I am not saying this because I want to be a marketing/political guy..That is the last thing to think off..l
I just look at the possibilities that we could achieve in the near future. I hope you agree that we are moving in this direction.All inventions/discoveries ,including computers were a dream far distant. I am not overconfident but just simply optimistic. Sentience is possible in humans due to sensory motions and information communication mechanisms that work in sync with the brain. Which are the ways in which we could understand the human brain so as to make our computer achieve sentience.. Regards, Jitesh Dundas On 5/27/10, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 5/26/10 21:50 , jitesh dundas wrote: >> Thanks for your reply. However, I still think we can do it. Why do >> we think that such inventions are impossible. I am just expressing >> that we are on the road to success(when computers will have human >> like brains)..Very ue, this is difficult. However,not impossible. >> >> So I request you to look at the possibilities and not worry about >> the bad sides..I am optimistic,yes but I am being realisticly >> optimistic...We are on our way to achieving this. With so many >> brilliant scientists working on this and so much money involved, >> there is bound to be progress in this direction... > > What I really don't understand, Jitesh, is your purpose about > discussing the topic. In our exchanges, you attributed to me the > arguments "rat brains are simple" and "rat have not been made for > designing software" (in the mail that didn't get through the mailing > list). Now you talk about bad sides (I'm not sure if "you" refers to > me or generically to all the people here, as somebody talked about > "bad sides"). But the most common answer that you are getting here is > that the thing is extremely much more complex than you think and it > could be even impossible. We could be wrong, of course, and I'd like > to hear some counter-argument from you; but everything you > counter-answer is that you're optimistic and it can be surely done. > What's the point? :-) Such an attitude without arguments is more > suitable to marketing or politics, rather than science/technology. > > - -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkv9f/0ACgkQeDweFqgUGxcyswCfQr/QOWlNoYbaW4QQWm6OFHab > 00QAn1gtH1ZdUkpBuvULeZqkCLiWADcb > =kkpk > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
