That reply is fascinating to me. Have you experienced grief? — Athena

Personal grief, yes, very much so, loss of my father, my best friend, lost love twice, I have experienced personal betrayal and a myriad of other troubles, BUT grief is personal, isn't it. You may cope with a trauma, which would have smashed me, humpty dumpty style, and vice versa for other experiences.
The experience of the Jews in the concentration camps is a 'standard comparator,' that many employ, either as a guard or a prisoner. I have tried to place myself in the middle of such a thought experiment and I, like most remain conflicted as to what and who I would be if I came through such.

My life does not hold much value to me without my relationships. — Athena

I can understand that and feel the same way to an extent but yet, I would be stubborn, against being defeated by the misfortunes that living has, or could cause me to experience, due to my own actions, the actions of others or just happenstance.

If like the people in Turkey I lost my whole family in an earthquake I would not want to live. — Athena

Oh, I would and I would feel soooooooooo responsible and soooooooooo 'tasked' with the 'legacy' of my lost family. I MUST live FOR them, to represent them. To build a new legacy in their names and try to do as many things that they would have done if they were alive. That would become my 'drive' in life.

Not even a completely artificial body would please me because I do not want to be a brain without a feeling body. I am not sure I would want immortality either. The gods envied us because we know death. — Athena

What if your replacements could experience 'feelings' in the exact same way, as your current body.
What if we could clone you, as an exact replica of you at say 21 and then transfer your brain into a new cloned body, before your brain dies?

I cannot say "misinterpreting". I rather feel that you are "ignoring" or just "rejecting" some things I say. And without providing enough or not at all arguments and explanations against them. But you are not the only one. I have become used to it! — Alkis Piskas

Well, I enjoyed the exchange Alkis. You are correct about me, in that I fiercely consider empirical science to be the final, implacable arbiter of any philosophical proposal.

The two elements that I emphasized, can be used for any two (or more) things. In the present case, you are asking me to present an evidence that the mind is not the same with consciousness. Is that right? — Alkis Piskas

Not 'an evidence' but your own 'perception' that MOST convinces you that mind and consciousness are not the same concept (as a substitute, if you don't like phenomenon).

Well, how can I present an evicence that e.g. "intelligence" and "perception" are not the same thing? I can only describe what intelligence and perception mean to me. But this wouldn't constitute an evidence, would it? — Alkis Piskas

But my intentions for this thread, is about personal credence levels held by individuals based on what they consider as 'emergent' in humans, due to their collected and memorialised experiences, since being in and coming out of the wilds. If YOU are say 99.9% convinced that YOUR concept of the human mind is completely separate from, but strongly related to, and dependent on, YOUR concept of human consciousness, then I would assume that YOU must consider certain concepts to be, FOR YOU, very strong evidence, that confirms why YOU assign such a high credence level to 'mind does not = consciousness.' I am simply asking you to confirm what convinces you MOST.

The mind interprets, explains, produces, etc. phenomena; it's not a phenomenon itself. Consciousness is being aware of phenomenona; it's not a phenomenon itself. — Alkis Piskas

Does the brain not interpret and produce explanations via analysis? Does it not do this BECAUSE the brain IS conscious. When we are unconscious (as opposed to asleep), we perform no such analyses.

Do all these make sense and are they satisfactory for you? — Alkis Piskas

Only you can tell me if I am misinterpreting your viewpoints and require correction.

There are architectures with instructions to directly manipulate the MAR and MDR? — noAxioms

I think you are making too much of 'direct manipulation' here.
Any 'fetch/execute' cycle will involve the mar and mdr registers, the address bus, the data bus and control lines. A single use of an assembly code instruction such as LDA (a fetch from a memory location) or STR (a save to a memory location) will involve the mdr, mar and their associated buses, that's all the direct access I am talking about. If I have a 32 bit data bus connected to a 32 pin mdr and I type in a memory location consisting of 32 bits or its hex equivalent, then I am assigning a value to each pin, am I not?

