Jenna Jameson Lesbian On Black Sofa

Digital

I do not think that there are some important "philosophical" reasons why it would be impossible to build a machine endowed with intelligence, including the ability to use natural language in the same way as we use it. You may even think that the machines performing simple algorithms can have an awareness that the implementation of simple instructions may be to them a simple "survival." Yet I believe that consciousness is a natural feature of simple physical processes. Similarly, I believe that the human brain is a biological computer - an extremely complicated, capricious, unpredictable, computer, however, not a "controlled intangible spirit of the relay signals." Hindu sages say that all is Brahman. If they were right, that would mean that, and the computer is Brahman. In what would it be worse? Conscious and intelligent computer may even possess free will, if the concept is understood as a feeling of compatibility of the decision of the value system is adopted. It can be humanly capricious and unpredictable. Theoretically, "may", however, between theory and practice gap opens sometimes impassable. Technical and theoretical problems that are facing the issue of artificial intelligence and the task of verification of hypotheses related to the "artificial" consciousness is in my view, enormous. On the problems of these, but some possibilities and I want to write some comments in today's entry.

Firstly, I think it is very important to make a distinction between intelligence and consciousness (or "awake", the ability to feel, to be subject of survival). Something like a cross between these two concepts to be aware of "higher order" linked to the rich associational structure, including - but not necessarily and not only - of language, semantics, and thus the backbone to express any thoughts, as well as aesthetics, ethics, etc. .. With it connects to our artistic sensitivity, sensitivity to the beauty of nature, to poetry, the beauty of mathematical formulas, the beauty of simplicity of proofs in mathematics and logic. This phenomenon of the human mind causes much confusion and is sometimes confused both with knowledge and with intelligence, meanwhile, although there is because of our intelligence and sensitivity, thanks to the richness of the structure of the human soul, he is content to "experience" rather than an actual experience. An example of confusion about the concepts of consciousness, intelligence, and "understanding" is a discussion around the famous "experiment devised" by John Searle (see "Chinese Room" ), where - in my opinion - everyone understood the concept differently polemicists, for which he had argue.
Some confuse it with the awareness of intelligence. They believe that conscious beings can only be equipped with intelligence and intelligent information processing that is always accompanied by consciousness. That need not be so, the easiest way we shall see when we notice that in a very intense and conscious way, we can live united in no way engaging our intelligence - physical pain, sexual arousal, 'animal' fear of appearing in a time of danger. If, in turn, we consider the enormity of complex calculations, which are carried out - for example - the brain of the host to provide a football striker in the penalty opponent and believe, that his whole attention is then focused on the movements of the goalkeeper, on the movements of the advancing defenders and the same shall be receiving the ball instinctively and out of consciousness, then we understand that the processing of information and awareness, not necessarily the same thing.
For example, the player to go back even further, presenting his own, very simple, but extremely technically difficult to verify the hypothesis concerning the nature of consciousness.

But let's start from the intelligentsia. In the 40 pioneer in computer technology, a prominent English mathematician and kryptoanalityk - Alan Turing proposed test that could show whether the machine, or rather performed by that program is or is not intelligent. This test would consist in placing in two separated areas: the computer has undergone a test in one man and moves in the second test. The tester does not know whether, in the second room is a man or a computer and using klawiaturowo - monitors "conversations" have it resolved. If he fails to recognize that, in the second room has a computer, then we say that the Turing test has been passed. This "behavioral" test seems to be methodologically correct. There is probably no other way to verify someone's intelligence (in this case is meant, as a capacity for reasoning in a human manner, in a manner appropriate intelligent people), and an interview with him and to examine the reasonableness of his speech. Although I do not deny nor the capability to build intelligent machines or the fact that about someone (something) intelligence to know we can only study it from "outside", I believe, however, that to the Turing Test to be considered credible, must be fulfilled several additional conditions, most important of which is one hundred percent effective during the "exam". If anyone manages to "break" mindset algorithm, then the person will be able to betray his "way" of other testers, and since then the machine does not pass the test any longer. Meanwhile, we recognize that intelligence is a trait that we can not lose, only because of something someone told on us. We understand it as a feature of "internal". For exactly the same reasons, the description of the test algorithm should be widely available. This stipulation clearly raises the bar for all aspiring to pass the Turing Test automata. Keep in mind that the intelligence of each algorithm should be constantly treated as a hypothetical. As the algorithm will take the next test, our belief in "truth" of his intelligence would of course increase, but if someone ever manage to "catch" it to the evident "inhuman stupidity", then it turns out that he was not smart never (! ), and not only when it is discovered. Scientific hypotheses and theories, including those which deal with the intelligence of specific machines, we can only forge. We can never carry their proof - unless we describe the nature of human intelligence and prove mathematical theorems in the form - but I think this idea as crazy. Probably
intelligent machine will have to have human connotations, and it is unknown whether this can be achieved not by taking part in the human good and bad - in the suffering, humiliation, pain, weakness, ułomnościach, shame, pride, ambition, triumph, pleasure, joy, satisfaction , surprise, a variation of what life brings. Is the humor, irony, malice, or betray our humanity mistakes, slips of the tongue, errors in general are possible without a lot of wealth born of the experience?

