These are special electronic devices that produce the result of 'calculations' without the need to 'calculate'.

I wish I could easily explain how they do that, but unfortunately that would require an entire course on electronics. Suffice it to say, that when you put the raw data at the inputs of an OP AMP you get the resulting 'calculated' or 'computed' result at the output of the OP AMP, and you get the result instantly. (almost simultaneously with the input). They also calculate in 'parallel'. In other words, they can be arranged to 'see' the entire page of memory, so-to-speak, all at once.

Just to give you a really crude idea, let me show you a picture of a computer like I used to have when I was a boy. It was a Heathkit Analog Computer. The picture shown here is not the one I owned by it's the same model.

It is the lower two pictures on the following web page, (the model EC-1).

http://dcoward.best.vwh.net/analog/heath.htm

In the upper picture, of this model, it shows the computer before it has been programmed.

In the lower picture (with all the wires) it show the computer after it has been programmed.

This was a very antiqued version of a Neural Net. (I guess that means that I'm an antique too then. )


So analog computers, or neural nets, can 'sense' the entire picture at once. A Neural Net is a complex configuration of OP AMPS, that have been 'programmed' in such a way to make it possible for them to sense entire pages of memory (or direct sensory input) simultaneously.

I might add that today's technology provides us with Neural Nets (analog computers) that can be reprogrammed on the fly. They are no longer 'hard-wired' programs. There are many marvelous ways that the Neural Nets can be made to change their configuring or programming (their wiring, or standing wave patterns) dynamically on the fly.

Now, we at can imagine a 'self' from the vantage point of the Neural Net, and ask, "What does it perceive?"

Well, clearly it 'perceives' the entire picture, just like we do!

For true sentience the only question then becomes, "Is it aware of what it is perceiving?"

Can awareness arise spontaneously from perception?

THAT IS THE QUESTION of this whole debate.

Can a neural net become aware of what it perceives?

Can it become sentient?

Can awareness arise from perception, or must awareness be innate before perception even begins (in a truly sentient being)?

This is it Michael. This is the question.

Clearly the Neural Net can perceive. The question is, can it become aware that it is perceiving?

If it can, then sentience is nothing more than complexity of the mind. No spirit required. Batteries may be required though, as well as some assembly.

JB,

I think I see where you are coming from, but I do not recognize your inference as valid/true.

You see, if perceiving only happens when something has attained awareness, then as soon as awareness is realized, perception is also had. Simultaneously.

That is why I said they go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other, according to Webster.

What is awareness without perception, or vice-versa?

That is what I logically concluded from those definitions.

Which is why I stated that Webster trumped us all... 'cept maybe Lee, s1ow, and Artsy...



Yes James,

Never hard feelings, thank you for the clarification, I truly wondered. That was a little unsettling.




Gotta run for now... busy busy busy...

Peace!

Hmmm one thing I wonder about is this....Although sensors and interaction would be needed as well as some physical control I believe that the idea of android versus creation may be a stumbling block.

I say this because when I say it should be able to have physical control such as plugging itself in this is in the interest of helping it reach sentience by having to make choices.

The need for form for people to recognize it or be able to psychologically accept it as a sentient being is another subject altogether. For those truly interested in the philisophical point of sentience versus non the form of the creation would be of little impact while the reality of what it means would be more important. Stage one could well consist of creating a creation that has the potential to demonstrate sentience, and stage two is that once sentience was demonstrated in a way that objective observers could accept build it a shell or body that those less objective would react better to, and letting the creation decide if it wished to transplant into this more percievably friendly form, or if not a "brother or sister" creation could be in this shell from the start.

This all assumes that the "I AM" team would understand and agree that the creation should first be "powered up" once the cotainment body and programming was complete so that it would start much like an infant or child with a functioning body simply needing time to experience. Another approach would be for it to have a partially enabled body and for it's mental development to coincide with it's physical ability improvements. By my opinion since the creation would be unlikely to grow with our technology this would be easier done through off on or power adjustments for physical ability.

The reason I bring all of this up is to seperate the two issues and make it clear that I believe the matter of sentience is most important with or without acceptance from the average person with prejudice views.

Well, this is where the distinction between the two words comes into play.

If a distinction between the two words can even be had.

I think the examples I gave of an analog computer 'perceiving' sensory input or stored memory information is a valid example of perception (assuming that you don't demand that perception automatically implies awareness)

Only then can we speak of example of perception without awareness.

I think that even digitally controlled robots are exhibiting 'perception' without awareness. They can clearly sense (perceive) the world around them and react accordingly. But clearly they are not 'aware' that they are doing this.

In that sense perception can indeed exist without awareness.

So then the question remains unanswered,... can awareness arise from machines that can perceive, but are not yet aware that they are perceiving?

On the other hand, if we demand that perception implies awareness then it's a moot question because we are using both words to mean the same thing.

If we are using both words to mean the same thing then of course they are going to be inseparably dependent.

