DrmDoc

It seems that AI is getting much closer than I thought to producing human level consciousness. This SciShow video discusses how AI have defeated several professional poker players, which is much different and more difficult for AIs than chess. As the video host explains, chess is a perfect information game where all aspects of the game are visible to players. Poker is an imperfect information game where opponents and draw cards are not known and strategies aren't as evident as in chess. These AIs are programmed to learn from experience which, in my opinion, is one prerequisite indication of consciousness.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have time and again demonstrated their political impotency against the Republican agenda. If that's any example, then it's very likely that the Dems were not as prepared or as careful as the Republicans in securing their servers. BREAKING NEWS: In a case of the great and powerful Wizard of Oz shouting, "Ignore that man behind the curtain!", Trump is now claiming that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped prior to the November elections. Most respondents agree that this claim is Trump's effort to divert attention from recent charges of collusion between his staff and Russian officials.

If we accept the human brain as a consciousness producing structure, then anyone or thing possessing its prerequisite functional configuration or some equivalently structured programming should be viewed as producing human equivalent consciousness--in my opinion.

I'm sure most of us agree that there's a slight distinction between operating systems and regular data. Data is primarily that stream of input acted upon by the system, while the OS tells the system what to do with that input stream. It's the distinction between an innate quality (e.g., fight or flight instincts) and that quality added to a system (e.g., visual, tactile, auditory sensory input). Consciousness in AI will require more nuanced distinctions in programming than what I've seen.

I disagree, slightly. From my understanding of how our brain likely evolved to produce this quality, mind isn't data. Mind is the functional matrix into which we input data. Mind is separate from consciousness and data in that mind comprises the functional programming that produces consciousness from data. I agree my perspective may be an oversimplification, but it is based on a path of evolution that suggest mind is evidenced, generally, by a capacity to retain and integrate data--or, in terms of brain function, a capacity to retain and integrate sensory input.

I understood. Although a possibility, what I'm suggesting is that I believe it's very unlikely now without that understanding. Without a proper understanding, how would developers know their machines are doing anything more than mimicking consciousness?

The science is beyond me but this DNews video link eloquently explains what they are and how they differ from normal matter. The video describes the discovery, what they are and how they are produced. It appears that time crystals remain in a perpetual state of motion even at rest. The link will give you more insight. Enjoy!

Tactics such as gerrymandering and ID requirement involves state efforts to suppress votes. Voter apathy isn't a tactic but rather the voters lack of interest in fulfilling his or her civic duty.

It's not that voter apathy denied votes but that voters weren't sufficiently motivated to do what was necessary to insure Hillary's win.

I agree that gerrymandering marginalizes minority votes but I don't think that was a significant factor in Hillary's loss in key states this past election. The perspective I've tried to convey is that these tactics, although of serious concern, were negligible and ineffective compared to overall voter apathy.

A candidate can win the popular vote in states with fewer Electoral College (EC) delegates than other states. This means that a candidate can win the cumulative votes of several states and not amass the number of EC delegates need to win the presidency. Trump's win in key states with significant numbers of delegates meant that he didn't have to win the cumulative popular vote, just the popular vote in those key states with delegates in sufficient numbers to win the presidency. As I understand, Hillary loss by 22,000 votes; therefore, more than 22,000 votes would have been required for her to win that state. If we assume that voter suppression caused Hillary's loss that suppression cost her more than 22,000 votes. If 300,000 registered voters were denied their rights to vote because of voter ID laws, that is indeed suppression. However, those laws likely applied to the voters who managed to vote successfully. Why were 300,000 registered voters not able to obtain proper ID as those who did vote? Were they all minority or poor voters unable to pay for state ID? Were they actually turned away at the polls or just didn't both to vote because they failed to obtain IDs? Were is the link to the article discussing that sizeable number of denied voters?

I'm not suggesting that anyone would be unaffected by restrictive practice, I merely saying that I'm not convinced that those tactics contributed to Hillary's loss. No, that is not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that whatever voter suppression that might have occurred during the election, it was not a compelling factor in Hillary's loss. A loss by 22,000 precinct votes just doesn't suggest to me that 22,001 votes were suppressed in that voting precinct--either the voters didn't come to the polls or they just picked the other candidate.

Hopefully, the facts I've provided will support my opinion. As you may recall, the equivalency regarded rural voters versus minority voters. That 79% is cumulative total of all voters (minority and majority) living in urban areas. According to the poverty statistic link I provided, about 22 million Blacks and Hispanics live in poverty. Given that nearly 70% of those populations in total live in or around urban areas, this means about 15.4 million minorities are indeed equivalent to a rural majority that would likely vote Republican. Perhaps you misunderstood my implication. Definitively, I do not believe that Republican contrived voter suppression contributed to Hillary's loss. I do believe that their suppression tactics is a threat to our democracy and could be more effective in the future. Regarding my Bernie Sander's comments, his tactics labeling Hillary as a Wall Street insider and corporate shill undermined her credibility as a candidate for the people--effectively suppressing the enthusiasm of those minority voters who unsuccessfully supported Bernie in droves. There was no real suppression in the vein of ID and redistricting that suppressed votes, just voter apathy created by a combination of Bernie's campaign and Republican dirty tricks supported by foreign interference.

Perhaps, but what I've seen thus far is mimicry without that true spark that says to me, "I am awake and aware!"

