[betty boop]

I have a rather low opinion of the current state of A.I. research. Twenty years is dreamland. Of course a breakthrough could be made tomorrow, but it's not currently in sight.

js1138, sometimes I wonder whether the A.I. researchers have got their model wrong. They seem to have settled on the idea that mind is merely an epiphenomenon, or by-product, of the brain's physical processing. But what if this assumption is wrong? That would mean that they could understand each and every detail about the way the brain works and still not be able to isolate mind, consciousness. But you need to have consciousness in order to have intelligence, artificial or natural. My hunch is that the brain is the instrument used by consciousness. Of course, the brain does a whole lot of lower-level processing to keep the body functioning properly. But mind does not appear to me to be "controlled" by the brain at all.

I could be wrong about this; but if I'm right, then A.I. research may be barking up the wrong tree. And so I think it'll be a while before we have to worry about "cyborgs taking over the world." :^)

[tpaine]

At the risk of being seen to have a low opinion of humanity, [whatever that means]; -- I find the idea that mind is merely an epiphenomenon, [whatever that means], or by-product of the brain's physical processing, to be no problem.

If consciousness is just a function of complexity or massive memory, why would that info be a subject to "worry about"? -- I can foresee, like Kurtzweil, tremendous advantages to having my conscious mind, my soul, if you will, in direct control of the "New Machine". - You should read his book, Betty.

[js1138]

js1138, sometimes I wonder whether the A.I. researchers have got their model wrong.

I don't doubt that A.I. is possible, but would agree that the current state of affairs is pretty bleak. I will make one general prediction: as more of the problem is understood, it will look increasingly difficult.