[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Skybird

that is flawed logic, because free will does not mean to be able to deafeat the laws of physics as our models define them, but to freely decide, and on this: see above. I do not want to open that can of worms, since it is VERY much material. and I admit I woudl need to refresh it before I enage in deeper discussion of neurophysiology and philosophical implications.

It is only flawed logic because you assume we have a free will. Otherwise it proves that we can not have. Ok, if reality means "many worlds" I can accept defeat, but as long as we stick to the single space-time-continuum model, we can have no free will under the laws of physics.

But forget my excurse into physics - I cannot prove or explain that here, and I admit it could be wrong. Sorry for trying to lure you into this territory, it is indeed too big.

I said for another resaon. We think that a machine that simulates human intelligence through calculations is different to us because we understand the causalities behind it. When we no longer clinge to our concept of consciousness and free will, we see that we are not different to this machine.

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is all speculation, including the theory of astronomers I referred to. I am always hesitant to label something as a conclusion when all I have is speculation only. It is a mind experiment. Coclusion I reserve for theories which base on some former information and finding offering some more substance. Making conclusions on the basis of speculations alone necessarily leads not to conclusions but - more speculation.

The correct term is conjecture. A (mathematical) theorem is a conjecture until it is proven.

Originally Posted by Skybird

A PC harddisk cannot take over functions of the processor. A CPU does not calculate and store in holographic patterns. A GPU cannot learn by itself to prolduce sounds. A mainboard does not change it's hardwiring. A human brain does not think in binary code.

I call lack of imagination. Why are you intentionally limiting AI to silicon based computers of today? Sure, with the current generation of computers we can never achieve the required processing power. There are many problems with silicon based computers, the biggest is size. A computer that has enough computing power for human intelligence is just too large and too restricted by physical limits (speed of light etc). And will therefore never be built.There are already new technologies on the horizon, like quantum, chemical or biological computers.

But you seem to know very little about software. Software can adapt and take over all those functions you mentioned. (Well it cannot do today, but software technology is still in its infancy, you do realize that?)

Or in other words, it's not the neurons in Tolstois brain that wrote "War and Peace". It was written by the program "Leo Tolstoi", on the "brain of Leo Tolstoi" computer. Both beyond reach of of todays technology, sure.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And still I say it does not compare. Computers and brains operate in two totally different working modes, the one in a digital, binary code, the other in a mode we yet have to understand, and maybe calling it holographic only is a rough approach on the real nature of "thinking".

Once we know, we will begin building such an analogue, holographic computer!

Originally Posted by Skybird

Even if I do the same thing like a computer decides by his software (and me maybe having programmed the software) - you still do not know why this is so, and what my motivations and motives and/or biological drives are when doing this or that. Also, I have a completely different image on my mind about what I do, and why - and it may even change over time, and get distorted over time.

As I said before, it could also not explain why you do these things, so there is no difference to the artificial you.

that is exactly the uncritical, almost fatalistic acceptance of technology I mentioned.

So you say I can stop them? Memes like artificial intelligence, communism, coca cola or the internet are larger than human beings, and they can only be stopped by other memes. I don't know how this realization would make me a slave of technology. If you tell me how to stop these thingsw, maybe I would try.

But I already see we will never agree on anthing here because I am a technologist, and you are an universalist. The problem I have with that is that you want to do everything differently, but you don't say exactly how. You have a habit are trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious. Still it's always interesting to read you posts because of the breadth of your ideas. I just don't see any conclusion forming out of your philosophy, probably that is your philosophy.

But in all honesty I must say I don't trust you psychologists. By nature you try to mystify the brain and human existance in order to make your field inaccessible to outsiders, while in reality psychology has achieved nothing, and never will. The only real progress is made in the field of neurology, because it looks at real stuff, not tapestry patterns. (And in psychiatry, insofar as it deals with easing diseases.)

Psychologists are very much like artists who paint a red circle and explain in 10.000 words that it is anything but a circle. Engineers are dumb painters, but they will make circles very much the same.

Anyway, I will have a look at that book you mentioned - sounds interesting!