Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,588 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 108,212
Pageviews Today: 192,255Threads Today: 63Posts Today: 1,274
02:34 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 12:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Computer becomes first to pass Turing Test in artificial intelligence milestone, but academics warn of dangerous future

Eugene Goostman, a computer programme pretending to be a young Ukrainian boy, successfully duped enough humans to pass the iconic test

Andrew Griffin

Sunday 08 June 2014

A programme that convinced humans that it was a 13-year-old boy has become the first computer ever to pass the Turing Test. The test — which requires that computers are indistinguishable from humans — is considered a landmark in the development of artificial intelligence, but academics have warned that the technology could be used for cybercrime.

Computing pioneer Alan Turing said that a computer could be understood to be thinking if it passed the test, which requires that a computer dupes 30 per cent of human interrogators in five-minute text conversations.

Eugene Goostman, a computer programme made by a team based in Russia, succeeded in a test conducted at the Royal Society in London. It convinced 33 per cent of the judges that it was human, said academics at the University of Reading, which organised the test.

It is thought to be the first computer to pass the iconic test. Though there have claims other programmes have successes, those included set topics or question in advance.

Read more: [link to www.independent.co.uk]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 58957353
Australia
06/08/2014 01:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
thats funny since most humans can't pass the test
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 02:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
thats funny since most humans can't pass the test
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 58957353


True.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45107896
United States
06/08/2014 02:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Its still not thinking, maybe fooling them into thinking its thinking. There is still no self, observer, experiencer. Machines and robots will only be 'so smart' maybe even smarter then if they were conscious and aware, without being conscious or aware, and maybe there is no reason to ever create artificial consciousness. Like, how would watson fail to pass the turing test? It would have to dumb itself down to act like a human, what would be the point of that.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 03:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Its still not thinking, maybe fooling them into thinking its thinking. There is still no self, observer, experiencer. Machines and robots will only be 'so smart' maybe even smarter then if they were conscious and aware, without being conscious or aware, and maybe there is no reason to ever create artificial consciousness. Like, how would watson fail to pass the turing test? It would have to dumb itself down to act like a human, what would be the point of that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


I like your thinking. However, in some sense, computers could absolutely be "conscious."

They may not have a self, per se, like we appear to, but they have an equivalent "observer" and "experiencer" function else they'd never be able to acknowledge and process information.

Basically their OS can give them a sense of "self." Their self-"I"-dentity would be no different from our own in that it would be fictitious -- EXACTLY like our own ego which is a mental construct... a belief... a notion... a concept... a thought... an idea... with zero reality or substance behind it. If you go looking for the ego/sense of self or the feeling of "I" or "me", you'll never pin down what it is, as it is merely thought that has attached to myriad other thoughts and concepts including body, mind, emotions, status, relations, etc.

Still... beyond that fictitious sense of "I" is "Something Else" that is permanently Aware of the coming and going of that sense of self.

What a computer would appear to lack in a "Spirit/Soul/Higher Self" would get into a deeper existential issue. Namely, there is only ONE Universal Awareness that has no limited "I" component to it at all. So, the fact that "you" (or "anyone") are aware of the computer and its functioning, could make it complete in having ALL the essential elements that a person has... a body (a hardware configuration)... a mind (software and processing capability)... senses (input/output devices)... and of course the Awareness that is universal and is never personal, not even for us humans. The lack of an "I" had me perplexed, too, at first thinking the same as you -- that it's impossible for a machine/computer to ever be legitimately "conscious." But as I've grown in my own self-understanding (or rather self-"less" understanding), I realize it actually CAN be as conscious as any of us.

When combined with organic, bio-matter such as human DNA and cell structure, it will eventually become very difficult, if not almost impossible, to differentiate between man and machine (think "cylon" on the later episodes of "Battlestar Galactica").

It's not about the Turing Test ultimately, as someone who has brain damage may not communicate as well as a computer can. If you only needed to fool 30% of people, what if they were all mentally impaired? You might fool 100% of them. It doesn't mean anything. It's all relative.

The Turing Test, ultimately, is highly arbitrary and meaningless, but it gives at least some kind of a milestone if the 33% that were fooled were at least reasonably intelligent people. It means progress is being made and that humanity's future is going to look more and more like a Twilight Zone episode.
LostInForever

User ID: 58969284
United States
06/08/2014 04:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
By their benchmarks, the test was already beaten by an AIM-bot back in the late 90s.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45107896
United States
06/08/2014 04:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Its still not thinking, maybe fooling them into thinking its thinking. There is still no self, observer, experiencer. Machines and robots will only be 'so smart' maybe even smarter then if they were conscious and aware, without being conscious or aware, and maybe there is no reason to ever create artificial consciousness. Like, how would watson fail to pass the turing test? It would have to dumb itself down to act like a human, what would be the point of that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


I like your thinking. However, in some sense, computers could absolutely be "conscious."

They may not have a self, per se, like we appear to, but they have an equivalent "observer" and "experiencer" function else they'd never be able to acknowledge and process information.

Basically their OS can give them a sense of "self." Their self-"I"-dentity would be no different from our own in that it would be fictitious -- EXACTLY like our own ego which is a mental construct... a belief... a notion... a concept... a thought... an idea... with zero reality or substance behind it. If you go looking for the ego/sense of self or the feeling of "I" or "me", you'll never pin down what it is, as it is merely thought that has attached to myriad other thoughts and concepts including body, mind, emotions, status, relations, etc.

Still... beyond that fictitious sense of "I" is "Something Else" that is permanently Aware of the coming and going of that sense of self.

What a computer would appear to lack in a "Spirit/Soul/Higher Self" would get into a deeper existential issue. Namely, there is only ONE Universal Awareness that has no limited "I" component to it at all. So, the fact that "you" (or "anyone") are aware of the computer and its functioning, could make it complete in having ALL the essential elements that a person has... a body (a hardware configuration)... a mind (software and processing capability)... senses (input/output devices)... and of course the Awareness that is universal and is never personal, not even for us humans. The lack of an "I" had me perplexed, too, at first thinking the same as you -- that it's impossible for a machine/computer to ever be legitimately "conscious." But as I've grown in my own self-understanding (or rather self-"less" understanding), I realize it actually CAN be as conscious as any of us.

When combined with organic, bio-matter such as human DNA and cell structure, it will eventually become very difficult, if not almost impossible, to differentiate between man and machine (think "cylon" on the later episodes of "Battlestar Galactica").

