Space Settlement

Awareness! Not "I think... therefore I am" but "I feel... therefore I
am".

I know what is the degree of development of neurobiology today, and I
know it is in the early beginning.

I am not talking about "simulating" but of replicating the actual
thing.

Omar

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Jake" wrote:
>
> It's not all that mysterious.. I think you might be surprised to
learn
> how much we actually do know about our senses. Pain, pleasure,
> emotion, etc.. Neurobiology is much farther along than you give
credit..
>
> Consciousness?? "I think.. Therefore I am"??
> I don't think it is that big of a stretch to imagine code capable of
> simulating consciousness by being able to question it's self.. Which
> is essentially what we do that makes us "intelligent" or "conscious"
> (These both are basically the same thing because you can't have one
> without the other)
>
> And I think this is related to space settlements.. I know that A.I.
> could be an extremely essential part of the all settlements control
> systems.. Not to mention food production, sanitation, maintenance,
and
> many others..
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Omar E. Vega"
> >
> > Hi Tom:
> >
> > Concience is a even bigger problem than intelligence. The fact
is:
> > nobody knows what it is, either is
> > called "awareness", "being", "self" or whatever. Who say he knows
is
> > not telling the truth.
> >
> > Perhaps one day someone will find the way of build "simulacras"
> > (Phillip K. Dick) of human intelligence good enough to fool us.
> > After all, it seem you could imitate some brain process with
> > machinery. However, what do we know about concience? Why animals
> > feel pain? what is "feel"? I have no idea and I can bet money (I
am
> > sure I win) that nobody else knows.
> >
> > That's a pretty bad start to build a model of "awareness".
> >
> > Omar
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "tom.bielecki"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, I wasn't reffering to Uploads, actually. But I am glad
that
> > you
> > > brought up that point.
> > >
> > > I was thinking more along the lines of having something like the
> > > neurological structure of an infant being recreated, in the most
> > > primitive of forms, and having it evolve by itself to what we
would
> > > call "intelligence." Now, of course, If you had the computing
> > ability
> > > to do that, then you would be able to upload the conscience of
an
> > > adult, but that is not my intended purpose. I was thinking
about
> > and
> > > evolving intelligence, with a biological framework, created in a
> > > virtual context.
> > >
> > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Lucio de Souza Coelho"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 3/20/07, tom.bielecki wrote:
> > > > (...)
> > > > > Do you (or anybody else) believe that and artificial
> > intelligence
> > > > > could be created by making a computer model of the brain
> > itself?
> > > Do we
> > > > > fully understand how the neuron works, and evolves, with
> > information?
> > > > > Maybe the best way of creating AI is to recreate it using
the
> > > original
> > > > > biological conditions. (I believe this could occur,
because
> > of the
> > > > > shear speed of quantum operations, and how well they could,
> > > > > theoretically, model biological systems, in the future)
> > > >
> > > > You are talking about Uploads, apparently: simulations of
human
> > minds
> > > > in computers. The would-be ultimate form of immortality.
> > > >
> > > > This is not exactly AI, though, in the sense that you could
> > create an
> > > > Upload of yourself and any other living human and in the end
you
> > would
> > > > still know nothing about how the human mind works; you would
just
> > > > understand the basic, low-level functioning of neurons and
their
> > > > connections, and would continue with no idea whatsoever about
how
> > > > those tiny thinghies flashing signals to each other can create
> > > > high-level phenomena such as consciousness.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, those "artificial intelligences" would still be
> > humans, for
> > > > all practical purposes. They would not be superintelligent or
be
> > able
> > > > to process information not tailored for humans. (e.g., they
> > wouldn't
> > > > be able to see five-dimensional objects.) And oddly, even
though
> > they
> > > > would be "just computer programs", they would still even feel
> > bodily
> > > > necessities such as eating and having sex (and would likely
have