So what is to differentiate them, love? Can love be programmed?
Love :)
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Bette,

Love can probably not be programmed. It is such a more complex subject than that one simple four letter English word implies. You could program behavior simulating behavior based upon love, but I do not see you programming the thing in itself.

Ted

Ted,

I am unfamiliar with the hockey playing robots of which you write. I occasionally attempt to play catchup on AI progress, and robotics, but I've missed the robotic hockey team.

Let me take a wild shot, Hail Mary pass kind of guess and say that you must understand something before you can program it - even if it's programmable. Especially within a culture which has only one word for it: love. The Greeks had many words for the various ways in which we use our word, love. C.S. engineers would spend several decades trying to define love. Philosophers would spend several thousand years. Theologists would spend more if they could live long enough without killing each other off.

Hey Roland,

I was just thinking about the above^ statement you made, and I became curious. What specifically did you find in Seth's statements that was obviously 'Jane-generated' belief? Was this "fact contradicting" information in the book Seth dictated, "Seth Speaks," or was the information from some of Robert Butt's other various transcriptions of random channeling sessions? I hope that question made sense... The reason I ask is because I haven't read a TON of Seth- but from what I've read so far in "Seth Speaks" he seems pretty aligned with Tom's TOE in most respects. I thought it was interesting how Seth even used a computer analogy- and this was in the 70's... Anyway, I also ask- because Seth does clearly state: (again, I'm sure you're familiar with this bit of information, but for anyone interested in the Seth material...)



So I don't think anyone reading the Seth stuff takes ALL of it as exactly what Seth was trying to say- but I think that if there were any VITAL errors, that these would have been pointed out by Seth to Jane and Robert and not allowed to go to print. Maybe I'm wrong, but again- I ask this with innocent curiousity and complete respect: could you remember, or try to remember, or just plain ol' let me know what info you came across in the Seth stuff that contradicts known fact?

And also, your definition of "known fact."



Thanks Roland :)

Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

Roland,

Robots playing hockey were mentioned in the interview article about Dr. Gerald Edelman. The relevant paragraphs are near the end of the article and are quoted below for easy reference. Apparently it was a robotic player teamed with a human player. All I know is contained in these paragraphs and the following links. Further research is required to search out more information. A Google search for 'soccer playing robots' brings up http://www.robocup.org/ plus almost 56,000 other pages but I have not seen Dr. Edelman's research mentioned. A search for 'Dr. Gerald Edelman Nobel Laureat soccer playing robots' brings up the link (among 272 total) http://www.nsi.edu/uploads/newsletters/nsi2004.pdf which brings up a PDF which includes information on soccer playing robots based on Segway transporters controlled by Brain Based Devices on page 10 of the 2004 annual report of The Neurosciences Institute "Brain Matters". Dr. Gerald M. Edelman, M.D., Ph.D. is the Director of the institute. A series of lectures on Consciousness with the initial lecture by Dr. George Edelman is available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3763631391 . Dr. Edelman's lecture is described as: Lecture 1 of 12 of IBM Research's Almaden Institute Conference on Cognitive Computing. Subtitle: A Prelude to the Future of Brain-Based Devices Edelman discusses neuronal group selection, brain-based devices, and robots playing soccer. This is a long lecture with much introductory material by others and I have not yet listened to all of it or the rest of the sequence of lectures. It might be worth your investigation.

"An artificial intelligence program is algorithmic: You write a series of instructions that are based on conditionals, and you anticipate
what the problems might be. AI robot soccer players make mistakes because you can't possibly anticipate every possible scenario on
a field. Instead of writing algorithms, we have our BBDs (Brain Based Devices) play sample games and learn, just the way you train your dog to do tricks.

At the invitation of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, we incorporated a brain of the kind that we were just talking
about into a Segway transporter. And we played a match of soccer against Carnegie Mellon University, which worked with an
AI-based Segway. We won five games out of five. That's because our device learned to pick up a ball and kick it back to a human
colleague. It learned the colors of its teammates. It did not just execute algorithms."