Aren't we all merely expressing our opinions? Nevertheless... According to recent census statistics (2010), America's rural population is about 21%, which totals nearly 59.3 million Americans. Even if not representative of all eligible rural voters, 59.3 million Americans isn't a false equivalent or insubstantial number of Americans potentially affected by malicious voter ID laws. Furthermore, according to US poverty statistics released in September 2016, 17.8 million Whites and non-Hispanic lived in poverty, which is about 7 million shy of the total for all minority groups. I agree that the rate of poverty among minority groups in total is much higher than that among White voters, but there is a substantial number, as you can see, of poor majority white voters also potentially affected by malicious ID laws. It's obtuse to not consider that voter suppression wasn't an effective tactic during this past election considering the sizeable number of potential majority voters also affected by the very same tactics. Again, I'm not belittling or disputing the significance or future effects of voter suppression tactics in our elections, I am merely not convinced that those tactics contributed to Hillary's loss. In my opinion, albeit not solicited, Bernie Sander's campaign did more to suppress votes for Hillary among minority voters than any Republican contrived voter suppression effort.

When I think of rural American, I think in terms of rural states and statewide populations, which numbers more in the thousands rather than hundreds. Again, I don't denied that voter suppression isn't a critical issue, I just don't think it was or could have been a deciding factor in Hillary's loss.

I agree with Strange; contemporary robots are not capable of consciousness but future robots could be. I think the problem contemporary programmers have in developing truly conscious robots is their inadequate understanding of how the human brain produces consciousness. Human consciousness involves a confluence of separate brain areas engage in distinct processes that together constitute cognition and cognitive output. I believe that when programmers learn how to duplicate the intricacies of human brain function accurately, they will succeed. As a start, programmers will need a precise understanding of what mind truly is. Consciousness is a product of our brain function's matrix and that matrix is what we refer to as mind. What constitutes a mind in living organisms is both simple and complex but not beyond our ability to program with the proper understanding.

I would never denied that the fees attached to state ID applications isn't more burdensome for the poor than the rich; however, as you'll note, I've made no distinction between the poor minority from the poor majority. The majority isn't entirely comprised of a wealthy class of individuals. I'm sure you'll agree that there are poor members of the majority social class, particularly in rural America, who are equally affected by voter ID laws. Those poorer members may not share the same political views as those of the minority class. Rural America isn't wealthy and they tend to vote Republican. Their votes supporting majority views would be equally suppressed by the same ID laws impacting minority votes, which is the perspective I've tried to convey. The deciding factor in Trump's narrow victory during the past election wasn't, in my opinion, voter suppression. That factor was clearly the large number of eligible voters who just wasn't motivated to support Hillary as the voters who supported Trump.

In some states, there are fees attached to obtaining state identification. It's not a poll tax per se, but it can be burdensome to the poor needing ID to vote. All the requirements for voter ID applied to the majority as well. They were under the same constraints as those who voted in minority areas. Yet, as some propose, minority voter turnout was suppressed by those constraints because the process of obtain IDs is more difficult for minorities? As I see it, the only impediment to obtaining an ID would have been financial and if a person of color was denied a chance to vote--in a minority voting precinct that was likely staffed by a community volunteers--an equally white voter would have been denied that same chance. Other than for financial reasons, it just doesn't seem reasonable that ID constraints wouldn't affect majority voters as well. Early voting has the same constraints for non-minorities as well. Again, as I see it, an inconvenience to one group of voters is an inconvenience to all groups. A motivated voter will, if affordable, obtain an ID, then take the day off, march to the polls and stand in line for as long as it takes to have his or her vote registered. What happened this past election, as I believe, was that those of us who should have registered their support for Hillary weren't as motivated as those who voted for Trump--and there were lines of many motivated voters well after poll closings.

Yes, in my opinion, there just isn't sufficient evidence that voter suppression was key to Trump winning this past election. The primary reason for Hillary's loss, I believe, involves backlash from Bernie Sander's loss to Hillary coupled with the ceaseless Republican political tactics engaged throughout her campaign. The thing about voter ID laws is that all citizen are affected by them in someway. I understand that these laws may disproportionately affect the poor where there are fee requirements; however, some states have waved those fees and others, like Pennsylvania, eased their ID restrictions during this past election. Although I believe voter suppression is a critical issue, I continue to believe that it wasn't the cause of Hillary's loss. Her loss was the result of the vitriolic campaigns that eroded public trust in her character and leadership, which contributed to an environment of voter apathy. It's just a matter of time when the poor and middle-income of the majority will realize that this president's policies doesn't really include their best interests.

It seems that this administration's FBI chief, charged with investigating contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian officials, lied during his confirmation hearing and did not disclose his meetings with the Russian ambassador to the US. Now there are calls for his resignation. Yet more evidence of wolves appointed by this administration to guard the sheep.

The applications are beyond my insight and understanding. Fortunately, as dimreeper evinces, there are people in this science discussion forum who are abundantly more knowledgeable than I on this topic.

I understand your frustration and appreciate your passion on this subject...but don't burn yourself out over this. We have just under 4 miserable years ahead of us and you don't want your ire spent in just the first few weeks.

In retrospect, I think you're right. Still, I didn't given him a thorough answer, which is why I included the links. Perhaps, he'll research the subject further.

Yes, Ten oz, voter suppression may indeed have a much greater effect in future elections under this adminstration. As expected, the government is reversing course in major Texas voter ID case.