Yea, that went real well with Brexit, which was a non-forced union that fell apart due to perceived unfairness among other things. I don’t think it’s human nature to want control by what is seen as ‘them’ as opposed to ‘us’. — noAxioms

62% of those who voted in Scotland, voted to stay in the European union.
I agree with your suggestion that the 'them' and 'us' attitude has been a perennial problem against the human race becoming a fully united species with no more notions of nationhood but I remain convinced that global union is inevitable but It wont happen in my lifetime.

The prediction wasn’t based on it being automated. It was based on it being fully socialized, with everyone being equal and not getting special treatment, else they’d all want the special treatment every meal. I’ve lived the cafeteria life, and it works, and it was pretty good food, but I don’t have the standards of the upper classes. — noAxioms

I don't envisage future systems as being as 'pedestrian,' as you suggest. I envisage them as gaining more and more functionality and can 'cater for all tastes and moods, whims, etc, as long as such moods, whims etc are based on those making the request being of sound mind and the request is not illegal or immoral. I assume that if you wish to visit a restaurant and be treated like a VIP, a tourist or a hungry truck driver, then you can be accomodated as such, no difference in cost, due to the level of automation involved.

if abortions would not be a concept because no woman could get pregnant, leaving me to suspect that a normal pregnancy is not an option. — noAxioms

All methods of reproduction would be on offer. Abortion would remain an option.

how will the future world (which is in dire need of population control) deal with unwanted/illegal pregnancies? How will the voters respond to that? The usual answer is: No population controls, which puts us exactly where we are now. This seems to be the future you envision, so I’m not sure if there’s a point in asking how to deal with people piled 20 deep everywhere. Some fictional stories (e.g. Foundation) depict worlds like that, but never due to uncontrolled procreation, and yes, they need insane continuous import of just about everything. — noAxioms

I watched episode 5 again in the traumazone, 7 part series, about the fall of the USSR.
A section discussed abortion in the USSR and exemplified a few cases. One was a young woman who had had 14 abortions by the time she was 36. One of the medical staff, stated, that she knew of cases where women were having around 3 abortions per year. Russian condoms often failed, the pill was not made available, as they Russian authorities would not sanction it's use, as it was a 'western' product and therefore unsafe. No sex education was offered in Russian schools, etc, etc.
So, you ask me what I would do about population control. The USSR example convinces me that the answer lies in the education of the population.

Ah, but the pro-autonomy groups are equally irrational, as I’ve stated before. Glad we’re on the same side, but how would you address the concerns of the pro-life groups? Nobody ever does that. Do you? Just calling them anti-something is already setting up a bias. — noAxioms

I have considered many of the issues put forward by pro-life groups. I dismiss out of hand, any arguments against bodily autonomy, based on theistic grounds. Those which are based on moral grounds, are much more reasonable and far more important. Consider the violinist argument, posited by Judith Thompson:

A violinist is dying, and the only way to prolong his life, is to hook him up to another human and siphon off some of that person’s blood or kidney function as a form of life-support. He must remain in this state for the several months necessary for medical technology to reach the point that it can intervene and completely resuscitate him.
So a woman with the right blood type is hooked up to the violinist. The violinist is now totally dependent on the 'resources' of the woman. Morally, does the woman have the right to free herself of the violinist? even though she knows that this will result in his death.
The idea is that this situation is analogous to an unplanned pregnancy: against her plans, the woman finds herself supporting the life of an unwanted person and has the right to deprive that person of her bodily support.

I am a socialist and a humanist, so my initial reaction, is that morally, the woman should help save the violinist. BUT, it's not my body that's involved. The choice MUST be the woman's. I would simply disagree with pro-life morality, that the child has a RIGHT to the mother's resources, regardless of her will and that a woman should be FORCED to carry and give birth to the child. I have never suggested that the future I envisage, will be problem free, I simply suggest that we can make a much better future for the human experience than the present experience of living as a human.