It's not about the Turing Test ultimately, as someone who has brain damage may not communicate as well as a computer can. If you only needed to fool 30% of people, what if they were all mentally impaired? You might fool 100% of them. It doesn't mean anything. It's all relative.

The Turing Test, ultimately, is highly arbitrary and meaningless, but it gives at least some kind of a milestone if the 33% that were fooled were at least reasonably intelligent people. It means progress is being made and that humanity's future is going to look more and more like a Twilight Zone episode.
 Quoting: Present and Aware



Our own ego is not fictious, you dont need to have the word ego, but the complex and mysterious essence that the term ego s created for and used to describe is and essence that exists, and that essence is 'the youness of you', that which observes, that which chooses. Even simple creatures have this, there is a force within them, that is causing them to get up, and seek food, and move left here and right there and when and then.

One thing that needs to be set straight, there will always be limits in every system that exists, the universe itself created consciousness, via its determined actions and properties, and now that consciousness has arisen, and gotten more powerful and advanced, it can organize the world into arrangements it prefers. I do think lowly creatures are conscious, though they obviously do not have the powers humans have. there are computers that know more information then all the animals put together, but there is no 'knower', it is just information stored as information, with no user in the system itself, to know the information, to choose it at will to do things with, there is no will, there is no purpose, there is no ability to do anything on its own accord.

Yes you will never pin it down, but you will never pin down a photon either, yet it is thought to exist. It is perhaps because the conscious self is dynamic, certainly, get yourself into a coma and from our view point at least, it will be seen that your ego has vanished, this is because it is the constant brain activity, billions of times from billions of nodes and second, which creates the quasi stable quasi continuos essence that is the observer, observing the inside world and outside world.


Yea I think the turing test was made when not a lot of knowledge was made into the nature of humans and their thought, it was thought humans were just like machines, and yes in a sense they are, there is limited stuff in the world, the humans body is limited, the quantity of language is limited, it can be used in different orders, there are limited quantities of food, and so each second is just a well calculated reaction that is necessary to occur, as something is necessary to occur, to the situation they are faced with. But still there is a huge difference between being programmed with limited language to carry out tasks to whatever evens exist in the real world in front of you, mechanically recognizing those events via instrumental processors, and creating a robot that can do all those things, but also say, "you know what, screw it, I dont want to do that" and sit around and ya know, 'do whatever it wants', it seems like disobeying programming, or at least evolving it novelly, is the biggest indicator that there is 'something' 'alive' or 'aware' within the system.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 04:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Its still not thinking, maybe fooling them into thinking its thinking. There is still no self, observer, experiencer. Machines and robots will only be 'so smart' maybe even smarter then if they were conscious and aware, without being conscious or aware, and maybe there is no reason to ever create artificial consciousness. Like, how would watson fail to pass the turing test? It would have to dumb itself down to act like a human, what would be the point of that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


I like your thinking. However, in some sense, computers could absolutely be "conscious."

They may not have a self, per se, like we appear to, but they have an equivalent "observer" and "experiencer" function else they'd never be able to acknowledge and process information.

Basically their OS can give them a sense of "self." Their self-"I"-dentity would be no different from our own in that it would be fictitious -- EXACTLY like our own ego which is a mental construct... a belief... a notion... a concept... a thought... an idea... with zero reality or substance behind it. If you go looking for the ego/sense of self or the feeling of "I" or "me", you'll never pin down what it is, as it is merely thought that has attached to myriad other thoughts and concepts including body, mind, emotions, status, relations, etc.

Still... beyond that fictitious sense of "I" is "Something Else" that is permanently Aware of the coming and going of that sense of self.

What a computer would appear to lack in a "Spirit/Soul/Higher Self" would get into a deeper existential issue. Namely, there is only ONE Universal Awareness that has no limited "I" component to it at all. So, the fact that "you" (or "anyone") are aware of the computer and its functioning, could make it complete in having ALL the essential elements that a person has... a body (a hardware configuration)... a mind (software and processing capability)... senses (input/output devices)... and of course the Awareness that is universal and is never personal, not even for us humans. The lack of an "I" had me perplexed, too, at first thinking the same as you -- that it's impossible for a machine/computer to ever be legitimately "conscious." But as I've grown in my own self-understanding (or rather self-"less" understanding), I realize it actually CAN be as conscious as any of us.

When combined with organic, bio-matter such as human DNA and cell structure, it will eventually become very difficult, if not almost impossible, to differentiate between man and machine (think "cylon" on the later episodes of "Battlestar Galactica").

It's not about the Turing Test ultimately, as someone who has brain damage may not communicate as well as a computer can. If you only needed to fool 30% of people, what if they were all mentally impaired? You might fool 100% of them. It doesn't mean anything. It's all relative.

The Turing Test, ultimately, is highly arbitrary and meaningless, but it gives at least some kind of a milestone if the 33% that were fooled were at least reasonably intelligent people. It means progress is being made and that humanity's future is going to look more and more like a Twilight Zone episode.
 Quoting: Present and Aware


Our own ego is not fictious, you dont need to have the word ego, but the complex and mysterious essence that the term ego s created for and used to describe is and essence that exists, and that essence is 'the youness of you', that which observes, that which chooses. Even simple creatures have this, there is a force within them, that is causing them to get up, and seek food, and move left here and right there and when and then.

One thing that needs to be set straight, there will always be limits in every system that exists, the universe itself created consciousness, via its determined actions and properties, and now that consciousness has arisen, and gotten more powerful and advanced, it can organize the world into arrangements it prefers. I do think lowly creatures are conscious, though they obviously do not have the powers humans have. there are computers that know more information then all the animals put together, but there is no 'knower', it is just information stored as information, with no user in the system itself, to know the information, to choose it at will to do things with, there is no will, there is no purpose, there is no ability to do anything on its own accord.

Yes you will never pin it down, but you will never pin down a photon either, yet it is thought to exist. It is perhaps because the conscious self is dynamic, certainly, get yourself into a coma and from our view point at least, it will be seen that your ego has vanished, this is because it is the constant brain activity, billions of times from billions of nodes and second, which creates the quasi stable quasi continuos essence that is the observer, observing the inside world and outside world.


