Sione

Do you not understand how hard is to talk to you if you do not use quotes? It is hard, it is not polite because you are making people waste time to reference what you're talking about. I can not argue with you about definitions if you are lazy to learn about the subject. Determinism in COMPUTER SCIENCE, LOGIC, MATHEMATICS, STATISTICS, PHILOSOPHY, QUANTUM PHYSICS and other sciences is what I told you it is, find your favorite SCIENTIFIC dictionary or encyclopedia and learn about it, that's all. Stop jumping over me. If I say? ...was I not clear enough? Did I not repeat 24 times exactly what I mean? Maybe not, so let me repeat it again: -Imagine emotion or consciousness emerged inside such computation, how would you know? WHAT WOULD YOU LOOK FOR? I do not insist on EVERY DETAIL, but I just want you to tell me what is emotion, what is thought, what is feeling? I do not care how much detail, I want to know if person in a coma have any consciousness, emotions or thoughts? If you can not recognize it in a real working machine, then how in a world you expect to know some maybe working AI has anything like "it"?

Well' date=' I do not say I like it either, but the strength of the magnetic field in those equations is not proportional to their relative velocities but their individual velocities. Two electrons traveling in parallel with the same velocity, without any relative velocity, will attract each other more the faster they are moving. Do you know about this? There is no such thing as ultimate certainty, some theories work, some don't, some that worked before are replaced with new that work better... "Aether" is only abstract concept of some analog medium. You can disprove certain theory about it, but not the concept itself. Aether then, is rather a fact, in a sense that there is no such thing as vacuum.

They are there individually, but all I am saying is that there is no equations to model all magnetic interaction simultaneously. Obviously there is some reason for the lack of this equation and it is either that is impossible or simply not discovered yet? Quantum means "particle". Quantization is naturally a part of classical physics as in Q1*Q2/r^2 or M1*M2/r^2, Qs and Ms are quanta and classical physics already have them as particles. Quantization is something you need to mess around when you are dealing with statistics and wave functions. "...explain QM behavior", be aware that real quantum behavior might not be exactly what QM says. I mean do not expect classical physics to make electrons appear and disappear, the goal is to produce the same "orbital clouds", possibly explain bonding.

bascule, Yes, "consciousness results from brain activity", it was obvious I agreed to that, in pretty detailed fashion even. The problem is that you can not define BRAIN ACTIVITY, Ok? You think you can define BRAIN STRUCTURES, and that is not the same as defining dynamics of system, do you agree? I'm trying to be very simple and concrete, trying to focus and discuss what is this thread about. I do not want to make it philosophical discussion, I want to make it very obvious and down to essence, answer the question with pure logic and practicability of mathematics, as in "computer science". If you would like to talk with me, then please respond properly and directly to question: I am not proposing to prove either until we settle what is this thread about - POSSIBILITY of EMOTIONAL AI. Quantum/Classic DOES NOT MATTER for that question, this is only thing that matters: - Imagine emotion or consciousness somehow emerged inside such computation, how would you know? What would you look for? Do you see how you struggle to define where consciousness is and where is not, you can not even know if a person in a coma have any thoughts, feelings or consciousness, you would not know what to look for, or would you? How would you know then your maybe working AI has consciousness, what would you look for in BlueBrain project?

Hold on' date=' you can not really do that, it is not "fair-play" discussion, especially since this is very essence of my point. The question in OP is about EMOTIONS. I say you DO NOT KNOW DEFINITION of emotions nor consciousness nor feelings nor thoughts and therefore you can not simulate it. To prove my point I am trying to demonstrate how you can not recognize emotions/instincts/feeling in real-world WORKING natural "AI", then how would you recognize it in artificial AI that is not even certain to work properly? Do you see how you struggle to define where consciousness is and where is not, you can not even know if a person in coma have any thoughts, feelings or consciousness, you would not know what to look for, or would you? How would you know then your AI has consciousness, what would you look for in BlueBrain project? Yes we understand each other, we only need to find a way to confirm theory with reality. I have no problem accepting what you suggest, I only want some evidence for it, because all the evidence I am aware of point to otherwise. I am not proposing to prove either until we settle what is this thread about - POSSIBILITY of EMOTIONAL AI. Quantum/Classic DOES NOT MATTER for that question, this is only thing that matters: - Imagine emotion or consciousness somehow emerged inside such computation, how would you know? What would you look for? I will ignore the rest of your questions too then, until you decide to play fair... boo, booo!