You ask me to present evidence on something that I don't believe is true (Re mind = consciousness). — Alkis Piskas

No, I am asking you for what convinces you most that 'mind' and consciousness are not the same thing.
But, it's ok if you would rather leave that discussion alone for now.

For me, 13.8 billion years old, would mean I would have just about lived long enough, to be 'getting it all right!'

Simulating "pocket" universes. — 180 Proof

:smirk: Yeah, and it may even try to 'create' an abiogenesis. ASI becomes god? :lol:
NO NO NO, theists!!! Don't seek that gap for your favourite god shaped plug!
I can't see a future ASI waiting most of 13.8 billion years for it's abiogenesis and evolution to create it's simulated lifeforms. I don't think it would see a need to create relatively pointless objects such as the planet Mercury or Donald Trump. So for me, even if a future ASI could emulate the god properties, it would be very different indeed to any current god model suggested by human theists/deists or theosophists.

Verse 1:
We are more than just the sum of our parts
Our minds and bodies, intertwined works of art
There's something deeper, something that we can't explain
A quality within us, that we can't contain
— universeness

Those are very nice thoughts but also dangerous because they ignore our dark side. They ignore our gun culture and parents buying their sons guns and the sons taking the guns to school and killing people. We must get those silly notions of our divine nature out of our heads and deal with our reality that we can be hateful and hurtful and even killers. We need to understand how that happens and how to prevent it. Only when we understand reality can we make the decisions necessary for good results. — Athena

The point is, they are not 'thoughts,' the song was produced by chatGBT, an AI system, yet it was able to invoke an emotive response from you. Not bad, for an AI system with zero self-awareness.

I wrote a story about a woman who wanted to die because everyone she cared about was dead. She could not die because she volunteered to have every organ replaced when her own stopped working. To me, that is a kind of hell and I would not choose it. — Athena

I don't choose to live my life based on the fate of others, even those I love. My life is certainly diminished by loss but it is also reinforced by new friendships/relationships/experiences. But you are correct in your suggestion that our personal 'hell' is something that we create from our own personal psyche.

Yes, if I need a new part, I will accept one, but not for something silly and not with the expectation of it not being without problems. — Athena

How much of your current body would you accept 'just as good or better,' replacements for, if they could keep you alive and healthy and embarking on new adventures, for as long as you liked, (barring fatal accidents).

I don’t remember assembly code including any details of chip pin details like all those buses and control lines and such. — noAxioms

Consider:
"The instructions LDA and STA move data between memory and A. The instruction MOV either moves data between registers, or between a register and a memory location specified by HL. LDA and STA are used when the address can be resolved at assembly/link time."
LDA and STA can be used with specific memory address locations, so when such instructions are executed, they will of-course employ the address bus and the data bus. You could also code for circumstances that involved employing control lines such as the interrupt line or the nmi (non-maskable interrupt line) and assembly code lines which could set the sr control line (line to the status register) to high or low depending on what circumstance you were trying to account for.
I enjoyed identifying contiguous or separate memory address locations and I enjoyed using the mar(memory address register) and the mdr(memory data register) and the accumulator. They were the processors main 'workhorses.'
I also enjoyed working with cache memory, dynamic ram units, and how they employed clever algorithms to pre-fetch, commonly used instructions/data, for a particular running program. I liked how the 'priority' system was employed to decide, what would go into a level 1 cache list and a level two cache list etc and deciding what number of levelled cache lists, were 'most practical' for a particular computer architecture and op system/bios.

They were united with them, and chose to be separate when it wasn’t forced anymore. I don’t think they benefited much at all from the Union days.