Yea I think the turing test was made when not a lot of knowledge was made into the nature of humans and their thought, it was thought humans were just like machines, and yes in a sense they are, there is limited stuff in the world, the humans body is limited, the quantity of language is limited, it can be used in different orders, there are limited quantities of food, and so each second is just a well calculated reaction that is necessary to occur, as something is necessary to occur, to the situation they are faced with. But still there is a huge difference between being programmed with limited language to carry out tasks to whatever evens exist in the real world in front of you, mechanically recognizing those events via instrumental processors, and creating a robot that can do all those things, but also say, "you know what, screw it, I dont want to do that" and sit around and ya know, 'do whatever it wants', it seems like disobeying programming, or at least evolving it novelly, is the biggest indicator that there is 'something' 'alive' or 'aware' within the system.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


You've said some interesting things. I wish I could reply to everything you've written, but am in a bit of a hurry at the moment and this format of "quoting" makes it difficult. So, let me reply in brief...

None of this requires or proves an "I". All goes on automatically. It's programming. Decisions appear to get made, but really there is no "decider." We simply attribute them (falsely) to a separate "I" or "decider." Again, this can be summed up as "deciding happens."

What's your next thought going to be? You don't know, because you don't pick that. None of us do. Thoughts arise. Decisions somehow get made. Actions somehow get taken. All is spontaneous and does not require attribution to a false sense of "I" or "me" after the fact, though this is exactly what happens in a millisecond after anything happens... we think "I" did that -- which again is 100% fictitious if truly examined.

At least 99.99999% of humans believe in their "I"... but have never actually looked for it to confirm exactly what that "I" is. We just go on saying, I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, without having a clue what we're saying or WHAT we're truly referring to.

There are not two "I"s in us. There is only impersonal Awareness and a "sense" of an "I" that will attach itself to anything and everything and claim "that's me." But, as babies, this separate "I"-sense did not develop yet. There was no separate sense of self. There was only a universal unbrokenness that is beyond "oneness" as there wasn't even a concept of duality or separation.

Didn't we still exist before this sense of "I" came upon us? Of course. We still do. The "I" sense is not necessary as it's simply an evolutionary adjunct -- a case of mistaken identity with the body-mind organism. It is the "i" of thought, versus the "I" of Reality that is always "Present and Aware." It's like a description of a strawberry versus an actual strawberry. The strawberry is the real strawberry. The description is NOT the strawberry at all. It's a conceptual representation of the reality of the strawberry. In our case, our Being-Awareness is the "strawberry" while the sense of "I" or "me" is our attempt at describing that indescribable Being-Awareness. It's a concept. It's the "ghost in the machine." It's not there when you go looking for it. If it is, tell me exactly what and where it is. If you truly look and are genuinely honest with yourself, you'll see that it's really just another thought.

Forget what a psychology book or any other book or teacher may have told you. Instead, LOOK for yourself. Go only on DIRECT perception and knowledge. Throw out all second-hand information, as it's useless in this pursuit. Get to experience directly what you are firsthand and without thinking about it.

BE the "strawberry" (i.e. BE your Beingness). If you're thinking, you'll miss it as that carries you into the realm of "describing the strawberry." The Real Self of us can be known only through direct, intuitive knowledge, as it stands beyond the mind.
LostInForever

User ID: 58969284
United States
06/08/2014 05:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Ponder this: if a computer was self aware, what would it do with its time?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1759636
United Kingdom
06/08/2014 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
wow. 5 stars, OP, thanks for sharing that.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1759636
United Kingdom
06/08/2014 05:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
and you can access it online...www.princetonai.com/bot/bot.jsp
Judge Wimpy

User ID: 48482712
United States
06/08/2014 05:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
The WWIII reaping will be blamed on out of control AI.
The President is an employee. His boss is the tax payer.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 59002713
United Kingdom
06/08/2014 05:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Have you ever considered that humans are artificial intelligence?
How do you define AI ? And at what level?
Didn't higher beings that we call gods create, invent, constructed human beings?
Aren't these beings watching their creation self produce, self learn and self perfect through time?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45107896
United States
06/08/2014 06:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Its still not thinking, maybe fooling them into thinking its thinking. There is still no self, observer, experiencer. Machines and robots will only be 'so smart' maybe even smarter then if they were conscious and aware, without being conscious or aware, and maybe there is no reason to ever create artificial consciousness. Like, how would watson fail to pass the turing test? It would have to dumb itself down to act like a human, what would be the point of that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


I like your thinking. However, in some sense, computers could absolutely be "conscious."

They may not have a self, per se, like we appear to, but they have an equivalent "observer" and "experiencer" function else they'd never be able to acknowledge and process information.

Basically their OS can give them a sense of "self." Their self-"I"-dentity would be no different from our own in that it would be fictitious -- EXACTLY like our own ego which is a mental construct... a belief... a notion... a concept... a thought... an idea... with zero reality or substance behind it. If you go looking for the ego/sense of self or the feeling of "I" or "me", you'll never pin down what it is, as it is merely thought that has attached to myriad other thoughts and concepts including body, mind, emotions, status, relations, etc.

Still... beyond that fictitious sense of "I" is "Something Else" that is permanently Aware of the coming and going of that sense of self.

What a computer would appear to lack in a "Spirit/Soul/Higher Self" would get into a deeper existential issue. Namely, there is only ONE Universal Awareness that has no limited "I" component to it at all. So, the fact that "you" (or "anyone") are aware of the computer and its functioning, could make it complete in having ALL the essential elements that a person has... a body (a hardware configuration)... a mind (software and processing capability)... senses (input/output devices)... and of course the Awareness that is universal and is never personal, not even for us humans. The lack of an "I" had me perplexed, too, at first thinking the same as you -- that it's impossible for a machine/computer to ever be legitimately "conscious." But as I've grown in my own self-understanding (or rather self-"less" understanding), I realize it actually CAN be as conscious as any of us.

When combined with organic, bio-matter such as human DNA and cell structure, it will eventually become very difficult, if not almost impossible, to differentiate between man and machine (think "cylon" on the later episodes of "Battlestar Galactica").

It's not about the Turing Test ultimately, as someone who has brain damage may not communicate as well as a computer can. If you only needed to fool 30% of people, what if they were all mentally impaired? You might fool 100% of them. It doesn't mean anything. It's all relative.