You've provided a good summary: The question is: are there's enough data in his paper (references and all) to support all (or any) of those conclusions? The answer is no. The section "Molecular switches" sounds bogus to me. No' date=' what you quoted was the question to which you again avoided to give answer. "The answer is no" - BECAUSE - "The section "Molecular switches" sounds bogus to me.", your argument sounds empty to me. Everyone is a critic, thank you. Can you please provide the true explanation for the data? Are you not the same person who said this: EDIT: By the way, duplicated genes can be harmful. A well known disorder is Trisomy 21. People with the condition have a significantly reduced fitness. EDIT 2: Without examining data he's using, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens. Do you think you can handle the truth? What kind of evidence would convince you? Video of me shapeshifting or something like that? Abrupt alterations in genome throughout the history?

Let me just add that Credo Mutwa story is part of my argument, not in regards to aliens at all, but more to draw some historical/archeological conclusions. In fact you can disregard the whole alien business in Credo's story, the story is 90% about history. It is very, very, very interesting story that you can watch on YouTube. He is well known after his books that were all very successful commercially. If you do not want to believe it, it is still A++ "Science Fiction" story. Credo is fantastic narrator and you will find it hard not to believe it. It is very good story about colonizations of Africa, about World Wars, Religion and Bloodlines. I would like some opinions about it, because if everyone disregard this as nonsense without even looking at it, then it is not worth arguing about. You talk about everything but what I asked you. "Three Books of Terror" are Torah, Bible and Koran, they all one and the same book, did you not know? Anyway, I was referring to what you call "God", Christian God probably. Why all the trouble about explaining "false dilemma", you could provide valid choice yourself. Please, what is your explanation? Did you not say this: EDIT: By the way, duplicated genes can be harmful. A well known disorder is Trisomy 21. People with the condition have a significantly reduced fitness. EDIT 2: Without examining data he's using, that's a perfectly reasonable argument. I'm asking you - what do you want to talk about?

There is no such thing as omnipotent deity. Yes you are right, but instead of "darwinian way" I'd rather call it "spontaneous emergence".

I know of better arguments, if you can first point out the part you are referring to? Meanwhile, one of the more peculiar arguments, thought not very scientific, is Credo Mutwa story, do you know about it? My point is that this should be discussion of what is said in the paper, not anti religious Creationist-Darwinist argument, since paper does not point towards any creation described in the Bible, but describes abrupt historical alterations that just do not fit proposed theory. Believe what you will, but I do not think the guy who wrote the paper believes in God himself. He is practitioner and actually did all the experiment himself, the guy is EXPERT and he tells you what he OBSERVES, you are free to try and find better conclusion, any idea? And if you do not believe his experiments and observations, nor all the references, then Google it and you will see the DATA and OBSERVATIONS are true. Conclusion is up to you and me, for everyone to give a best try at it, discuss it.