Search further and post more details about Dr. Edelman's research if you can find it. It does seem to be pertinent indirectly to MBT. And even this little further searching seems to show the superiority of neuro net brains trained by experience over AI based computer programs, exactly to my understanding following the MBT model of the development of our higher selves/minds.

Ted

This seem to be a more relevant place for my question which is, could a unit of consciousness not currently having a PMR based human or critter experience create a presence in a digital system such as this discussion board. Could any of us be nonphysical beings that choose this platform to communicate to those experiencing PMR in body, for any reason even just for fun? I don't suspect anyone, just wondering ;).
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

The implications of such possibilities are pretty amazing in my opinion. I would personally think that like anything else- its possible. Would be interesting to hear Tom's comments on this matter...
Good question bette!

Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

Ted,

I'll check it out. I know that neural nets didn't pan out from the 80s like they thought it might. Maybe there's a gen 2 that will succeed. I always thought that Systems Science and Information Theory held tremendous promise. Self-Organising Systems is an off-shoot of those efforts and fractals. Complexity theory, evolutionists are finding, is explaining evolution in ways that they never even imagined possible. It seems that evolution is more creative and progressive that they ever knew by studying species alone. Maybe Kurzweil's optimism is well founded.

Bette and Cole,

Tom has stated elsewhere on these forums that it is not impossible to manifest a body in PMR without the whole birth, life, death scenario; for temporary communication purposes. Here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2761&p=3724&hilit=manifest+a+body#p3724 He will probably chime in with more information when he has time if you indicate that this is not sufficient an answer for your purposes.

Ted

Roland,

There is an approach to programming which I have mentioned before called evolutionary programming if I remember correctly. Radio antenna design was the field I remember. The program added a segment to the antenna design, the propagation pattern was calculated and if it did not meet specs or improve performance, it was eliminated and a new segment tried. The results might look weird, but it worked and quickly. Nothing like the primary process of trial and error at computer speeds. The basic process of reality.

Ted

Cole,

All statements are contextual. What is known is known only within a body of knowns, or facts, or context. I subscribe to an epistemological view that was summarized nicely and made popular by R.A. Wilson, who learning from Korzybski. Within that context one considers culture and biology as filters to outside knowledge. One has to take these into account when considering information, both for the receiver and the sender. This is, generally, how I see facts, but there's a lot more and it would grow into a long composition if I covered it all.

On what Sethian claims do I differ and, thereby, refer to my view as factual and his as non-factual? If memory serves, Seth's perspective on religion is the single, largest variance from fact. In particular, whether there was a historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth. This is a topic with which I am extremely well studied. I know both sides of the issue. I was raised in a very literary, well studied, Christian environment. I know Christian texts and theology to a very high level. I also know, now, the many parallel mythologies and religions of that era and prior. I also know a great deal about the archaeological evidences for the histories within the Old Testament literature. And I know that they are all consensus realities created by historical traditions and religious dogma. I should also add, that based upon the historical traditions within religions, and based upon the multi-varied teachings of the Buddha, I put it at 90%+ odds (in my mind) that there was no historical Buddha either. (do you hear hornets buzzing overhead?)

It has been said that Jane's religious views made it impossible for Seth make his message 100% his own. Perhaps. I don't really know, nor do I have evidence that directs me to either side of the question. But I will also be so bold as to say that I do not trust 100% any entity, whether they be in this reality or the next. That consciousness itself is evolving, and no less ourselves, whether we're here or there, would mandate such skepticism. However, I've read enough and heard enough to find that without any such knowledge of evolutionary principles at work, there's plenty of reasons for being skeptical of metaphysical entities, almost mush as your next door neighbor.

(edited para. 2)

Ted, no body, just digital presence.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Roland you have said the secret word, dogma, you win one Bette joke! Oh man, your karma ran over my dogma. :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Say it, don't joke about it.