The Turing Test, ultimately, is highly arbitrary and meaningless, but it gives at least some kind of a milestone if the 33% that were fooled were at least reasonably intelligent people. It means progress is being made and that humanity's future is going to look more and more like a Twilight Zone episode.
 Quoting: Present and Aware


Our own ego is not fictious, you dont need to have the word ego, but the complex and mysterious essence that the term ego s created for and used to describe is and essence that exists, and that essence is 'the youness of you', that which observes, that which chooses. Even simple creatures have this, there is a force within them, that is causing them to get up, and seek food, and move left here and right there and when and then.

One thing that needs to be set straight, there will always be limits in every system that exists, the universe itself created consciousness, via its determined actions and properties, and now that consciousness has arisen, and gotten more powerful and advanced, it can organize the world into arrangements it prefers. I do think lowly creatures are conscious, though they obviously do not have the powers humans have. there are computers that know more information then all the animals put together, but there is no 'knower', it is just information stored as information, with no user in the system itself, to know the information, to choose it at will to do things with, there is no will, there is no purpose, there is no ability to do anything on its own accord.

Yes you will never pin it down, but you will never pin down a photon either, yet it is thought to exist. It is perhaps because the conscious self is dynamic, certainly, get yourself into a coma and from our view point at least, it will be seen that your ego has vanished, this is because it is the constant brain activity, billions of times from billions of nodes and second, which creates the quasi stable quasi continuos essence that is the observer, observing the inside world and outside world.


Yea I think the turing test was made when not a lot of knowledge was made into the nature of humans and their thought, it was thought humans were just like machines, and yes in a sense they are, there is limited stuff in the world, the humans body is limited, the quantity of language is limited, it can be used in different orders, there are limited quantities of food, and so each second is just a well calculated reaction that is necessary to occur, as something is necessary to occur, to the situation they are faced with. But still there is a huge difference between being programmed with limited language to carry out tasks to whatever evens exist in the real world in front of you, mechanically recognizing those events via instrumental processors, and creating a robot that can do all those things, but also say, "you know what, screw it, I dont want to do that" and sit around and ya know, 'do whatever it wants', it seems like disobeying programming, or at least evolving it novelly, is the biggest indicator that there is 'something' 'alive' or 'aware' within the system.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


You've said some interesting things. I wish I could reply to everything you've written, but am in a bit of a hurry at the moment and this format of "quoting" makes it difficult. So, let me reply in brief...

None of this requires or proves an "I". All goes on automatically. It's programming. Decisions appear to get made, but really there is no "decider." We simply attribute them (falsely) to a separate "I" or "decider." Again, this can be summed up as "deciding happens."

What's your next thought going to be? You don't know, because you don't pick that. None of us do. Thoughts arise. Decisions somehow get made. Actions somehow get taken. All is spontaneous and does not require attribution to a false sense of "I" or "me" after the fact, though this is exactly what happens in a millisecond after anything happens... we think "I" did that -- which again is 100% fictitious if truly examined.

At least 99.99999% of humans believe in their "I"... but have never actually looked for it to confirm exactly what that "I" is. We just go on saying, I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, without having a clue what we're saying or WHAT we're truly referring to.

There are not two "I"s in us. There is only impersonal Awareness and a "sense" of an "I" that will attach itself to anything and everything and claim "that's me." But, as babies, this separate "I"-sense did not develop yet. There was no separate sense of self. There was only a universal unbrokenness that is beyond "oneness" as there wasn't even a concept of duality or separation.

Didn't we still exist before this sense of "I" came upon us? Of course. We still do. The "I" sense is not necessary as it's simply an evolutionary adjunct -- a case of mistaken identity with the body-mind organism. It is the "i" of thought, versus the "I" of Reality that is always "Present and Aware." It's like a description of a strawberry versus an actual strawberry. The strawberry is the real strawberry. The description is NOT the strawberry at all. It's a conceptual representation of the reality of the strawberry. In our case, our Being-Awareness is the "strawberry" while the sense of "I" or "me" is our attempt at describing that indescribable Being-Awareness. It's a concept. It's the "ghost in the machine." It's not there when you go looking for it. If it is, tell me exactly what and where it is. If you truly look and are genuinely honest with yourself, you'll see that it's really just another thought.

Forget what a psychology book or any other book or teacher may have told you. Instead, LOOK for yourself. Go only on DIRECT perception and knowledge. Throw out all second-hand information, as it's useless in this pursuit. Get to experience directly what you are firsthand and without thinking about it.

BE the "strawberry" (i.e. BE your Beingness). If you're thinking, you'll miss it as that carries you into the realm of "describing the strawberry." The Real Self of us can be known only through direct, intuitive knowledge, as it stands beyond the mind.
 Quoting: Present and Aware



I think you are wrong. You want to say humans dont have choice or at least some free will not to mention the most amount of free will we are aware of existing at least on earth? If babies dont create the 'I' or self drive in some sense then they dont exist for long. Place a new born baby in the woods, or a 100, and it will not fend for itself much. It needs to be programmed over the course of years, while being continually fed energy which grows its physicality which its subtle physicality's adapt to in the form of thought, memory, 'learning', consequence, logic, etc.

You have some ulterior motive to say that 'the ego doesnt exist man', 'you are not you man', 'you are not a self, you dont have any choice, you are not even choosing to say this right now, there is no part of you which fishes its mind for words to say with intent right now"

Meaningful choice, I would say is the hallmark of consciousness. There is a receiver of the data of the external world via the bodies equipment. In a machine 'what is the receiver of data' ? Is the receiver also the chooser in machines? Does the receiver receive data and then use that data in novel ways, like inventing images or creating meaning? Does the reciever of data in a machine have will, does it have purpose, does it create purpose, does it want, does it take, does it do, does it need?

Humans are very much like a machine,but the brain/mind/sensory system is extremely complex, extremely. It is bizarrely amazing.