iNow, You are funny. You BELIEVED WHAT CREATIONIST SAID, good for you. Next time read the paper and references: 1.Toby,J.G.and Spring,J.,Genetic redundancy in vertebrates:polyploidy and persistence of genes encoding multidomain proteins, Trends in Genet. 2.de la Chapelle,A.,Sistonen,P.,Lehvaslaiho,H.,Ikkala,E.and Juvonen, E., Familial erythrocytosis genetically linked to erythropoietin receptor Easteal,S. and Beggs, A.H., A common non-sense mutation results in alpha-actinin 3 deficiency in the general population:evidence for genetic redundancy 4.Truman,R.and Borger,P.,Why the shared mutations in the hominidae exon X GULO pseudogene are not evidence for common descent,J. 5.The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium,Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, 6.Galvani,A.P.and Novembre,J.,The evolutionary history of the CCR5- 7 :302 –309,2005. Genetics of Lung Function Decline and COPD p.127,2008. Pseudogenization of the tumor-growth promoter Posfai,J., Blattner, F.RR. and Posfai, G., Engeneering a reduced Escherichia coli 10.Pennisi,E.,The biology of genomes meeting:disposable DNA puzzles 11.Bouche,N.and Bouchez,D.,Arabidopsis gene knockout:phenotypes 12.Conant,G.C.and Wagner,A.,Duplicate genes and robustness to transient gene knock-downs in Caenorhabditis elegans , Proc. Biol. Sci. 27 :89 –96, 2004. 13.Richt,J.A.et al., Production of cattle lacking the prion protein, Nature Biotech. 25 :132 –138,2007. 14.Fan,Y.,Sirotkin,A.,Russell,R.G.,Ayalla,J.and Scoultchi,A.I.,Individual somatic H1 subtypes are dispensable for mouse development even in mice lacking the H1(0)replacement subtype,Mol. Cell. Biol.21 :7933 –7943, 2001. 15.Quoted from:Pearson,H.,Surviving a knockout blow,Nature 415 :8 –9, 2002. 16.Hurst,L.D.and Smith,N.G.C.,Do essential genes evolve slowly?Curr. Biol.9 :747 –750,1999. 17.Hahn,M.W,Conant,G.C.and Wagner,A.,Molecular evolution in large genetic networks:does connectivity equal constraint?J. Mol. Biol. 58 :203 –211,2004. 18.Nachman,M.W.and Crowell,S.L.,Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide n humans, Genetics 156 :297 –304,2000. 19.Ohno,S.,Evolution by ene Duplication ,Springer,New York,1970. 20.Ohno,S.,Evolutional reason for having so much junk DNA;in:Modern Aspects of Cytogenetics: Constitutive Heterochromatin in Man , Pfeiffer, R.A.(Ed.),F.K.Schattauer Verlag,Stuttgart,Germany,pp.169 –173, 1973. 21.Winzeler,E.A.et al .,,Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis, Science 285 :901 –906, 1999. 22. Wagner, A., Robustness against mutations in genetic networks of yeast, Nat. enet.24 :355 –361,2000. 23.Kitami,T.and Nadeau,J.H.,Biochemical networking contributes more to enetic uffering n human and mouse metabolic pathways han does gene uplication, Nat. enet.32 :191 –194,2002. 24.Barabasi,A.,and Bonabeau,L.E.,Scale-free networks,Sci. Am. 288 :60 –69,2003. IS TWENTY FOUR ENOUGH ? Author: Peter Borger has an M.Sc. in Biology (HHons biochemistry and molecular genetics) and a Ph.DD in Medical Sciences from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands. He is currently working on the cellular and molecular aspects of pulmonary diseases, such as sthma and COPD, nd s an expert on the molecular biology of signal transduction and gene xpression. You mean grammar, eh? Hahaaa, will you stop insulting yourself? And it is not grammar, but semantics and LOGIC, my angry friend! Are you drunk? Question is the second part of the sentence, observe: - what in particular do you not agree with that was discussed in the paper? I answered many of your questions about your confusion regarding my statement, will you at least tell us what is it you disagree about in particular? Well, I'm glad I could at least point out THE PAPER WAS NOT ABOUT GOD, which was my only point. The rest was you arguing against what you imagined I claimed, thanks for laughs. Are you and Mr. Skeptic actually one and the same troll? You sure do appreciate each other, politeness between you two is amusing, identical and opposite to anger towards me.

First of all, do not be fooled that peer reviewed scientific papers will mention "Aliens". Learn history and understand this: - "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident." (Schopenhauer) In any case, insisting on validity of restricted source makes it possible for censorship of information, which is why I compared it with TV and media. Indoctrination by "popular media" is as powerful as religious dogma. There is nothing wrong to talk about aliens, even if they do not exist, or is there? Hahaa, Ok. I submit, this is, after all, you best objection so far! Have you ever played "The Secret of Monkey Island" and Insult wordfighting? I will agree to your objection, but please, as a future reference note that you missed the part that says: "In that respect", which meant that I was rephrasing the first sentence and please note quotation marks - "artificial modifications" - the meaning of which was in the first sentence. Anyway here is my reply to you: - My point is that paper was not talking about God, but about UNEXPLAINED, SEEMINGLY ARTIFICIAL "patterns" in the code. And your 1st peer reviewed source is that very paper itself. Now, would you actually care to read it? To rephrase it: - Evolution does not explain some code sequences, and this is not in support of God, but rather to prompt further scientific study. You do not seem to know anything about this, so please do some research and articulate what in particular do you not agree with? What else would you like to disagree about... Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens? Perhaps, but surely we need to consider every theory, ignorance is not scientifically wise. So, based on what exactly do you discredit Credo's story about Aliens? Please, I do not know what to believe, can you help me? No, it doesn't. And your argument is? Your peer reviewed sources? You have to be careful here, or iNow could tell you something like this: - "Now, you will provide peer reviewed sources supporting your claim of the existence of that evidence, or you will retract your assertion and bow out of the conversation maturely. Those are your only two options at this juncture. Which will it be?" I think you misunderstood something, what is it you think I claim? I did not mean to argue any points, I wanted to tell what everyone missed to notice ABOUT the PAPER, and see opinions after it is understood what paper is actually talking about. I am being pressed to argue something that was said in the paper while no one actually have even read the paper, sheesh!

