DrmDoc

If the computer is not programed to produce unpredictable responses and if it is also not programed for self-preservation, I might then agree to the possibility--but not without some sign of responses independent of its programing.

As I understand AlphaGo, it's game play is based on algorithms that employ a form of computational statistics or mathematical optimization to make optimal predictions through continuous play. If my understanding is correct, I don't think that quite equals cognitive autonomy in the sense that the machine is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with its algorithms. If AlphGo, one day, stopped its gameplay and somehow began to create it's own game or a game more challenging to its programing, I might be impressed. If I knew it wasn't programed to say that, my blood would chill and I would probably think the launch codes are next!

Yes, palpably evident "cognitive autonomy."

Imatfaal's "ghost in the machine" musing led me to think about what would convince me, as SJ extoled, that "eureka" moment has arrived. I've been arguing computers as unreliable representations of brain function and currently incapable of reproducing consciousness without considering what may constitute convincing evidence otherwise. I think what makes the consciousness of human brain function so distinct from computers is its capacity to engage behaviors independent of its genetic programing, which is more simply referenced as instinct. We have the ability to overrule our fight or flight instinct, to self-innovate and engage proactive rather than reactive behaviors. I equate human instinct with the programing computers are incapable of disobeying without being programed to do so. When computers are able to demonstrate, without programmer intervention, an ability to overrule, rewrite, and exceed their programing or preprogramed parameters and responses, I might then consider myself as having actually witnessed a "ghost in the machine."

It seems this discussion has turned to guns in American yet again, which owners and advocates will not relinquish until they are "pried from their cold, dead hands" (Charlton Heston). However, what happened in Dallas sprang from a larger issue of social inequality in American, which may only be adequately addressed by acts of conscience rather than words of support here.

When I was a child of 6, I owned a BB gun, which I used to hunt squirrels. By my teens, I was using more mature weapons, shotguns mostly, to hunt larger game. I don't hunt now and have never allowed my children, who are now adults, to handle even toy guns because I felt that there was something inherently wrong with the indoctrinating effect of guns a harmless play things, which they are not. Perhaps our gun play in youth didn't convert us to violent psychopaths as adults; however, child's play, in my opinion, is a gateway for attitudes and behaviors we might accept or engage as adults. Like violent video game play, I think playing with representations of gun could have a desensitizing affect on subsequent attitudes and behaviors regarding real gun use. We could chose to indoctrinate our kids with a benign view of guns through toys and play or we could chose take some small step toward limiting the proliferation of guns and gun violence in our nation.

Under what circumstance should any simulation of gunplay be considered benign where child's play is involved? If we want to change the consciousness of a nation and its passion for guns, we will have to be particularly intolerant of the perception of any gun representation as a toy and as part of child's play. If a parent sees something, that parent should say something.

And 12 year old Tamir Rice as well. Parent shouldn't permit their children to think of guns in any form as toys.

If I understand, you're discussing the nature of consciousness as produced by brain function. If so, I stumbled upon a perspective of that nature while researching a book I wrote about the dreaming brain. I found that human consciousness, at the very least, is an end result of specific functional milestones in the development of our central nervous system (CNS) beginning with the entry and acquisition of afferent (input) tactile and taste sensory neural pathways at the earliest stage (myelencephalon) of our CNS evolution. Such sensory acquisitions inform our view of the behaviors ancestral animal might have engaged at distinct and significant stages in their physical and neural evolution. When we trace the afferent sensory pathways of our CNS from the myelencephalon to the cortex, we find more refined and specialized tactile sensory acquisitions contiguously positioned until we reach the thalamus. The thalamus is important because its functions added an element to our CNS responses not expressed through prior development. That element was and is a capacity to integrate diverse and distinct sensory input through a mental process that produced behaviors independent of instinct. The thalamus gave ancestral animals the capacity to form a mental environment where consciousness might arise. Although there is exceedingly more to brain function and consciousness than I briefly explored here, this type of exploration in discussion is what I think we should engage for a clear understanding of consciousness in brain function rather than artificial constructs.

I agree, we shouldn't rest on our laurels-but you'll have to admit, electing a black person for President--unlikely named Barack Obama--was a particularly monumental fete for a former enslaving nation steeped in bigotry and intolerance. Well said!

I understand; I'm merely saying that I've seen no convincing evidence that computers can currently reproduce consciousness based on my understanding of that quality as produced by human brain function. Indeed, computers can be programmed to simulate consciousness equivalent responses but is that truly consciousness? The answer to that question defines a quintessential distinction. It's that unequal functional measure, between computers and the human brain, that makes computers currently an inadequate model for functions that produce true consciousness.