now come to consciousness. I believe, or at least close to this I am to believe that consciousness is accompanied by all the physical processes taking place in the universe, that it is somehow a fundamental property of existence. And that is why we speak of artificial consciousness is the same misconception as to talk about "artificial electron." It may seem that he deny what I wrote a few paragraphs above about piłkarzu "unconsciously," the host application. Contradiction however, disappears when we notice that in order consciousness could "demonstrate" that could "testify about myself," must be accompanied by memorizing survival. Experience, which has not been saved anywhere immediately "dies" and verify that it occurred that it was "conscious", it becomes impossible. When our football, even as he learned to master the avatar given away the ball, these exercises focus on all of his attention. Then, each receiving the ball had been aware of. Once this technique has been assimilated, the player did not have longer focus on the parties. He did not need them anymore, "remember" and so they started to disappear from his consciousness. Notice that the word "his" there is no sense only in the context of a specific human memory. That memory is the only glue "I", the only factor that separates the self from the rest of existence. "I", this (or that), who remembers my experiences, and who (or what) can remember them.
My hypothesis assumes that any algorithm capable of storing any simple event, and also for reference to what is remembered is at the time of such a process in a simple way conscious. This hypothesis seems difficult to challenge on the grounds of logic alone, and perhaps sometime in the distant future, we will be able to falsify it, or made more credible by some experiment. Verifying this hypothesis, however, will connect more with carrying out experiments on humans, not machines, because people just are beyond doubt aware. If ever our knowledge about the brain and technology have gone far enough that we can "protein" survival memorize in silicon and silicon experience to remember in the "protein", perhaps uprawdopodobnimy hypothesis that the silicon is capable of "inner experience" and that the content of consciousness may be something very simple, separate from the context of human experience.

Some fear that the emergence of intelligent and conscious machines will entail enormous, difficult to predict ethical problems. I do not agree with that. Even if the machine will create a truly and humanly intelligent, conscious, which has even some digital feelings her "personality" will almost certainly very different kind than ours. Easier for me to imagine that we will in some way "more than" than it would be "human" without participation in experiences such as humiliation after losing a fight, the joy of winning the match and the smell of their sweat, as awareness of the coming of old age and fear of death . While we can succeed in understanding it, will never feel the same way as we do. Creation of "standing in the server" machine with a higher intelligence than our own will almost certainly be technically easier than building an android which we give to human fate. With this machine, it will not unite us no biological relationship: it will be the "other species" and a million times more "different" than any other animal species living on Earth.

Although it is "theoretically possible", is "artificial man" ever actually built?
In the seventies, after a decade of success in the conquest of space around the Earth, after a few landings on the moon man, it seemed that the era of tackling more areas of the universe, flight to the stars, or at least mass manned spaceflight vessels for further planets of the Solar System will inevitably come - if not in the twentieth century, at least in the early twenty-first century. We already know that this was not true. Not true, not only because it became too difficult technically, but also because it turned out to be simply unaffordable. Instead of flights to Mars but we have satellite television, personal computers in almost every home, internet, mobile phones. Technology development went in the direction of providing what is perhaps less glamorous, but more useful and easier to achieve. Why should we seek to force the bestowal of computers, human intelligence, since their "inhuman" data processing speed can be useful to us much more if we use it in another way? Today celebrated successes of artificial intelligence in any way, do not take the machine to imitate the way human reasoning. And the path goes rather further development of information technology, and project sponsors picking itself the goal of full "humanization" of the machine will find smarter ways to invest money.