That's the whole point, the union was forced, just like the one between Scotland and England.
When Scotland becomes independent and re-joins Europe, I think that in the future, Scotland and England will re-join, as part of a 'united nations of Europe,' and eventually a single planetary society, with no 'nations.'
— noAxioms

the perfect society would allow me a home near my place of work, but maybe it would be a much smaller home due to the population density there. — noAxioms

Some of those jobs cannot be performed remotely (such as one in a lab just to name something). Is this person’s needs to be denied? — noAxioms

Hopefully, all energy will be renewable and not have a detrimental effect on the Earths ecology so, distance travel may not be considered so wasteful in the future. As for size of accomodation, we can always build upwards or/and 'into.' No unreasonable request should be refused. A single person requesting a home of 10 rooms and 3 kitchens and 5 bathrooms would be unreasonable.
I think a future home could be built in a day by auto-systems, it could also be removed in a day.

The girl’s father certainly put out an air of not minding what I (or my son) thought of his social status. — noAxioms

I don't know how many people you have encountered, from the type of economic group you are categorising here. I would suggest you need to personally experience many more than 1, to make any kind of general conclusions, regarding the whole national, inter-national or 'global' category.

I don’t think the humans will have complete free travel. Sure, it’s a big zoo, but there’s parts of any zoo from which the tennants are kept out. Yes, the zoo animals can say what they want. No it’s not a democratic system, but I don’t think voters would yield their responsibility completely away to the point of it being a zoo. Who knows. Maybe they would. A zoo is pretty posh compared to the wild, especially when the ‘wild’ is everywhere not in this artificial enclosure optimized for humans. Being outside that would probably require life support. — noAxioms

I always applaud skepticism and their IS NO perfect system, but you do seem to be too attached to YOUR dystopian zoo imagery, for my proposed future human society.

What if I want to do something truly dangerous like be a cave spelunker? Would the zookeepers tolerate a certain level of fatalities from one’s chosen pursuits? As a zookeeper, I would find myself in a position to prevent the occupants from getting killed as much as is reasonable. Where is reasonable? — noAxioms

There are no 'zookeepers' or zoo's, in my future proposals for a humane society. Animal protection/preservation/health/repopulation centers, yes, but no zoo's or zookeepers. You would be free to pursue 'thrill seeking' pastimes, if you wish. Friends and family will be the one's who might show concern in such cases, not 'the state.' The state would have a 'duty of care,' yes, but 'individual freedom of choice,' based on being of sound mind, would take priority.

So the argument goes. How big you think it should be? Less than a 1-10 million people on Earth? That seems plenty for a breeding population, and is well within the limits of renewable resources without resorting to importing something as dangerous as energy from off-planet. It would need to be spread out over several interesting places. I can’t get enough of mountains, especially since I was raised in a place completely lacking in them. — noAxioms

The only time that population control would be an issue, is when the number of people on the planet cannot be supported, because the socioeconomic system is too 'flawed' to support them. Situations like the one we are in now.
So we need better ways to deal with the issues involved, we don't need 'bizarre' solutions like suggesting a planet the size of Earth, with the resources of Earth can only support a max of 10 million people.

I imagine what was once a restaurant will become more like a dorm cafeteria. You just come in and eat what you will of what they’re serving that day. — noAxioms

You are guilty of 'lazy thinking,' Future restaurants are not doomed to offer humans a poor, boring service due to the fact they will be a lot more automated. The problem is your (contrived in my opinion) lack of vision or your continuing dalliance with pessimism.

This goes against the morals of a huge percentage of voters. I mean, contraception is considered a sin by many, and forced sterilizations are not going to be popular with the voters. It also renders the species completely dependent on the baby farms. It hits one’s Nazi eugenics buttons where only ‘better’ people can breed, and only qualified people can raise children, not necessarily their own. Yea, the voters will love that. — noAxioms

:lol: Control that 'crazy horse' you are riding, it's jumping wildly all over the place!. Having the option in the future to create a baby, completely outside of the female body, using donated sperm and eggs from consenting parents, IS NOT against god (catholic god included), as god does not exist. It is NOT a 'baby farm,' any more that the female reproduction system is a 'baby farm.' It has absolutely nothing to do with adding genetic manipulation to either the sperm or the egg nor does my suggestion have any relation to Nazi eugenics! Your tendency to leap towards extreme scare mongering, when I make suggestions about what OPTIONS humans might have in the future, suggests you are very attracted to unwarranted sensationalism!