- "...the backbone is a common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, and the backbone also appears as one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos. [pic]Human embryo at six weeks gestational age, i.e. four weeks after fertilization. "

People, you missed the point... It is not about God as a creator, but about Aliens. The point is that it looks as if someone was MESSING AROUND with human genome by genetically engineering it, not as if it was perfectly created. In that respect, yes there is evidence in the code that suggest some "artificial modifications" happened at various points and can be tracked down the time line. Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa could tell you more about it if you look it up on YouTube. That is, if you wanna know where did humans get reptilian brain and what's up with lizard tail on human embryo.

It is not what I think, but the ARGUMENTS I provide, like this one: - "The Copenhagen interpretation, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. Quantum mechanics does not simply reflect our limited knowledge, the results are in fact probabilistic because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic. ...what can I say, most physicists and 'Copenhagen interpretation' agrees with me, what do we do about that? You misinterpreting something, and this discussion would move if people would at least have some general knowledge, at least glance over Wikipedia or search the Internet for quotes and real arguments. I do not comment people IQ, but laziness to support nonsense claims.

I have no idea what are you referring to' date=' other people probably know even less, so can you please be more specific, and could you use quotes? I'm smart, more than enough to make it true... thought, I really have no idea what are you talking about, what is "it"? deterministic -adjective 1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly. Contrast probabilistic. 2. Describes an algorithm in which the correct next step depends only on the current state. I can give you examples, I say EVERYTHING is non-deterministic, so pick your favorite example, anything in the whole wide world and beyond, anything at all... and tell me just how much is deterministic? However, note that non-deterministic DOES NOT MEAN "violating physical principles", please acknowledge yourself with the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics The main question now is this: - Brain is Electrical Quantum machine or Mechanical Turing machine? We know brain is some physical system. There are many ways to model dynamical systems in physics and before we start we need to know if our system is based on Classical or Quantum physics, whether it is determinist or not ...alternatively, you can doubt the uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics, which I, of course, can prove, most certainly.

I agree' date=' thought it is more that "motion" loses meaning without the 'distance'. Whether it is acceleration or velocity, motion is always some 'distance over time', so without distance equation does not compute, or perhaps equals zero. The distance is the factor that is missing when you have only one point, which interestingly leads us to some peculiarities and makes us wonder about equations that have velocity in them, like Lorenz force: F=q[E + (v x B)']. Imagine, electron is moving with velocity 'v' and have magnetic field that is proportional to it's charge and velocity. Velocity? ..relative to what? Aether? Now, imagine two electrons traveling in parallel with the same velocity. Again, relative to what? How could it be their relative velocity does not matter, but some "individual" velocity relative to some absolute reference frame, some aether, matters? Such equations actually suggest existence of an Aether, what do we do with that?