Birthday Invitation Cool

Nju David Gerard cz. 3 - A few advantages

Despite all his dislike of the New Age Movement, the two components his ideology I consider valuable and worth commended. I am pleased that AT using its popularizing potential, contributes to their spread. My point here about antydualistyczny aspect of monistic philosophy and affirmative, respectful relationship and fascination with the myths.

Monism NA is the philosophy by which everything that exists is an emanation of one of the basic existence: God, the Absolute, the matter (it can be treated differently.) Spirit and matter are just different ways of manifestation of existence, are its "properties". Monism is so fundamentally antithetical dualism (and therefore my definition to exclude from the phenomenon of all varieties of Gnosticism). Matter, as an emanation (manifestation) of God is good. Nature is good, is "holy".
An important consequence of that interpretation is precisely the rejection of monism and dualism, and so the idea that horrible (in my opinion) weighed on the whole European tradition of philosophical and theological. View, the obvious consequence was desacralization nature, acceptance of the concept of nature-machine, and consequently contribute to the birth of the concept of man-machine and atheistic materialism. It is easy to trace the development of European thought, which led from the dualistic theology of Descartes and Newton to Pierre-Simon Laplace and La Mettriemu, and then also by Darwin to Dawkinsowi.

dualism, however, exhausted. Destroyed it the same currents of thought which, to some extent, were the least consequence. The development of science and physicalism subsequent forced us to look at psychic phenomena (or spiritual), as a natural (though unexplained, and perhaps even niewyjaśnialnych) features of matter, with which we are weaving. Forced to recognize that every physical phenomenon has its source in another physical phenomenon, removing the non-existence is the supernatural. Illuminated physicalism duality, opposing matter spirit, or even the information was simply a logical error. It became clear that the only way there are information states of physical objects. The only means of reading or writing - the physical processes. Finally, the only way the existence of psychic phenomena is their background material (the brain, or - perhaps - another material object.) In addition, the laws of nature, no matter which do not hold any meaning, simply can not exist. Because if there is no Coulomb's law, at least two loads? For the spirit - beyond matter - I just ran out of space. Semantic Change that followed, she was something quite natural: instead of God - the laws of nature, instead of the soul - the psyche, because neither the deterministic mechanism of the universe, or of woven material, gelatinous machine hidden under the cover of a human skull no longer deserved - as it was - any lofty terms. Pogardzaliśmy matter (the belief that we are equipped with an independent element of it) and we got exactly what we deserved - we began to despise each other.

However, as the nineteenth century dualism eventually buried and allowed Nietzsche to announce the death of God, so the twentieth century, mainly due to discoveries of quantum physics, buried in a definitive way mechanism. It turned out that nature does not, however, is a "big clock", filmed by the "blind watchmaker," but rather "the organism" in the traditional sense of the term. Nature proved to be capricious, and returned it to the capriciousness of the mystery and majesty. And so the death of mechanism has created a chance for the "resurrection of God": the resurrection of nature. Also, the brain, as subject to unpredictable laws of nature, ceased to be a chemical razor. Subjective experience of our own fickleness was consistent with the description of the operation world and ourselves. Back to the naming of brain function the soul became fully justified. These possibilities
njuejdżowcy saw (do not they indeed the first) and praise them for it. Today, in fact, after the death of dualism, and conceptual revolution which took place under the influence of science, "Spirit of the Earth download, embedding it in the matter, and respirytualizacja resakralizacja nature, are probably the only chance to rebuild any credible conception of God. Concept matching at least the language, which we use today. It also noted the considerable group of Catholic thinkers (Even before the war de Chardin, Raimon Panikkar and then, a priest in Poland Gruss with his concept of Christian materialism, and many others), but - unfortunately - these views are not always met with acclaim. Treating nature as a "body" of God wipes out because of pantheism, and that (for reasons not entirely clear to me) always treated as a dangerous heresy. But "substantive" God does not necessarily have to be an impersonal "cosmic energy" njuejdżu, the God of the philosophers, Jaspersowską "transcendence." It may also be a personal God that interferes in the history of the world, taking care man and loving it. Only now, however, so we can see him, because God is beyond the remainder of the world could only "do not exist."