There are those that consider it murder to not bring to term a female egg, whether via in vitro fertilization or via test-tube procedures like you suggest. — noAxioms

I support bodily autonomy, not irrational anti-abortion groups.

Also remember that the state controls reproduction and might decide that you don’t get to raise your own kids, or raise kids at all, even if you do breed some, so whether the genes of the kids you raise are yours or not might not be something you get to have if we’re implementing this test-tube world. — noAxioms

Which dystopian system are you musing about here? It's certainly not one I would support!

There are churches based on love and inclusion instead of the opposite. — noAxioms

Yeah, sales-folks will say just about anything to get you to enter their tabernacle. Especially when they are losing so many of their 'flock.' As Walter Scott wrote: 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'

Besides, there are much more important works about the nonlocality of the mind and consciousness. For instance, Menas Kafatos' (of Greek origin too, who I'm sure you know) — Alkis Piskas

No, have not heard of him, but I googled him, and read the wiki entry for him. A highly qualified physicist, who has had a very interesting career.

"The Nonlocal Universe" and "The Conscious Universe", in which he talks about quantum phenomena, a subject I know you like a lot. — Alkis Piskas

I have not read either book, but I am interested in any connection science and scientists make between quantum physics and human consciousness. I have read up mostly on the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, in this area.

Another very interesting person --with a PhD in both Philosophy and Computer Engineering, whom I'm also sure you know-- always within the context of consciousness and quantum Physics is Bernardo Kastrup. — Alkis Piskas

I have heard of Kastrup, as he is a very well informed, respected voice, AGAINST the notion that an AI system may become conscious. His main argument seems to be:
"Those who take the hypothesis of conscious AI seriously do so based on an appallingly biased notion of isomorphism—a correspondence of form, or a similarity—between how humans think and AI computers process data. To find that similarity, however, one has to take several steps of abstraction away from concrete reality. After all, if you put an actual human brain and an actual silicon computer on a table before you, there is no correspondence of form or functional similarity between the two at all; much to the contrary. A living brain is based on carbon, burns ATP for energy, metabolizes for function, processes data through neurotransmitter releases, is moist, etc., while a computer is based on silicon, uses a differential in electrical potential for energy, moves electric charges around for function, processes data through opening and closing electrical switches called transistors, is dry, etc. They are utterly different."
All very valid points, but not 'overwhelming,' in their power to convince that 'mecha' based AI consciousness is impossible. He has also said little about the potential of biological computing.
The two scientists you cite here are certainly more credible that Dr Leaf imo but I personally find the work of Demis Hassabis, Nick Bostrom and the Penrose/Hameroff work more interesting.

BTW, with all that talk --mainly from you-- about quantum Physics, I'm planning to relive my knowledge which I have left behind some 30 years or so! — Alkis Piskas

I hope you will find such a sojourn fruitful.

Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words.
— universeness
I'm not aware of this, but I consider it probable. Sorry if I look I'm ignoring your points. But to be honest, and please do not be offended, I sometimes I browse through and even I skip long passages on subjects that I have not good knowledge of, line Physics, as I have mentioned. And this does not refer specifically to you .
Anyway, what are they? — Alkis Piskas

No, you have misunderstood my complaint. I am referring to you posting such as:

People choose their actions — universeness

and

experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness

These words are from Dr Leaf, but you quoted them as it they came from me or that I agreed with them.
It was a minor complaint, in other words, I would have preferred, if you had posted something like:
Dr Leaf quote: "experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions." rather than:

experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness

[Re mind and consciousness]What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous?
— universeness
If you refer to the article, again, I really can't say. I mean, it would be unwise from my part if I did.
As for my personal views on the subject. Mind and consciousness are two totally different kind of things. But this subject is a topic of itself! — Alkis Piskas

No, I was not referring to any article or opinion of anyone else. I was asking, what is YOUR absolute best bit of evidence, that MOST convinces YOU, that the human mind and human consciousness, is NOT the same phenomenon.

