... [Edited by - Awoken on September 15, 2009 7:17:33 PM]

Why did you start a new thread? And you can use [quote] tags to get a nice little box like this:

Quote: I'm a quote!

If you want to quote someone's post, there is a "Quote" button on the top right corner of the person's post that you can click. When you click that button, it'll take you to the typical post-reply page, but the reply box will contain the text:

[quote][i]Original post by PERSON_NAME_HERE
POST_CONTENTS_HERE

In the top right corner of someone's post, there is also an "Edit" button. You can click this and it will show you exactly what the person posted, which means you can see what tags they used and how they made those fancy quote boxes. Of course, only mods and staff members can save any edits to the post (unless it's your own post).

For more info, the forum FAQ is where you'll want to look.

You stole a thread! Shame on you!

...

[Edited by - Awoken on September 15, 2009 7:14:51 PM]

Quote: Original post by Awoken

Quote: Origional post by Slayemin
Eventually it may be possible to create an accurate model of the mind in software.

-underline added, and I agree with this.

I read your link and understand how you're using the terminology. I suppose I would argue that it's not physically possible. The only reason is because perhaps the complex molecules that are present in the brain allow for the occurrence of awareness. Deducing the mind to simple electrical signals means you believe the mind is nothing but electrical signals. This I don’t agree with. If and only if the chips we construct can duplicate the "Unobservable effect of observation" than maybe. But that kind of computer chip does not exist today, so I don't believe it's technologically possible either. And given the lack of knowledge about the mind, I suppose it’s epistemically possible.

Maybe you'll agree with me after this explanation:
If you think of the brain in terms of computers, there are a lot of similarities. Both brains and computers can "compute" stuff. We can compute 11 plus 9 in our heads. If we pay attention to the systematized process we used to get the answer of 22, we can break the process down into components and then recreate that same process in a machine so that it does the same thing. Now, you may have noticed that I gave a wrong answer. What was the process your mind used to validate whether my answer was right or wrong? Does a calculator go through the same validation process? why or why not? Regarding creativity, this same 'validation' process is used in creative works. "Did I draw this line straight? Does this look like a tree? Let me try again."

The brain is like the hardware in a computer. The mind is the software running on that hardware. If an ignorant person were to use the software on a computer, they wouldn't have the slightest idea on how the software works. It just does and it seems like magic. How does the computer create these various, dynamic software applications without changing the underlying hardware?? That same mystery can be applied to the mind.

We know that the brain consists of billions of neurons. We've looked at neural cells under a microscope and identified their components and how they connect to each other. If we can identify each and every component of a neuron and how it behaves with other neurons, then we can create an accurate simulation of that neural behavior. What might be an approach to this? If you consider the Linked List data structure, it could be used to represent a string of neural nodes connected to each other. It's only one dimensional, but we could figure out a way to transmit a signal from beginning to end. Technically, that's not difficult. We could then say that we've simulated a nerve relay in software.

If the brain is systematic in any way, then its simulation would only be dependent on our scientific model for its workings. The brain is systematically organized, but we don't have a strong enough model to accurately simulate it.
As another poster said, we've got Microsoft Word in front of us. We can push buttons and see what they do, but we don't know anything about the underlying source code. To my knowledge, that's the current state of mind science.

To counter your disagreement, if it were actually physically impossible to create a mind in software, then it would be just as physically impossible for us to have minds. Since we have minds which are just a systematic organization of interconnected neurons, it's physically possible to create a mind in software OR hardware.

Quote:

Quote: Origional post by Slayemin
...Unfortunately, scientific research is largely influenced by money. In some ways, its good and other ways it's bad. I just wonder how science would be different in a society without money to influence it...

Interesting; I believe that in fact our modern capitalist society is the friendliest to science. If you look to history you’ll find many other arrangements of resources management and manpower. None have been better at spreading technology and discovery as the capitalist system. Though yes, it has its limitations, most discoveries and developments are designed to meet some sort of economic end. Ethically, is it right to spend billions allocating resources to develop scientific experiments that can elicit details about the universe to satisfy our appetite instead of feeding the appetites of children?

I think capitalism is darwinian due to its competitive nature. To subject science to the forces of competition will mean that some scientific pathways are not pursued. Those pathways could be useful and insightful! Fortunately, not ALL of science is motivated by capitalist agenda -- The large hadron collider (LHC) has no discernable business purpose. Neither does the Hubble Telescope. But their contributions to our understanding of the world & universe would not have happened if science were purely capitalist.
It just sucks to know that interesting scientific research is neglected because few businesses are interested in sponsoring it...because it's not relevant to their business interests.

I agree with slayemin that there is a completely physical (although complicated) process to mind/awareness, and that anything a brain can do a sufficiently designed computer can do. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that if you could gather enough people, each with an abacus, each doing some certain calculations, theoretically that system of abacus users (very, very many of them) could emulate Pong, Windows95, or my brain (although perhaps not in real time). And if it quacks like duck, and swims like a duck...

But this just points out the problem with these arguments. My definition of mind is different than yours. That's it. Although I think these things make for fascinating discussions, I don't think they would get us anywhere, because its the definition of the terms themselves we are arguing. And just because there is a word for something, doesn't mean it exists. Self-awarness and free-will could all just be illusions.

I think what will become important in the future are the moral questions. These are the things which science are not going to help. There's a certain heated issue (at least in the US) that has been ongoing for at least decades, based on what (specifically when) determines human life (and thus, human rights). To contrast my earlier statement: just because something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that thing has no value or meaning to us.

Again, interesting conv though.

EDIT: vain attempt to make myself clearer...

...

[Edited by - Awoken on September 15, 2009 7:38:11 PM]

I agree with laztrezort
As with DNA it s a matter of time until the brain will get mapped.
Also in the line with what laztrezort was saying, in the more or less near future we will be able to build robots which you won't be able to tell whether it s a human or not without touching it/braking it to pieces.
IMO what robots won't have is emotions, not that they won t be able to fake them