seems to me, moreover, that already in the nineteenth century there was a chance for "the breath of spirit in nature", mechanistic chance to overcome the consequences of mechanism. This missed opportunity has been known at least since the Middle Ages the idea of \u200b\u200binfinity of the universe. The idea that each element - remaining after the interaction with "the rest of the infinite" - has done an unpredictable (and so capricious). Emphasize that a person and regain the majesty of nature, not by free will, not by raising up, and with fickleness (volatility), which is a condition of secrecy. This mystery of the world produces the distance between any - even mechanistic - his model, and its images with reality. Thanks to the mystery of consciousness, confusion of the world with his idealized image becomes more difficult. And that is what the world, not ideas, it is true.


Another valuable feature in my opinion, ideology, NA is an affirmation of myths, and therefore the recognition of psychological and spiritual wisdom inherent in the mythologies and legends of cultures, both advanced as well as those known as "primitive." It is associated primarily with the names of the two "precursor of New Age" (as fans call them supporters of the Movement): Carl Gustav Jung, Swiss psychiatrist, student and friend of Sigmund Freud, who tried to build his own philosophy, or maybe even a religion, and so important for me, Joseph Campbell - an excellent popularizer of knowledge about the myths, the author of several best-selling books, also known by the wonderful series of television programs ("The Power of Myth"), available online today in many places in the network, which subsequently appeared in book form (translated into Polish and published by "Mark").
I Campell (and perhaps also Eliade) helped me understand the role of myths in our lives. He showed how myths reveal the hidden truths about ourselves, how to talk about our passions, ułomnościach, subconscious mechanisms for guiding our behavior, how to show us how to escape from life's pitfalls, how to shape the whole of human culture, as - in unconscious ways - shape the mentality of even those who say that none of the myths do not believe how much we lose if we reject the myths, as a "fabrication" and how inevitably - we do not know about it - then replace them with quasi-myths and superstitions, however, no longer carrying any substantial content . I am also persuaded by their depth, which never quite recognize, because it leads to "ultimate transcendent reality."
In this context, the natural question becomes, what should be for the Christian Scriptures? "Seer of God" textbook history, astronomy, biology? Or, rather, a story that using the language of myth tells an important truth about our soul, the meaning of our existence, a right relationship with God and our neighbors? In the first sense it is nothing really important, much less credible. Sublimity and importance for us can recover only as a myth - which of course does not necessarily imply the rejection of belief in the historical authenticity of some or all of the events described in it. I recognize the Bible as a myth can force us to accept it humbly and holistically. Any attempt to "historical" or "scientific" explanation of his message, all "demitologizacje" For example, rejection of the ascension, and the adoption of the crucifixion, are simply absurd, because there is historicity really are important. Humility and is also a consensus that the ultimate truth, which is to be given to us as described hiding, we will never be able to understand his mind, because the myth than what is reasonable. It is also recognized for any misunderstanding of theology, but also a chance for a more peaceful, tolerant religion.
emphasizes that this philosophy is the most effective, you can imagine, a shield against these attacks on Christianity, which as a method Action adopted rozmijania showing the description contained in the Bible to historical truth (or more generally with science.) Its adoption is needed, however, rehabilitation of the notion of myth, and this is not possible without the simultaneous recognition of the size of pagan myths.

