> Every century must have its paradigm. This is the century of molecular
> cell biology and the genome. The last century witnessed the mating of
> mathematical logic and psychology to produce artificial intelligence.
> That game is all played out.
>
> In the run-up to the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy experienced
> an epiphany:  Human intelligence in action was fully described by the
> predicate calculus. The digital computer had arrived. All that was
> needed was to mechanize the manipulative algebra of the predicate
> calculus, and we should have artificial intelligence. By the early
> sixties, this had been done and exploited. What next?
>
> Minsky, however, saw that the best way to separate the Department of
> Defense from its money was to use grad students to generate clever
> programs, and call it symbol manipulation. By the late seventies, DoD
> money dried up, and Minsky declared research in artificial
> intelligence dead.
>
> It is now time to move on to natural intelligence. ...

> On 7 Jan, 16:39, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:>

>> Every century must have its paradigm. This is the century of molecular
>> cell biology and the genome. The last century witnessed the mating of
>> mathematical logic and psychology to produce artificial...

> Every century must have its paradigm. This is the century of molecular
> cell biology and the genome. The last century witnessed the mating of
> mathematical logic and psychology to produce artificial intelligence.
> That game is all played out.
>
> In the run-up to the Dartmouth Summer Conference, McCarthy experienced
> an epiphany:  Human intelligence in action was fully described by the
> predicate calculus. The digital computer had arrived. All that was
> needed was to mechanize the manipulative algebra of the predicate
> calculus, and we should have artificial intelligence. By the early
> sixties, this had been done and exploited. What next?
>
> Minsky, however, saw that the best way to separate the Department of
> Defense from its money was to use grad students to generate clever
> programs, and call it symbol manipulation. By the late seventies, DoD
> money dried up, and Minsky declared research in artificial
> intelligence dead.
>
> It is now time to move on to natural intelligence. ...

> On Jan 8, 2:48 pm, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>> I can only give my opinion. I think I presented a rough outline of
>> brain action without any need of soul. Did I not?

>
> I do not think that your roguh outline of brain actionn would require
> anything that could be called "soul" in order to be functional.
> OTOH I am not faniliar with the term of "soul", I mostly use the term
> onsciousness.
> Is the soul the same as consciousness?
> JP

> On Jan 8, 8:12 am, JP lycos.com> wrote:

>> On Jan 8, 2:48 pm, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>

>>> I can only give my opinion. I think I presented a rough outline of
>>> brain action without any need of soul. Did I not?

>>
>> I do not think that your roguh outline of brain actionn would require
>> anything that could be called "soul" in order to be functional.
>> OTOH I am not faniliar with the term of "soul", I mostly use the term
>> onsciousness.
>> Is the soul the same as consciousness?
>> JP

>
> If we are to discuss intelligence, we must first make our peace with
> the relationship between body and soul. Some, of course, are not aware
> that there is a problem. Let them be happy in their ignorance. Do not
> disturb.
> ...

> nycap.rr.com> wrote in message

>> Soul (spirit, essence, psyche, mind, consciousness, awareness,
>> intelligence, intellect, mentality, self, individuality, persona,
>> personality, conscious mental field, self awareness, sentience,
>> executive function).

>
> Those are *certainly * not synonomous! Remove "spirit" and "soul" and you
> have a group of words that describe processes that have ontological status
> as they have causal links to lower-level phenomena in the great hierarchy of
> being, or describe sets of such processes.

> On Jan 8, 6:27 pm, "Alpha" yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> nycap.rr.com> wrote in message

>>> Soul (spirit, essence, psyche, mind, consciousness, awareness,
>>> intelligence, intellect, mentality, self, individuality, persona,
>>> personality, conscious mental field, self awareness, sentience,
>>> executive function).

>

>> Those are *certainly * not synonomous!  Remove "spirit" and "soul" and you
>> have a group of words that describe processes that have ontological status
>> as they have causal links to lower-level phenomena in the great hierarchy of
>> being, or describe sets of such processes.

>
> I don't wish to argue about words. I merely wish to show how many
> words are used to talk about an (entity, process, whatever). Why so
> many?
>
> I argue that it follows from the discussion between Descartes and the
> Princess Elizabeth as to whether the soul had causal powers. Descartes ...

> On Jan 8, 6:27 pm, "Alpha" yahoo.com> wrote:

>> nycap.rr.com> wrote in message

>

>>> Soul (spirit, essence, psyche, mind, consciousness, awareness,
>>> intelligence, intellect, mentality, self, individuality, persona,
>>> personality, conscious mental field, self awareness, sentience,
>>> executive function).

>>
>> Those are *certainly * not synonomous! Remove "spirit" and "soul" and
>> you
>> have a group of words that describe processes that have ontological
>> status
>> as they have causal links to lower-level phenomena in the great hierarchy
>> of
>> being, or describe sets of such processes.

>
> I don't wish to argue about words. I merely wish to show how many
> words are used to talk about an (entity, process, whatever). Why so ...

> nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b9cce7a3-bb32-4164-9fbe-60a5833698ed@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>

>> The circuitry connecting up
>> the neurons leads the neurons to effectuate motor acts. That's all
>> there is. Just neurons doing their thing. My soul has no causal
>> powers.

>
> But your mind does! And it has causal powers that are not recognizable at
> the level of description of neurons or molecules or atoms.