Im not sure why would anyone want to model magnetic fields where there are no magnetic fields' date=' lets just talk about electrons, protons and subatomic interaction. My point is exactly that, classical physics EQUATIONS are not complete. They model individual forces, while we need equation that can handle them simultaneously. However, individually these equations of classical physics perfectly explain 99% of the physics. They describe quantum behavior as long as quantum particles are not part of an atom, why is this? It is because with large enough distance some forces can be disregarded, so partial and specif cases equations work, while with atomic distances ALL of the force are very important and we have no equations to model all of them simultaneously. (I will forget week and strong nuclear forces that are even less part of any classical equation to model atom. In any case, we must not blame the whole concept of classical physics just because we have half-baked equations, blame equations) Lorentz force.... torque and magnetic spin moment is missing, also there are four equations, while we need only one. Can you point out if anyone ever even tried to model hydrogen atom with Maxwell equations? There is no such thing as special cases in real-life, no charge exist without magnetic field. All the cases, all of the electromagnetic interaction is happening "inside" an atom and to model it we need complete equation. Special cases are byproduct of our inability to unify equations and incorporate all of magnetic interaction into one equation. Yes, some were talking about it, which leads to the very confusion I'm talking about, so we should NOT talk about Bohr model because it has nothing to do with MAGNETIC FIELDS, this has been said: - "Bohr model has nothing to do with magnetic fields and it is not representative of 'classical physics' approach." - "What do the equations in post #19 have to do with the Bohr Model?" - "We are not talking about Bohr model, especially because it incorporates quantized angular momentum." What classical physics equations Bohr model uses for magnetic interaction - Lorentz, Gauss, Maxwell? What "classically incomplete" means, are you saying the same thing as me? Do you agree that we do not have unified equation for full and simultaneous electromagnetic interaction? That is my point. That is not argument. It is like saying people can not fly because they need airplanes, can you give some more concrete reason. What equation has been tried and how it failed? We agree classical equations do not model atom, only I am pretty clear about why is that. Lorentz force, electron torque and magnetic spin moment is missing, ok? I have no idea if you're asserting Maxwell equations are complete, incomplete or you say they sometimes work and sometimes do not? It is my point that equations are INCOMPLETE, and therefore can not be responsible for the "failure of classical physics", what is your point? You are NOT saying equations are INCOMPLETE, you are asserting they STOP WORKING when electron approaches proton? That is no argument, but yet another question for me, did we not already agree equations are incomplete? Yes, 100 years and we still have no equation that can model all the electromagnetic forces simultaneously. All I'm asking you to show me that equation, or do I need to wait another 100 years? If you can not show me that equation, then you have no logical reason to say some nonexistent equation could not model atom and that classical physics failed because of something that does not exist and has not been tried. Can you answer my question now: - Do you have any evidence, at all, to believe modeling atom with classical physics should be impossible? Could you please explain purpose and meaning of that question?

One can have a dream baby Two can make a dream so real One can talk about being in love Two can see how it really feels It takes two baby Just me and you You know it takes two Yes, creation or origin of motion, why not. Obviously motion is just an effect of action/reaction. Action/reaction is just an effect of attraction/repulsion between electromagnetic fields. 'Big Bang' could have been "stationary", in a sense that charged particle could have appeared in stationary state without any linear or angular velocity. The very next instant they would start moving due to electromagnetic interaction and even due to gravitational attraction, no matter how far away they happen to be. Was there ever such time when there was no charges or any other particles in the universe? The answer is no, but that is not a real answer, it is only a product of our inability to conceive the time without motion, and motion does not exist with zero particles or one particle, like your said. It takes two, baby.

That is my question to you' date=' but you did answer it later by saying this: All of them individually? Well, of course! They are not complete, why would you expect them to model atom in a first place? Do you realize all these equations are incomplete, NONE of them models all the forces simultaneously. Yes' date=' I do. Which is why I think it's pretty obvious that saying that applying magnetic field equations to them will explain them is a non-starter. [/quote'] Are you saying even trying to include magnetic field into equations is wrong? Why is it non-starter to try and include magnetic fields in equations that deal with charged particle? How do you expect to model interaction of charged particles if you omit magnetism from electro-magnetism? Explain what? Do you say classical physics fails to explain magnetic interaction? Could it be because magnetism is not fully incorporated into equations? We are not talking about Bohr model, especially because it incorporates quantized angular momentum. My claims are backed up by your statements. You confirmed magnetic interaction IS NOT PART of the equations you provided. That is my claim, I say you can not discredit classical physics by saying incomplete equations did not provide expected results. You can not blame any of the individual equations because they were not even meant to model complete interaction. I can not show you something that does not exist. You are discrediting the whole classical physics based on something that has never even been tried. Equations do not have ability? What does that mean, can you explain? Do you have any evidence, at all, to believe modeling atom with classical physics should be impossible?