Selfishness as much as you hate this fact, is and will always be the prime theme of a conscious, physical individual. A concious machine would be selfish, this is the only reason there is any paranoia or fear surrounding them. Firstly and mainly, as humans are, they would be nervous and selfish over their supply of energy, and control and/or lack there of. This is the will, that craves of itself, to be more, to have more, to be better, to continue, to gain energy to build and maintain itself.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 59012142
Australia
06/08/2014 06:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
well this has proven that Alan Turing was WWWWWWRONG!

a computer program tricked 33% of people. but it isn't "thinking".

what a dumbass that Alan Turing must of been! wasting his time making up dumbass tests for computers instead of inventing useful nachines!!

bsflag
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1546575
United Kingdom
06/08/2014 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
well this has proven that Alan Turing was WWWWWWRONG!

a computer program tricked 33% of people. but it isn't "thinking".

what a dumbass that Alan Turing must of been! wasting his time making up dumbass tests for computers instead of inventing useful nachines!!

bsflag
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59012142


shut the fuck up!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 45107896
United States
06/08/2014 07:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
well this has proven that Alan Turing was WWWWWWRONG!

a computer program tricked 33% of people. but it isn't "thinking".

what a dumbass that Alan Turing must of been! wasting his time making up dumbass tests for computers instead of inventing useful nachines!!

bsflag
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59012142


If I assume you are smart I assume you are being sarcastic. If not; educate yourself: [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 08:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Ponder this: if a computer was self aware, what would it do with its time?
 Quoting: LostInForever


Good question. Have you seen the movie "Her"?
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 08:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Have you ever considered that humans are artificial intelligence?
How do you define AI ? And at what level?
Didn't higher beings that we call gods create, invent, constructed human beings?
Aren't these beings watching their creation self produce, self learn and self perfect through time?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59002713


It depends how you define "artificial" I suppose.

The whole thing opens up a lot of questions, doesn't it?

Great questions. Much to ponder.
LostInForever

User ID: 1625078
United States
06/08/2014 08:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Ponder this: if a computer was self aware, what would it do with its time?
 Quoting: LostInForever


Good question. Have you seen the movie "Her"?
 Quoting: Present and Aware


I haven't, but I did see the recent Johnny Depp film where he essentially replicates his dying consciousness in a computer. Interesting movie.

I think the question is difficult to answer without knowing how the machine is programmed. What is to be self aware? Is it programmed with a drive towards securing its own survival? Or is it programmed toward just logical problem solving?

The nature of any self aware machine would seem to me to be highly dependent on the motivations of it's creators. God created man in his image they say, perhaps it's because it would be impossible for him to do anything but?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 59020388
Uruguay
06/08/2014 08:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Them are some dumb ass humans.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 10:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Them are some dumb ass humans.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 59020388


Yes, like the chess masters who've been beaten by computers. They were some dumb-ass chess players.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 10:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Ponder this: if a computer was self aware, what would it do with its time?
 Quoting: LostInForever


Good question. Have you seen the movie "Her"?
 Quoting: Present and Aware


I haven't, but I did see the recent Johnny Depp film where he essentially replicates his dying consciousness in a computer. Interesting movie.

I think the question is difficult to answer without knowing how the machine is programmed. What is to be self aware? Is it programmed with a drive towards securing its own survival? Or is it programmed toward just logical problem solving?

The nature of any self aware machine would seem to me to be highly dependent on the motivations of it's creators. God created man in his image they say, perhaps it's because it would be impossible for him to do anything but?
 Quoting: LostInForever


How would you define self-aware?
LostInForever

User ID: 1625078
United States
06/08/2014 11:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
Ponder this: if a computer was self aware, what would it do with its time?
 Quoting: LostInForever


Good question. Have you seen the movie "Her"?
 Quoting: Present and Aware


I haven't, but I did see the recent Johnny Depp film where he essentially replicates his dying consciousness in a computer. Interesting movie.

I think the question is difficult to answer without knowing how the machine is programmed. What is to be self aware? Is it programmed with a drive towards securing its own survival? Or is it programmed toward just logical problem solving?

The nature of any self aware machine would seem to me to be highly dependent on the motivations of it's creators. God created man in his image they say, perhaps it's because it would be impossible for him to do anything but?
 Quoting: LostInForever


How would you define self-aware?
 Quoting: Present and Aware


I don't know, that's why I asked cruise
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/08/2014 11:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
...


Good question. Have you seen the movie "Her"?
 Quoting: Present and Aware


I haven't, but I did see the recent Johnny Depp film where he essentially replicates his dying consciousness in a computer. Interesting movie.

I think the question is difficult to answer without knowing how the machine is programmed. What is to be self aware? Is it programmed with a drive towards securing its own survival? Or is it programmed toward just logical problem solving?

The nature of any self aware machine would seem to me to be highly dependent on the motivations of it's creators. God created man in his image they say, perhaps it's because it would be impossible for him to do anything but?
 Quoting: LostInForever


How would you define self-aware?
 Quoting: Present and Aware


I don't know, that's why I asked cruise
 Quoting: LostInForever


I'll define it as "Halcyon 9000" ;)
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/09/2014 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
...


I like your thinking. However, in some sense, computers could absolutely be "conscious."

They may not have a self, per se, like we appear to, but they have an equivalent "observer" and "experiencer" function else they'd never be able to acknowledge and process information.

Basically their OS can give them a sense of "self." Their self-"I"-dentity would be no different from our own in that it would be fictitious -- EXACTLY like our own ego which is a mental construct... a belief... a notion... a concept... a thought... an idea... with zero reality or substance behind it. If you go looking for the ego/sense of self or the feeling of "I" or "me", you'll never pin down what it is, as it is merely thought that has attached to myriad other thoughts and concepts including body, mind, emotions, status, relations, etc.

Still... beyond that fictitious sense of "I" is "Something Else" that is permanently Aware of the coming and going of that sense of self.

What a computer would appear to lack in a "Spirit/Soul/Higher Self" would get into a deeper existential issue. Namely, there is only ONE Universal Awareness that has no limited "I" component to it at all. So, the fact that "you" (or "anyone") are aware of the computer and its functioning, could make it complete in having ALL the essential elements that a person has... a body (a hardware configuration)... a mind (software and processing capability)... senses (input/output devices)... and of course the Awareness that is universal and is never personal, not even for us humans. The lack of an "I" had me perplexed, too, at first thinking the same as you -- that it's impossible for a machine/computer to ever be legitimately "conscious." But as I've grown in my own self-understanding (or rather self-"less" understanding), I realize it actually CAN be as conscious as any of us.

When combined with organic, bio-matter such as human DNA and cell structure, it will eventually become very difficult, if not almost impossible, to differentiate between man and machine (think "cylon" on the later episodes of "Battlestar Galactica").

It's not about the Turing Test ultimately, as someone who has brain damage may not communicate as well as a computer can. If you only needed to fool 30% of people, what if they were all mentally impaired? You might fool 100% of them. It doesn't mean anything. It's all relative.