I agree; currently, computer don't possess the structure and programming known to produce consciousness as understood through brain function. One day, they might.

Perhaps I misunderstand, are you suggesting that brain function doesn't produce consciousness or are you suggesting that consciousness is merely a series of computations that computers currently do produce? Yes, "evolving" superficial reflections of brain function devoid of an important distinction, which is consciousness.

I disagree; believing that computers can do something without verifiable evidence of same is equivalent, in my view, to religious faith and belief in some supreme deity. I don't doubt that some day computers might produce functional-equivalent consciousness; however, that day may be far in the distant future when their functional construct more accurately simulates what happens in the human brain.

If I may also respond, brain function produces consciousness while computers, at present, cannot and do not. This consciousness distinction empirically suggests that brain function does something that is not and cannot be explained by computer function.

As a correction to my errors, Texas is an open carry state, where people are allowed to carry weapons. I conceived one thing, then typed another in my haste to record that conception, suffix errors are a plague in my old age. The data I've reviewed appears to confirm your comment. I agree; police have to be more effectively trained to react in a more mentally measured and emotionally disciplined manner befitting the authority we give them to use deadly force.

Texas is an open carrier state where a large number of jackasses of all races are allowed to carrying weapons at the most inappropriate times and in the most inappropriate places. We have the NRA and extremely stupid Americans to thank for that dangerously permissive environment. Some people in Texas seem to believe that they are still living in the lawlessly wild west of the 1800s and, frankly, maybe they are.

Indeed; however, to my point, there was a time in our country, not too long ago, when a black candidate would not get even a small number of white votes necessary to be a political party's Presidential nominee let alone the President of our nation. When we retrace the 230 or more years of moral growth and experience it took our nation to reach this point, I think we'll find that more than demographics have changed about the nature of our country. The differences between our nation's citizens have narrowed so considerably over the years that no real racial barrier now exist between its citizens and the Presidency. Although a majority of our White citizens may remain suspicious and entrenched against non-White candidates, some have discovered their better nature. Indeed; equality shouldn't have been or continue to be a privilege of skin color but should be a right as a human being.

You're not honestly suggesting that Obama won his election without a considerable amount of non-African-American votes? Perhaps Obama drew more non-White voters to the poles than prior elections, which diminished the percentage block of White voters relative to the overall voting electorate; however, hearts had to change to increase the number of non-White votes and bring-in the White votes necessary to elect and keep an African-American President in office for two consecutive terms.

It required over 230 years of horrific sacrifices, courageous deeds, and brilliant orations to change the heart of our nation to elect our country's first African-American president. As a nation forged by revolution, it will probably require another 200 years of same to change our violent ways.

Indeed, some should be more fearful than other when, statistically, one segment of our populace is involved with more violent encounters with the police than another, whether or not those encounters are justified. America is a nation built by revolution on the shoulders of slavery and the subjugation of a native people over a few short years compared to other nations. America is a land of opportunity but that opportunity comes with challenges its citizens must surmount to obtain.

Mad? Perhaps; however, an officer, being human and fearful, can misconstrue noncompliance as a threat and, conceivably, be exonerated by the laws he's sworn to uphold. Also, the laws on shooting fleeing suspects aren't uniformed throughout the states. Fleeing suspects continue to be shot, particularly if they are fleeing with a weapon. Some survive, some don't.

What if he ask you for your license and while you're reaching, the officer shoots you anyway? In the Minnesota case, it's my understanding that the officer asked for the driver's license and while the driver was complying, the driver informed the officer he was licensed to carry, at which point, the officer proceeded to simultaneously shoot (5x) and tell the driver to stop his motion. If this scenario is true the officer, at the very least, should have given the driver an opportunity to stop his motions before the officer discharged his weapon. Also, I don't think it's good policing policy to discharge a weapon into a car with potentially innocent bystanders, particularly, a child. Regardless of race in America, we should all obey an officer's order if we want to live; however, I hardly see the need to shoot a struggling man, held down by two officers, 4 to 5 times because he has a weapon in his pocket and not in his hand.

Sadly, there is an element of these protests with that potential--unscrupulous opportunist (e.g., Dallas sniper, looters, etc.). A fraction of those who engage these protests do so for the anarchic pleasure and opportunity to engage their illicit predilections to the unfortunate detriment of a noble cause.

No riots yet; primarily vocal and peaceful protests with the exception of several blocked thoroughfares.