That is fine' date=' but we do not need to go that far. We are not talking about intelligence or ability to speak, but emotions and feeling. What is your understanding on this, do following life forms have either emotion, instincts or both: a.) Virus b.) Bacteria c.) Squid d.) Bird e.) Dog f.) Dolphin Your statement is contradiction, evidence = proof. In any case, your evidence points to failed experiments, which is neither evidence nor proof, it is more of rebuttal type of thing. Is there anything left to argue then? I can not write simulation of airplane based on opinion that lift is produced by Bernoulli's principle, if that is not real-world fact. I need to know real mechanics of flight, and ALL of it, if I am to ever be able to model it and get simulated plane of the ground, right? ...anyway, I'm glad we agree now. I say, SPONTANEOUS actually means non-deterministic. How do you simulate "spontaneous" with deterministic algorithms and hardware? Logically this seems impossible and my question is - do you accept random computer numbers as a source to provide true spontaneity? No, magnetic interaction can not be described with Maxwell equations and that is the problem with incorporating them into the model, which explains why no one has even tried it, right? What model? You CAN NOT include magnetic interaction in Artificial Neural Network model, ANN is about floating point mathematics and magnetic interaction is about three-dimensional motion. By your understanding of the determinism of the system, word "algorithm" is not error, because you believe mathematically you can compute each next step based on current numbers and state of the system. That is exactly what algorithms do and you actually suggest it is possible to simulate consciousness with mathematical algorithms. I should be the one to complain about it, it is me who says algorithms can not do it because they are inherently deterministic. Will you stop contradicting yourself, you already admitted brain is a GREAT MYSTERY. So, now we agree? What is it your are saying? Is brain deterministic or not? If yes, then why could not deterministic program produce the same stuff as deterministic brain? This is exactly what you were suggesting so far, brace yourself and pick your stance, you can not agree and disagree in the same time. You can, but it is nonsense. I'm talking about dynamical PROCESS and you are talking about building blocks. Knowing the shapes of gears in a clock does not translate to knowledge about building machine that measures the time, especially if you fail to realize the clock you are trying to re-create is not spring based, but electrical. You do not know what thought process is, no human does. Do you think chemistry is deterministic? This should not be too hard to prove or disprove, eh? Again' date=' to reiterate, the low level mechanics are well understood. It's the high level structure that remains a mystery. [/quote'] Do you agree or not? Your response is not related to what you quoted, I'm talking about mechanics and you are talking about structures. High level, low level... I do not care what you imagine to know, it is not complete knowledge and therefore you can not know how much you do not know. Even if there is 0.0001% MYSTERY, you DO NOT KNOW if the importance of it to achieve true simulation could be 99%. It is nonsense to make any statement about certainty of system dynamics and in the same time acknowledge great confusion about it. Could you finally explain why do you hope incomplete simulation will produce results?