Once it deteriorates into semantic mumbo jumbo.

How is that productive? It's totally circular and gets you nowhere. It couldn't even be seen as an insight unto itself.

All it amounts to is a demand that two words mean the same thing.

This is what Richard Feynman had to say about this,...

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard Feynman

If you want to talk about the difference between two concepts, you need to have the definitions of those concepts clearly defined before you begin. Then you can compare the definitions.

Your original willingness to offer a precise definition for what you meant by perceive, is what drew me into this discussion originally. That original clarity of definition seems to have dissolved entirely into the sea of semantics.

We now seem to have that perceive = aware = perceive = aware = perceive = aware = perceive = aware.

Where originally we had the assertion that awareness arises from perception.

Quite a difference.

Clearly Dr. Feynman is right. Beware of the philosophers.

Exactly! In fact, all forms are mostly made up of standing waves. That is how an object acquires and maintains its form. It "remembers."

It is memory. Hence a rock remains a rock. It doesn't just vanish ~~ like a rock might do in a dream.

Eventually, however, everything will vanish. Nothing is infinitely permanent.

The difference between your dreams at night and the world you call reality is defined by its length of duration. A dream fades away and vanishes. In the morning you awake to your reality.

~Which by the way, is just another dream, only this one has a longer duration.

But this reality will also fade away. It is a dream also. But it simply has a longer duration. Its duration is what makes it real to us.

Another thing that makes this reality seem more real than a dream is because of our enhanced senses. We can eat cake in a dream, ~ and maybe sometimes even taste it a little. I have tasted chocolate in a dream. But when I am awake, it tastes much better. Pain and pleasure in a dream are not as strong. The dream does not have the duration it needs to be called reality.

But if you could enhance your dream state, making pain and pleasure and all the senses very strong, and increase the duration of a certain dream, say for a year or two, then that dream might be misconstrued as reality for you, the observer.

So, this world we live in seems real because of its duration and because of our enhanced senses to feel and touch and experience things here. The enhanced duration is memory and standing waves that keep objects from fading away.

JB

Because of the fact that we're talking about designing the first ever sentient being. AND because of the way that I personally work as a designer, the whole concept of 'powering it up' for the first time isn't a meaningful concept to me.

I don't picture the thing being built static like something you'd build from a pre-designed blueprint. And then after it's completed we just "power it up" and expect it to be sentient.

On the contrary, I see it more as a 'guided evolution'.

Or maybe to put that another way,... Think of the lab more as a womb that a factory.

The android would truly be slowly developing like a fetus in a woman, and the day that people would normally consider to be the 'power-up' day, would be the day it leaves the lab.

However, it would have been 'powered-up' long before that.

In fact, elements of it's brain would be powered up ASAP, in the very early going of the project.

But again, this may be nothing more than a reflection of how I personally work as a creation designer.



I think it would be impossible to determine true sentience. Even the engineers could never know for sure if it was sentient, unless of course it was such a flop that it was utterly obvious that it wasn't.

An interesting question is,... "How stupid could it be and still be considered to be sentient?"

I know human beings who display questionable sentience.

I was also thinking about this with respect to an android. We store our memories in some kind of subconscious mind that can only be accessed indirectly. By that, I mean that our memory is merely a memory of that experience of actual standing waves that we have experienced.

What our memory actually is, is our experiences recorded in our neural nets.

However, when we access them we access them from these recorded memories. which clearly are not perfect reproductions.

For example if we glance at a news paper and then close our eyes and try to visualize it. We can do a fairly good job of recalling the basic patterns we had seen. Like maybe some pictures or titles, etc. Be we could never read the paper from our memory of having just glanced at it.

An android theoretically could taken in every detail. Then in it's mind it could reproduce the newspaper image precisely well enough to actually read it from memory even if it hadn't taken the time to read it originally!

In other words, android would have a memory capability far superior to a human's memory.

Moreover, an android could be designed to channel it's stored memory information right to the inputs of it's actual sensors. In other words, it could be given the ability have the entire experience all over again just from memory. Wouldn't that be great!

Imagine going for a motorcycle ride (or doing whatever you love to do), then coming home and laying on the couch and re-running the experience in your mind and experiencing it again with the precise same clarity and detail of the actual original experience! In theory an android could be built that would be able to do that!



I think it's only due to the duration of the standing ways. I think it also has to do with the clarity of detail. Cleary we don't remember nearly as vividly as the actual experience. Some memories can be really strong. But we have limitations. And most memories can fade rather quickly.

It's all interesting stuff to ponder.

Now, if I remember correctly, it's time for me to make something to eat.

I just baked two quiche. Broccoli, bacon Cheese, eggs, cream and spices. They smell delicious.



The human mind is capable of doing this, but it takes special programing. Some people have photographic memories.

I met a man who claimed that he could watch a movie once and then replay it again later completely in his head, word for word ~~ including the credits at the end ~~ while he was working on a menial task on an assembly line.

