Let me clarify that it is the unfoldment of purusha that would provide a
clue to creating artificial consciousness. It would be key but I knew
the people I was explaining it to wouldn't have a clue about what I was
talking about. They did dig up a doctoral thesis from UC Berkeley that
went along those lines and became useful in creating very successful
artificial human behavior in software. Up until then they had a very
superficial and cumbersome method of imitating life.
emptybill wrote:
> Nah ... a jiva may be relational and created but purusha
> is a term for the uncreated nature of sheer awareness.
> Sheer awareness is not a quality but a principle reality.
>
> metaphor of otherness
> = para
>
> { drg-shakti
> svamin }
> metaphor { drastr
> prabhu } metaphor
> of seeing { drshi
> grahitr } of owning
> { drshi-maatra
>
> chiti
> chiti-shakti
> =
> metaphor of
> cognizing
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote:
>
>> To create artificial consciousness you would have to create purusha in
>> code. The machine has to be aware. Thing is we are also machines,
>>
> just
>
>> organic ones and there may be not that much "magical" about our
>> consciousness. IOW, it may well be possible to create an "aware"
>> machine. That might be scary like as in "The Terminator."
>>
>> Duveyoung wrote:
>>
>>> This clockworked mother-boarded maniquin is so far from
>>>
> consciousness it's a joke.
>
>>> John, you're too easily jumping far down the road.....far.
>>>
>>> I don't think there'll be any hope for machine consciousness until
>>>
> quantum computing comes online -- and even then, it will be a fake kind
> of consciousness -- one that is good at creating an illusion of
> sentience that is maybe only a titch better than, say, a parrot is at
> convincing one that it is understanding its "impressions."
>
>>> Passing the Turing test would be a good start, but that too is some
>>>
> distance off....because the A.I. folks are trying to actually find out
> how to "do consciousness" instead of "fooling folks." If they wanted to
> merely fool folks, they can fool about 30% of the people ALL THE TIME
> now, and maybe 80% some of the time, and 99% if they know ahead of time
> who are the folks they'll be fooling and can prepare for that audience.
>
>>> Edg
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" jr_esq@ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Current AI development has come close to this question.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg&feature=related
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