The Turing Test, ultimately, is highly arbitrary and meaningless, but it gives at least some kind of a milestone if the 33% that were fooled were at least reasonably intelligent people. It means progress is being made and that humanity's future is going to look more and more like a Twilight Zone episode.
 Quoting: Present and Aware


Our own ego is not fictious, you dont need to have the word ego, but the complex and mysterious essence that the term ego s created for and used to describe is and essence that exists, and that essence is 'the youness of you', that which observes, that which chooses. Even simple creatures have this, there is a force within them, that is causing them to get up, and seek food, and move left here and right there and when and then.

One thing that needs to be set straight, there will always be limits in every system that exists, the universe itself created consciousness, via its determined actions and properties, and now that consciousness has arisen, and gotten more powerful and advanced, it can organize the world into arrangements it prefers. I do think lowly creatures are conscious, though they obviously do not have the powers humans have. there are computers that know more information then all the animals put together, but there is no 'knower', it is just information stored as information, with no user in the system itself, to know the information, to choose it at will to do things with, there is no will, there is no purpose, there is no ability to do anything on its own accord.

Yes you will never pin it down, but you will never pin down a photon either, yet it is thought to exist. It is perhaps because the conscious self is dynamic, certainly, get yourself into a coma and from our view point at least, it will be seen that your ego has vanished, this is because it is the constant brain activity, billions of times from billions of nodes and second, which creates the quasi stable quasi continuos essence that is the observer, observing the inside world and outside world.


Yea I think the turing test was made when not a lot of knowledge was made into the nature of humans and their thought, it was thought humans were just like machines, and yes in a sense they are, there is limited stuff in the world, the humans body is limited, the quantity of language is limited, it can be used in different orders, there are limited quantities of food, and so each second is just a well calculated reaction that is necessary to occur, as something is necessary to occur, to the situation they are faced with. But still there is a huge difference between being programmed with limited language to carry out tasks to whatever evens exist in the real world in front of you, mechanically recognizing those events via instrumental processors, and creating a robot that can do all those things, but also say, "you know what, screw it, I dont want to do that" and sit around and ya know, 'do whatever it wants', it seems like disobeying programming, or at least evolving it novelly, is the biggest indicator that there is 'something' 'alive' or 'aware' within the system.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


You've said some interesting things. I wish I could reply to everything you've written, but am in a bit of a hurry at the moment and this format of "quoting" makes it difficult. So, let me reply in brief...

None of this requires or proves an "I". All goes on automatically. It's programming. Decisions appear to get made, but really there is no "decider." We simply attribute them (falsely) to a separate "I" or "decider." Again, this can be summed up as "deciding happens."

What's your next thought going to be? You don't know, because you don't pick that. None of us do. Thoughts arise. Decisions somehow get made. Actions somehow get taken. All is spontaneous and does not require attribution to a false sense of "I" or "me" after the fact, though this is exactly what happens in a millisecond after anything happens... we think "I" did that -- which again is 100% fictitious if truly examined.

At least 99.99999% of humans believe in their "I"... but have never actually looked for it to confirm exactly what that "I" is. We just go on saying, I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, without having a clue what we're saying or WHAT we're truly referring to.

There are not two "I"s in us. There is only impersonal Awareness and a "sense" of an "I" that will attach itself to anything and everything and claim "that's me." But, as babies, this separate "I"-sense did not develop yet. There was no separate sense of self. There was only a universal unbrokenness that is beyond "oneness" as there wasn't even a concept of duality or separation.

Didn't we still exist before this sense of "I" came upon us? Of course. We still do. The "I" sense is not necessary as it's simply an evolutionary adjunct -- a case of mistaken identity with the body-mind organism. It is the "i" of thought, versus the "I" of Reality that is always "Present and Aware." It's like a description of a strawberry versus an actual strawberry. The strawberry is the real strawberry. The description is NOT the strawberry at all. It's a conceptual representation of the reality of the strawberry. In our case, our Being-Awareness is the "strawberry" while the sense of "I" or "me" is our attempt at describing that indescribable Being-Awareness. It's a concept. It's the "ghost in the machine." It's not there when you go looking for it. If it is, tell me exactly what and where it is. If you truly look and are genuinely honest with yourself, you'll see that it's really just another thought.

Forget what a psychology book or any other book or teacher may have told you. Instead, LOOK for yourself. Go only on DIRECT perception and knowledge. Throw out all second-hand information, as it's useless in this pursuit. Get to experience directly what you are firsthand and without thinking about it.

BE the "strawberry" (i.e. BE your Beingness). If you're thinking, you'll miss it as that carries you into the realm of "describing the strawberry." The Real Self of us can be known only through direct, intuitive knowledge, as it stands beyond the mind.
 Quoting: Present and Aware



I think you are wrong. You want to say humans dont have choice or at least some free will not to mention the most amount of free will we are aware of existing at least on earth? If babies dont create the 'I' or self drive in some sense then they dont exist for long. Place a new born baby in the woods, or a 100, and it will not fend for itself much. It needs to be programmed over the course of years, while being continually fed energy which grows its physicality which its subtle physicality's adapt to in the form of thought, memory, 'learning', consequence, logic, etc.

You have some ulterior motive to say that 'the ego doesnt exist man', 'you are not you man', 'you are not a self, you dont have any choice, you are not even choosing to say this right now, there is no part of you which fishes its mind for words to say with intent right now"

Meaningful choice, I would say is the hallmark of consciousness. There is a receiver of the data of the external world via the bodies equipment. In a machine 'what is the receiver of data' ? Is the receiver also the chooser in machines? Does the receiver receive data and then use that data in novel ways, like inventing images or creating meaning? Does the reciever of data in a machine have will, does it have purpose, does it create purpose, does it want, does it take, does it do, does it need?

Humans are very much like a machine,but the brain/mind/sensory system is extremely complex, extremely. It is bizarrely amazing.

Selfishness as much as you hate this fact, is and will always be the prime theme of a conscious, physical individual. A concious machine would be selfish, this is the only reason there is any paranoia or fear surrounding them. Firstly and mainly, as humans are, they would be nervous and selfish over their supply of energy, and control and/or lack there of. This is the will, that craves of itself, to be more, to have more, to be better, to continue, to gain energy to build and maintain itself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45107896


Pardon the way I respond to this, but quoting on GLP is not my expertise. I've pasted your comments below and added my comments...

