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.

Others are aware of a pseudo-problem that they lay to a poor choice of
words, a misuse of language. They tend to be very, very clever. They
turn on a spigot, and a rush of words befogs the question.

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

All these words imply an uneasiness with soul. All these words imply
an object, or something approaching an object. Something we might
carry about in a watch pocket and take out for display at an
appropriate time.

Such a diarrhea of the mouth. There is no talking to them. They have
surrounded themselves with such a fortress of words that they cannot
hear.

---- ---

On Mar 30, 7:45 pm, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:45:49 -0700 (PDT), "rscan@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:

On Mar 30, 7:05 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

I agree with much of what you say. But why is consciousness an
illusion? Is the quality of "wettness" of hydrogen and oxygen
molecules enmass, an illusion? No it is a quality of these atoms
interacting in changing relationships over time.

If you simulate water on a computer it still may not "feel" wet. I
think it is possible to create the qualities of experience by
manipulating matter but it may not be possible for circuits to
actually "feel" alive. Then again maybe it is possible, but I think
that if we want to simulate and emulate subjective experience we might
have to create some sort of wetware that produces fields and charges
like a brain does.

I the only statements of yours that I can't entirely concur with is your
one that expresses confidence in us being able to build sufficiently
complex and correctly adaptively self-organizing (brain mimicking)
machines in only two decades. The only chance that we may do so may be
in 50 to hundred years is if we find a way to 'let lose' a rapidly
automatically evolving AI-algorithmic entities that would then
necessarily/inevitably also endanger us slowly primarily/originally
evolved critters. ;>

Secondly I simply feel that you kept pushing a too polemic position by
overstating that reality is created by our brains - though I must admit
that you eventually began to compensate for this initially created
imbalance. :)

Thirdly and lastly, I think you don't give your self enough credit for
being able to quite "Efficiently Philosophically (and theoretically)
Transcend" (hence I have some hope that you could one day turn out to be
almost as "EPT" a thinker as I am :>) the limitations that keeps so many
people locked into 'loops of imbecilic (or irrational) ideation'.

Appreciatively yours,

Peter

On Mar 31, 8:45 am, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote:

My feet always go where my head tells them to go, so where's your
problem? Do your feet go south when your mind instructs them go north?

MG

Sir Frederick wrote:

Humphrey, whose views I agree with, also wrote a book called "Seeing Red".

"turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:38d7cb82-9581-4ad0-97cb-21ccee79a680@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 7:45 pm, "rs...@nycap.rr.com" nycap.rr.com> wrote: