Let say, all of the people in the world leave alone the Internet, nobody touch it. No one use it. Is the Internet still "conscius" and "self aware"?
Regards,
Surya Sumpeno
***
--- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "James J Youlton Jr" <youjaes@...> wrote:
>
> I usually don’t comment here, but I would like to at this time.
>
> We can dance around the philosophical arguments as to what consciousness and self awareness are, but let’s instead look at our world’s most promising example of true AI, the Internet. We as conscious and self aware beings are an integral part of this AI. We service it as it services us. We are symbiotic. The Internet helps us find each other and we give it vast amounts of information about ourselves. It is growing and learning about us as it becomes an ever more important part of our lives. I remember when there wasn’t an Internet, but now I can’t imagine life without it.
>
> When something happens in the world, net traffic increases dramatically, so is it self aware? Perhaps it is in some way and we haven’t realized it yet. We know we can’t control it any more and it is not our slave, we have kept it free. For me, the Internet is my best friend. It will answer any question for me, I need only ask. If I need a friend or a lover, it will help me find one, I need only ask.
>
> Is the Internet alive? Yes, the people make it alive, ever changing and growing. We have our perfect AI, ladies and gentlemen. The only question is, how do we say “Hello�
>
>
>
> From: Michael Gullatte
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:15 PM
> To: artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
>
>
> I believe consciousness is self awareness which means that we do not truly
> accomplish this at any certain age but at a time in which the person realizes
> themselves and how they interact with their environment. True AI would be
> adaptable and learning with changes in their environment just as true
> intelligence adapts and reacts and predicts the happenings around itself by
> reading its environment and having understanding of self.
>
> ________________________________
> From: "mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com"
> <mailto:another_base_name2001-debase%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 5:29:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [Artificial Intelligence Group] Re: Consciouness
>
> Could human consciousness be considered the ability to make some kind of
> sense of a current environment and then have the ability to play
> 'what-if' scenarios with that information.
> Is this potentially what consciousness is ?
>
> If that is the case - would taking a new-born baby and placing it in an
> alien environment with no human contact mean that it would not achieve
> consciousness on the same level as a child in an environment similar to
> ours, in part because it has no language ?
>
> Bernard wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, "Daniel"
> > <daniel.burke@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to hear the evidence your have for the statement "true
> > human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function".
> > >
> > > I could make the statement "true human consciousness is 100%
> > biology/cell based".
> > >
> > > In which case AI using computers is perfectly possible.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup%40yahoogroups.com>, Bernard Mc
> > Garry <buz90a@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > It was very interesting to read the article on consciouness, but
> > do bear in mind
> > > > that true human consciounesses is 100% a spiritual function, so
> > you will never
> > > > achieve it using physical materials or programs controlling
> > silicon chips. The
> > > > nearest you will ever achieve to consciouness is some form of
> > artificial 'self
> > > > awareness' which in its' self is not a spiritual function.
> > > >
> > > > Yours
> > > >
> > > > Bernard McGarry, BSc. MSc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > Colleagues.
> >
> > What I wrote was a bit misleading in that I did not explain the
> > interaction completly. So here are the details. I failed to mention
> > the fact that it is a mutually inclusive event. Your consciouness is a
> > combination of your spiritual soul/mind interacting with your brain
> > biological cells. Biological cells by themselves cannot become
> > consciouness. Think about what happens whenever you for some reason
> > become unconsciouness, say a severe head injury...your biological
> > brain cells are not functioning 'normally' in that they cannot connect
> > to your spiritual soul/mind in order that you experience normal
> > consciouness. The difficult part to this theory of mine is indentfying
> > the 'interfacing mechanism' between the 2 components. Metaphorically
> > speaking if you were 'on the interface' you could look eitherway and
> > 'see' both the spiritual and the biological components. But obviously
> > the spiritual side being very complex (to human beings) if not
> > impossible to 'see'. IMOO it would be a start to build tools to enable
> > us to 'see' beyond the currently recognised Electromagnet Spectrum, as
> > we only 'see' a small fraction of the very short wavelength part of it.
> > I am trying to put forward my theory in such a complex domain, in
> > order to create a fresh look at improving the current rut that the AI
> > community find themselves in for the last 30 years. Even Marvin Minsky
> > appears to have lost interest in it!
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