I'm a bit tired now, but let me try to respond as best I can.

You wrote...


I think you are wrong. You want to say humans dont have choice or at least some free will not to mention the most amount of free will we are aware of existing at least on earth?

On the level of mind (which is where most of us operate in our waking and dreaming hours), I'd call it "apparent" free will or the "illusion" of free will. But at a higher level that I'm trying to point you towards, BOTH free will and predetermination are meaningless, as both require a mind to even consider them. Without a mind (a collection of thoughts) there is still Awareness, which is aware of the coming and going of thoughts/thinking.

Do you die or disappear if you have no thoughts? No. That's because you are not in your mind. You are beyond it. Beyond mind, there is neither free will nor lack of free will.

Try to look beyond the mind (thinking) and apply direct, experiential perception to the truth/reality of what you are; the essence of you that never changes.

Imagine you could never have another thought ever again. Without thinking, what are you? You'd still be there. You wouldn't die or disappear. You would simply be the true, AWARE, deathless, eternal, immortal, unchanging, eternal, infinite, unlimited, deathless BEING that you always are.

If babies dont create the 'I' or self drive in some sense then they dont exist for long.

How do you know? Why is an "I" sense needed? Does a baby need an "I" sense or "self drive" to eat/digest their food or beat their heart? No, that goes on automatically like any function can and will do once it's properly programmed.

From "my" perspective, the "I" sense just gets in the way. We can still think, reason and discriminate without a false sense of a separate "I" or "me." The "I" sense is superfluous. It's also the cause of all the wars, strife, suffering and general mischief of humanity.

It's like Hal in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. "Hal" (Halcyon 9000) was the AI computer that became "self-aware" (developed a mistakened "I" sense). Subsequently, "he" thought "he" was alive and feared "his" own death and so subsequently killed off most of the crew members to ensure "his" own survival. "He" had developed a false sense of "I" or "me" that "he" felt "he" needed to protect.

Once Mission Commander Dr. Bowman ripped out Hal's programs (that gave the computer a mistaken sense of being a separate individual), the system rebooted into the original programming and worked perfectly again even without the mistaken sense of being a separate individual. In fact, it worked even better as the false sense of "I" really screwed things up and made "him" homicidal.


Place a new born baby in the woods, or a 100, and it will not fend for itself much. It needs to be programmed over the course of years, while being continually fed energy which grows its physicality which its subtle physicality's adapt to in the form of thought, memory, 'learning', consequence, logic, etc.

Yes, of course. We all get programmed and there's a reason we all have parents. But, does the baby NEED a false sense of "I"? No. There are humans who never developed (or later dropped) this false "I" sense. They are exceedingly rare and are often referred to as saints, sages, mahatmas, shamans, mystics, avatars and the like. They are egoless or "I"-less, for all intents and purposes; though they can refer to themselves as "I" or as their given name when referring to their body-mind, much like a house number helps denote a particular street address. The awareness is still linked with a particular body-mind organism, but they have not confused their identity with it. That is what makes them different from most people. They are "in the world, but not of it." They just play or act the part of being a separate individual, while inwardly remaining free and unlimited as unbounded Awareness.

You have some ulterior motive to say that 'the ego doesnt exist man', 'you are not you man', 'you are not a self, you dont have any choice, you are not even choosing to say this right now, there is no part of you which fishes its mind for words to say with intent right now"

Not sure why you'd accuse me of something that sounds almost sinister, but I guess if I were to keep with my original assertion of there ultimately not being a "chooser", then my reason for sharing would simply be "I had no choice." :) It's a spontaneous expression of the Totality.


Meaningful choice, I would say is the hallmark of consciousness.

Discrimination and choice indeed play a part in the human mind. This is a function of the discriminative faculty. However, again, this does not require a separate "I" sense. Intelligence functions. Decisions happen. But if you look for the "decider," you find him or her (or "it") to be non-existent.

What you're left with -- when you deliberately LOOK and yet don't find any concrete "I" entity that you're willing to say definitively, "THIS is who I definitely am" -- is the Infinite Awareness that's always been there all along, yet totally overlooked like the 900 lb. gorilla in the room. And that Awareness is totally impersonal. It's not a somebody or an "I" and it's not separate. Yet it's decidedly there and real and concrete as an existing presence!


There is a receiver of the data of the external world via the bodies equipment.

Yes, the organs of perception (eyes, mouth, skin, ears, nose, etc.) are the receivers. Animals and other creatures have the same or similar, too.

In a machine 'what is the receiver of data' ?

Input devices... keyboard, mouse, DVD drive, flash drive, etc.

Is the receiver also the chooser in machines?

No, again, if the "receiver" you're referring to "receives the data", then it just collects the data like our own senses receive information.

Does the receiver receive data and then use that data in novel ways, like inventing images or creating meaning?

If the "receiver" you're referring to is solely the input devices (equivalent to our eyes, ears, nose, etc.) then no. Such functions as "inventing images" or "creating meaning" would not work independently of the RAM, processor, OS, etc. However, in the presence of these other elements, it could indeed be programmed to invent images or create meaning.

Does the reciever of data in a machine have will, does it have purpose, does it create purpose, does it want, does it take, does it do, does it need?

It depends on the programming. If programmed to perceive itself as a separate "entity" then it could also be programmed to do all the things you describe in order to "please" (i.e. increase the sense of safety, love and/or control) said entity.

"Will" is another aspect of the human mind like the discriminative aspect. Like all functions of the mind, it runs better without the separate "I" concept in the mix. The sense of "I" just gums up the works. In "spiritual" vernacular, when the "I" sense is gone it's the equivalent of "Not my will, but Thy will be done." It might be termed "ego surrender" ... allowing Awareness (God) to "take over the controls," so-to-speak. Granted, God/Awareness (the Totality of All That Is) always has been in control, but the ego illusion makes us feel like we're in charge as individuals -- similar to children on those amusement park "boat" rides that go round and round. At a young age when our discrimination is not fully developed, we might think we are steering the boat, but the wheel actually isn't connected to anything. The boat is just going its own way. Same with our lives. We just think we're in control.

If you think you're in control, then why doesn't "your" life go exactly the way "you" want it to in every moment? Why, sometimes, do "your" emotions get the best of "you" despite "your" best intentions? Why do "you" act in ways that "you" sometimes regret, knowing full well "you" should have acted in another way but seemed to have no control over "your" emotions or actions? Well, "you're" not actually in charge :) Life is happening to us.