I never did attempt to test him on his abilities, so it was only his word I had. But I did notice him "watching" his movies as he worked.

I wonder if he could replay some of his own memories. I never asked him.

JB

It certainly is true that we have no way of knowing how other people imagine things, remember things, or even perceive things. We can only assume that their experiences are similar to our own. But we can never know precisely how lucid their memories are in comparison with our own.

I just woke up from a deeply lucid dream a few moments ago. It was so real it was like I was there and it was actually happening. It was partly based on memory to be sure. I dreamed I was with my mother in her room. It contained a lot of elements from memory I'm sure. She was laying in her bed talking to me like she always did. Just simple things like asking me to get her a drink of water, etc. Her image was so vivid and so crystal clear. I could see the moistness in her eyes, I could hear her voice perfectly as well as the subtle sounds of her movements, I could see the trembling of her shake that she had. It was as real as real can be. The first thought that went through my mind was "Mom! You're alive!". No sooner did I think than I repeated it aloud to her. She looked right at me and simply said, "Well, I hope so". Like as if I just said something utterly stupid.

The next thought to enter my mind was a more somber logical matter-of-fact thought. Almost as if I was talking to myself, "It's impossible". The tone had a razor sharp edge of absolute truth. In the back of my mind, almost as if a conversation is being overheard from another room I hear my own voice saying things like, "We've been though this before. It can't be so. It's not even remotely possible. We concluded that she can't recover. Her body was cremated."

The dream quickly faded away, almost like being simultaneous pulled away spatially whilst dissolving of clarity. The somber logic was so concretely certain in its factual conclusion that I didn't even resist as the dream dissipated into nothingness and I awoke in my bed. Clearly it was a dream. Partially based on memories. Partially based on pure imagination. Some people may even claim that there was more to it, saying that my mother's spirit was trying to contact me though a dream. But I really didn't get the feeling that she was attempting to communicate anything to me. It was just a dream based on memories of the way things were.

It was as lucid as reality. I was there, she was there, we were in a real room. It was an experience as vivid as any real life experience. I have lucid dreams like this on occasion. And this certainly wasn't the first time I had a lucid dream of my mother. In fact, immediately after she had died I had lucid dreams of often. I would awaken from those dreams believing that the could be true, that somehow she 'recovered' from her heart attack. I had to convince myself over and over and over again of the impossibility of her ever recovering. I guess death is truly hard to accept even in the face of knowing that the body of the deceased had been cremated.

Of course, dreams of my mother are not the only lucid dreams that I have. But they are among the most lucid. Perhaps because the memories of her are the most lucid. I spent the last two years of her life tending to her basically 24/7 for all intents and purposes. That's a lot of memory material to draw from for creating dreams.

Although, I have had lucid dreams of things that could not possibly be from memory. Dreams of being in a spirit world unlike anything I have ever seen in any movie. Clearly those dreams are either completely creative imagination, or actual visions that come from another source. It's impossible to know which is true.

I don't see where Webster said that. Sorry.





Awareness implies the observer. Perception is the experience of the observer. There is no experience if there is on observer.

What is a sniper without a target?

He is waiting.




I disagree with your conclusions.

JB

This is how I see it too.

The perciever is the entity that is aware.

It has the ablilty to be aware even when there is nothing to be aware of but nothingness itself.

The spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep and the world was without form and void.

The spirit (the perciever) doesn't need to have anything to be aware other than it's own existence. And if it's own existence if without form and void, then this is what it is aware of. It is aware that there is nothing to percieve.

In this sense awareness can exist before perception.

Assuming that perception is defined as the experience of sensual input.

In fact, this is the spiritual view. That spirit can exist without physical form. That a spirit can be aware even though it has no physical form to be aware of.

Perception (as defined in this way) would require something to percieve. (i.e. a senusal world) A world that can be sensed.

Given this vantage point it makes perfect sense to imaine that awareness must come first.

However, if we take it the other way around. That perception (the interaction of phsyical things) can occur without awareness. Then we can have an external universe that exists without awareness. And we can imagine awareness arising in that world due solely to the compexity of the things within it.

This is the atheistic view. Although, it doen't need to be atheistic, it could still be a spiritual view via pantheism.

Religions that demand that a 'soul' be created first, are the spiritualities that demand awareness comes before peception can occur.

From my point of view, I have yet to come to a concrete decision and I'm not sure if its even possible to know. I do intuitively feel that our true nature is spiritual.

However, untill we fully understand the nature of the spirit, then we can't really come to any conclusions.

It could work either way. But the idea that the spirit can be aware without perception seems to be an absolute necessity.

It seems that if awareness can only arise from perception, then pure atheistism would be our true nature. There is no underlying spirit. We are nothing more than our physical form and without physical form we can have no awareness. (i.e. to speak of a spirit world would be meaningless)

Only the physical world can be meaningful because perception (the experience of sensual input demands a physical world).

The whole thing just boils down to the same old question,..

Is our fundamental essence spiritual or not?