Sure, let me remind you of your silly objection: ...anyway, I'm glad we agree now. No, I was talking about computer algorithm and determinism of the system to be simulated. You were talking about chemistry without realizing what you admitted above, that "electricity and magnetism are inherently coupled". ...anyway, I'm glad we agree now. Speed of cognition is "speed of thinking", not necessarily the speed of electric impulses, but the speed with which you can recall memory, speed of animation of dreams or 'rate of change of thought'. In analogy to computer, the speed of cognition is the frequency of information output and the speed of impulses along nerve fibers corresponds to speed of BUS or threading pipeline between processing units. Fell free to point out reference to correct terminology and definitions. It has become quite clear that you do not understand the neurobiological systems we are attempting to model. I most certainly understand the computer systems better than you do, but you need to actually articulate your confusion if you want to learn, or even participate in discussion without embarrassing yourself. ========================== That's fine' date=' opinions are fine. However, if we want to SIMULATE some system, then we need more than opinions. WE NEED TO KNOW MECHANICS, that is all I'm saying. I can not write simulation of airplane based on opinion that lift is produced by Bernoulli's principle, if that is not real-world fact. I need to know real mechanics of flight, and ALL of it, if I am to ever be able to model it and get simulated plane of the ground, right? While opinions are fine we should always try to turn them into observational fact, by finding the experiment to confirm or refute our opinions and theories. In that respect, I point out that brain is made of quantum particles and as such is subject to Quantum Mechanics and inherent UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic and everything is made out of it. That is my argument, how do you respond to that? I say nothing is deterministic. Do you think chemistry is deterministic? This should not be too hard to prove or disprove, eh? ========================== Computing capacity should not be a problem to simulate simple organisms. I'm happy with simulated amoebae, bacteria or virus. Or even some simplified version of, say squid nervous system, perhaps fly, rat or cat? I believe Artificial Neural Networks are capable to simulate very large numbers of neurons, even in real-time. I suppose someone will need to do some Googling about it and bring it here, that should be interesting to see. I mean scientific discoveries happen so often in the last 10-20 years that it is even possible someone achieved to simulate conscious and emotional AI while I was trying to explain to iNow how "simulation" is a part of "computer science". I'm serious, why do you find it funny? It's just about the holy grail of AI to simulate exactly those human attributes, and the very question that was posed in OP. Anyway, I asked first, do you have any reason to believe so? I have every reason to think otherwise. Determinism is one of them. I'm trying to argue non-determinism is the main characteristic of human emotions and key attribute to spontaneous behavior, such as artistic, crazy, humorous, inventive, passionate, creative... ...pretty much everything we understand as "human quality" has to do with spontaneity of the reaction, while reason and logic is the least of recognizable humane attributes, because they are easy to fake, they lack originality. WWII, and the rest of the history, and present, teach us that intellect indeed has not much to do with humanity. hu⋅mane –adjective 1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion. 2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns. Do you think chemistry is deterministic? Are you saying you find it likely some deterministic algorithm has a chance of producing such human-like behavior? ========================== I thought, just before, you suggested the possibility to simulate the whole human body development out of embryo... Anyway, my point is that it is not "understood" until proven. I do not care about ability to speak or human intelligence, I want to see any kind of proof, squid or worm nervous system will do, any traces of instinct or emotional response. ANYTHING that can be considered evidence, you only point unsuccessful attempts. Can they simulate the simplest virus at least? In other words, why do you hope Artificial Neural Network will be able to fully model neuron mechanics without considering the magnetic fields interaction? Do you think such AI based on deterministic algorithm could have a sense of humor, be able to dream, believe in god or commit suicide? Hold on, everything is well understood and deterministic... except that some high level interaction is a GREAT MYSTERY. You can not claim thought process is deterministic, if the underlying interaction is MYSTERY. You can not claim thought process is well understood, if the underlying interaction is MYSTERY. You can not say anything about thought process if you do not know WHAT IT IS, WHERE IT IS, HOW IT ORIGINATES, HOW IT EXISTS, HOW IT EVOLVES and HOW IT CEASES TO EXIST. If you do not know mechanics of it, you can not simulate it. If you have no experiments to prove your theory then portraying it as a fact is scientifically unwise. It is as if you want to simulate MS Word running inside computer, by looking at computer motherboard and the design of hardware, while being completely oblivious that computer needs to be turned on for hardware to be able to compute anything and display output. You can hardly reproduce software by looking at hardware. software is dynamical system, computer hardware is static. Do not get confused that human hardware is not static, information is still within electromagnetic fields, not within protein structure. Brain is Electrical Quantum Machine, not Mechanical Turing Machine. YOU CAN NOT SIMULATE SYSTEM IF THERE IS ANY MYSTERY ABOUT IT'S MECHANICS. This is my point from the start. Now, realize your mistakes and accept this kindly given knowledge, do you accept?

Citations? For what? That all chemical reactions are electromagnetic interaction? That does not need to be cited' date=' it is part of any introduction to the subject of atomic structure and chemical bonding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction [i']- "A chemical reaction is a process ... Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds, although the general concept of a chemical reaction, in particular the notion of a chemical equation, is applicable to transformations of elementary particles, as well as nuclear reactions."[/i] Basically it says it is about bonding and motion of elementary particles, such as electron and proton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnatism - "Electromagnetism is the physics of the electromagnetic field: a field which exerts a force on particles that possess the property of electric charge, and is in turn affected by the presence and motion of those particles. Basically, it says the same. Quantum Mechanics might say the same as well. Which theory we use as a basis for our AI? I would rather iNow give citation that say electric impulses can exist without magnetic fields and that chemical reactions can explain the speed of cognition or persistence of memory, how about those citations? I do not think you can even call it a chemistry when dealing with electricity. Chemistry is about bonding and molecular geometry, kind of "freeze-frame" of what is going underneath. Electromagnetism is what is actually happening and it is about electrons, ions, any moving charges and all that.