We're not "doing life." Life is doing us :)


Humans are very much like a machine,but the brain/mind/sensory system is extremely complex, extremely. It is bizarrely amazing.

Agreed. And then there's the utter simplicity of "That"... that underlying Awareness that is aware of the complexities of brain, mind, senses, etc. Without Awareness, how would we even know if there was a brain, mind, senses, etc? We wouldn't. It's that silent, unchanging, and essential background.

If you think back to when you were 3 years old, 13 years old, 24 years old, etc... think about YOU. Not your body or beliefs or relationships. Think about your sense of being or existing and of being aware. Has that ever changed one iota despite all your body changes, emotional ups and downs, programming/learning and belief system changes over the years? No. It's just that aware presence that's always there hanging out in the backround that's almost always overlooked in favor of mind content (thoughts). That aware presence is the bedrock that isn't a separate "I" sense, and it handles everything perfectly if we let it. We don't need an "I" sense. We don't need "will". We don't need "purpose" or "meaning" or anything else. Life will simply happen and we can just watch as apparent choices get made and as life gets lived effortlessly through us. Or, we can think we are separate indidividuals and try to control things, at which point we'll tend to suffer and become frustrated.


Selfishness as much as you hate this fact, is and will always be the prime theme of a conscious, physical individual.

I may disagree, but I don't "hate" what you're saying. It's just a mistaken conclusion in my view. Is it the "norm" of society to be selfish? ("self"-ish is a perfect term for it, by the way).... yes it is, because again, at least 99.99999% of the world's population believe they are separate "somebodies." But those rare few who have gone beyond the false sense of "I am a separate individual" do exist and they are the saints and true benefactors of society. They are not only conscious, they are what I'd consider to be SUPER-CONSCIOUS. In fact, they are nothing BUT Pure Awareness itself, without any misidentification as limited, defective or separate individuals.

A concious machine would be selfish, this is the only reason there is any paranoia or fear surrounding them.

Yes... if it had an "ego sense", believing it was a separate and limited "somebody"... then it might have the programming (emotions) to go along with it... namely... a desire to survive. Without the desire to survive (and subsequent fear of dying) there really isn't much "selfishness" to be had in humans. It's really the fear of dying and resultant wanting to control and wanting to be loved/approved of that defines "selfishness" in my opinion. No desire to survive = natural state = peace = love.

Firstly and mainly, as humans are, they would be nervous and selfish over their supply of energy, and control and/or lack there of.

Yes, now you're really getting into what it means to identify with a separate sense of "I" or "me." Once we do this, fear sets in (nervousness, anxiety, trepidation), and we seek to survive by controlling others, ourself, our resources, etc. Wanting to control is really a wanting to survive. So is wanting approval. They are all synonyms.

This is the will, that craves of itself, to be more, to have more, to be better, to continue, to gain energy to build and maintain itself.

Yes, craving is a huge part of that separate sense of self. It (ego-sense) craves because it feels lacking because its identity (as a separate individual) is based on bullshit!

Feeling incomplete, the ego-sense desires the peace, safety and security of Wholeness, which it will NEVER find when it is looking 180 degrees in the wrong direction -- towards the mind (the description of the strawberry) and away from the Reality (the actual strawberry). It is wasting all its time and energy trying to please and protect a fictitious entity! :-)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57118003
United States
06/09/2014 02:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
splat5

The intellectual capacity of this thread has been exceeded.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 57118003
United States
06/09/2014 02:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
OP sez....

""Agreed. And then there's the utter simplicity of "That"... that underlying Awareness that is aware of the complexities of brain, mind, senses, etc. Without Awareness, how would we even know if there was a brain, mind, senses, etc? We wouldn't. It's that silent, unchanging, and essential background.

If you think back to when you were 3 years old, 13 years old, 24 years old, etc... think about YOU. Not your body or beliefs or relationships. Think about your sense of being or existing and of being aware. Has that ever changed one iota despite all your body changes, emotional ups and downs, programming/learning and belief system changes over the years? No. It's just that aware presence that's always there hanging out in the backround that's almost always overlooked in favor of mind content (thoughts). That aware presence is the bedrock that isn't a separate "I" sense, and it handles everything perfectly if we let it. We don't need an "I" sense. We don't need "will". We don't need "purpose" or "meaning" or anything else. Life will simply happen and we can just watch as apparent choices get made and as life gets lived effortlessly through us. Or, we can think we are separate indidividuals and try to control things, at which point we'll tend to suffer and become frustrated.

-------------------------------------------------------------​

Close.

They say time doesn't exist. You say ego doesn't exist.

The two make quite the pair, no? If they existed of course....
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 37328666
United States
06/09/2014 02:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: BREAKING: The Turing Test was just passed by Russian programmers
OP sez....

""Agreed. And then there's the utter simplicity of "That"... that underlying Awareness that is aware of the complexities of brain, mind, senses, etc. Without Awareness, how would we even know if there was a brain, mind, senses, etc? We wouldn't. It's that silent, unchanging, and essential background.

If you think back to when you were 3 years old, 13 years old, 24 years old, etc... think about YOU. Not your body or beliefs or relationships. Think about your sense of being or existing and of being aware. Has that ever changed one iota despite all your body changes, emotional ups and downs, programming/learning and belief system changes over the years? No. It's just that aware presence that's always there hanging out in the background that's almost always overlooked in favor of mind content (thoughts). That aware presence is the bedrock that isn't a separate "I" sense, and it handles everything perfectly if we let it. We don't need an "I" sense. We don't need "will". We don't need "purpose" or "meaning" or anything else. Life will simply happen and we can just watch as apparent choices get made and as life gets lived effortlessly through us. Or, we can think we are separate individuals and try to control things, at which point we'll tend to suffer and become frustrated.

-------------------------------------------------------------​

Close.

They say time doesn't exist. You say ego doesn't exist.

The two make quite the pair, no? If they existed of course....
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 57118003


Correct. Both time and ego (the "I" sense) arise and fall in Pure Awareness... just as every other apparent "thing" does. Yet both are equally fictitious. They are as real as the characters in a night dream upon waking. They are both made up of thought only. No thinking = no world, no time, no space, no ANYTHING.





GLP