Van Gogh Das Gelbe Haus

Nju David Gerard cz. 2 - criticism criticism Criticism and David Gerard

I am a strong conservative (let it be that postkonserwatystą), Catholic (perhaps heretical, but Catholic) and the rationalist (though conscious that reason will never give us answers to all the relevant questions). Therefore, the movement, which on its banners is bordered with relativism openness, which undermine the existence of representatives of the duties of man to any community, a movement that rejects Christ, who rejects the idea of \u200b\u200ba personal God, a movement that is based on which the denial of common sense belief in progress and the imminent arrival of a new great era, a movement that in one way or in any way connected with the spread in the world's most peculiar superstitions, cherish dislike, or at least wary distance. My biggest dislike
raise two of the "pillars" njuejdżu, which I wrote a week ago and so the "openness" and belief in the imminent advent of a new better era.
It is true that "openness" NAM, as a moderate, is the recognition that in any spiritual or philosophical tradition is part of the hidden truth about the world, about God, about the meaning of existence. This view - true or false, is certainly natural, and I'm even willing to admit he was right. Its prevalence is even some practical advantages - for example, can facilitate community building in multicultural political organisms. The more radical version - and probably more widespread - "openness" adopted by the followers of the Age of Aquarius, it is recognition of all virtue, views systems as equally true and this attitude associated with relativism, often moral. A man who decides what is right and wrong, there is no obligation to anyone. Such beliefs are obviously destructive to any community, and their only advantage that I see, is that they are equally destructive to the movement of NA, completely preventing him from permanent root in any society. Historical
optimism NA, is a belief in the imminent arrival of a new better era in the history of humanity (or the belief that this era there was already) When any historical conflict in definitively disappear, and the world embrace universal love, tolerance and brotherhood, and when science is finally reconciled with religion. This belief is clearly naive, and shows that the followers of the Aquarian Age can not accept the wisdom sometimes even their "gurus" such as Aldous Huxley, who warned that the upcoming Brave New World is more likely to be technocratic nightmare, and not the epoch "deeper spirituality."

NA, as a Western phenomenon, is often criticized the Christian position. Criticism of the items atheist mainly associated with the Movement of irrational elements, such as the occult, and faith in a variety of superstitions, and in fact overlaps with the criticism of Christianity. The drop-criticism by the Christian environment, but the arguments with which I agree, but there are elements, in my opinion, totally irrelevant.

First, it is true that the U.S. is a conspiracy aimed at destroying Christianity. RNE was born and became popular in environments far removed from Christianity, indifferent to him, and not hostile. Cases that It attracts a practicing Christian, if at all, they are certainly very rare. There is therefore no compelling reason to doubt that arose as a reaction to the spiritual void postchrześcijańskiej fact, the long dominant in Europe and among American intelligence atheism, agnosticism, materialism.

Secondly, it is not the occult, which is hidden "behind the facade of harmless topics." NAM is a multi-threaded. Besides its main pillars, which I tried to extract the previous entry, consisting of the phenomenon are independent of each other: the occult is not necessarily linked - and often do not mix - the ecology, feminist critique of dualism, or praise tolerance.

Thirdly, it is not true widespread assertion that the New Age, it's just an old, known for centuries a competitor of Christianity - the gnosis, which is sold at most in new packaging. NA, in its basic assumptions is monistic and is opposed to the most important of the Gnostic tenets - dualism. There is no division in the NA on the wrong material and good spirit, because spirit and matter are like two sides of the same coin. For njuejdżowców matter is good, which indeed implies the characteristic of the ecological sensitivity of the Movement. Both the specific "openness" and an affirmation of the myths and religions of primitive peoples, the ancient Gnostics were foreign, and even hard to say that they were close to the ideas of "ezoterykom" late nineteenth and early twentieth century, which, moreover, to classical Gnosticism was very far away, and who alleged "hidden tradition" only able to discern in the great religious systems of Europe and Asia. Of New Age, so it is largely indeed "new", though it often tries to strengthen their impact, through reliance on selected elements of the old traditions or very old.

underscores that the treatment of monism and the related opposition to dualism, as the main determinant of NAM is entirely justified. The vast majority of the leaders of the Movement has just laid down the order. Most indicated they were precursors ON monistami or critics of the dualistic way of explaining spiritual phenomena. The most prominent Polish expert on the topic - Bartholomew Dobroczynski stresses that the treatment of self, of individuality, as an illusion, is one of the most important foundations of the New Age philosophy. Similarly, most researchers claim phenomenon, the texts read. Gnostics among those identified (it is not known whether rightly) of the New Age Movement are a small minority.
This approach may, however, raise some doubt. Yet consistent recognition of monism, as an indicator of NA, kazałoby off from it all who believe in reincarnation. Those who believe that the soul is independent from the body form of being, which in the physical body can be "embodied." Such faith is of course a classic dualistic and it can not be reconciled with any monism. At the same time Yet, just the belief in reincarnation is very common among those admitting to NA. I think that reincarnation is to be regarded as a myth and showing me the truth close to that "other people are also us" that there is "only one man in the billions of lives" that the individual self is an illusion. Literally understood reincarnation is so that "monism for the little ones, something analogous to medieval notions of the European populace that story about hell and pitch forks, or celestial palaces treated literally in the clouds. The belief in reincarnation belongs to the realm of New Age Movement low.