I don't see how it is bull tweedle, there has yet to be a successful
sentient AI. They always loose their sense self of importance and suicide.
Scot
Hermital wrote in message <353A64D1.6CA5 at livingston.net>...
>On Sun 4/19/98 15:23 -0400 Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
>>>> I think his question is relevant here too.
>>Wherever "here" is. I admit that I did not see the comp.ai NGs listed
>in the header when I wrote my response, but where are you reading this
>and/or posting from?
>>> There is a theory that suggests
>> that advanced computer systems could infact assume consciousness with the
>> right programming. And programs that are allowed to improve upon and
>> reprogram themselves could arguably become a sentient consciousness.
>> Remember that ultimately everything comes from the same star stuff that
we
>> are made of. If you want more scientific terms, we constitute the same
sub
>> atomic particles that exist throughout all of creation.
>>>We disagree on this point, but if you want to see the work product of
>someone deeply involved in the subject of quantum consciousness, go to
>http://www.hia.com/pcr/qmotion.html.>>> We are just a freak of nature that allowed the material that makes up our
>> constituency become a pattern in the way it does to create US, but not
>> impossible or WE wouldn't be here. This is paralleled by the fact that IA
>> Consciousness would be a freak of computing, but not impossible.
>>>Bull tweedle, my good man. Bull tweedle. You are merely running off at
>the mouth in the above paragraph.
>--
>Alan
>Spontaneous self-organization is to the life sciences
>as perpetual motion machines are to physics.
>Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm:
>http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm
