May I ask what kind of science are you studying? On May 27, 4:23 am, jitesh dundas <jbdun...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