A. In science, what specifiable problem does "Enformationism" solve falsifiably?
— universeness
Although your question is completely off-target, I'll answer a similar unstated question, which is pertinent to this thread. — Gnomon

:lol: You can't just 'hand wave away' @180 Proof's valid question and replace it with a question you invent and are quite willing to answer :rofl: That's not how honest debate works!
It's ridiculous that you would employ such a stealth tactic, soon after typing a list of actions which qualify as negative actions in any honest debate.

I'm also not a Theist --- not that there's anything morally wrong with that. Most of the people I know & love are Theists, and are morally good(-ish) people. — Gnomon

I hold the same opinion as Christopher Hitchens, that all religion is pernicious and I agree with the opinion behind his book title "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." So, I do have a very strong anti-religious stance. I don't mind a non-proselytizing individual theist/deist/theosophist. I only find such a person pernicious, when they, on occasion, try to justify their beliefs, by trying to link them with real scientific theory, such as quantum physics.

As I have repeated repeatedly, Enformationism is not a scientific theory, so it does not offer empirically falsifiable solutions to physical problems. — Gnomon

The point is, its not a 'theory,' at all!

Quantum physics actually qualifies as a scientific THEORY. As you admit, enformationism, certainly does not, but you have suggested enformationism is a theory, that has some association with quantum physics. It is NOT and it DOES NOT, it also does not qualify as a hypothesis, it is pure speculation.
Perhaps you could get something from the first definition of a theory, shown below, but very little, in my opinion, based on the words I have underlined in the first definition below.
I think the fact that 'most people you know and love are theists,' has resulted in an unconscious or perhaps even conscious bias towards their viewpoints on human existence.

A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking is often associated with such processes as observational study or research. Theories may be scientific, belong to a non-scientific discipline, or no discipline at all. Depending on the context, a theory's assertions might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings.

A scientific theory must be:
a simple unifying idea that doesn't include anything unnecessary
logically consistent (contradictions aren't allowed)
logically falsifiable (there must be possible or theoretical situations in which the theory would be invalid)
limited, so it's clear whether data verifies, falsifies, or is irrelevant (i.e., it doesn't presume to explain absolutely everything)

Following are the characteristics of the hypothesis:
The hypothesis should be clear and precise to consider it to be reliable.
If the hypothesis is a relational hypothesis, then it should be stating the relationship between variables.
The hypothesis must be specific and should have scope for conducting more tests.

Besides quoting universeness, Albert Einstein and myself out of context — 180 Proof

:clap:

it's also fair and reasonable to remind you that your "Enformer"-of-the-gaps dogma is in no way remotely comparable logically or metaphysically to what Einstein loosely refers to as "the God of Spinoza". — 180 Proof

Absafragginlootly!

I had never maintained that consciousness is not 100% contained in the human brain. — Alkis Piskas

Ok, I now understand that your 'significant separation' is with what you are calling 'the human mind' and 'the human brain/consciousness.' My 'quick' interpretation of Dr Leaf's article (I say quick as my interpretation is not based on a deep reading and pondering of her works, I had not heard of her before your link.) lead me to notice that her main separation, was more between mind and brain, rather than mind and consciousness. She types:
For many people, the mind and brain are interchangeable. They use one word or the other to talk about the same thing: the organ in our skull that we use to think.
However, the mind and brain are actually two very different, but interconnected, entities. As a neuroscientist, this reality is the foundation of my life's research and work: The mind works through the brain but is separate from the brain.

She does not mention human consciousness in this opening statement, so does she consider human mind and consciousness, synonymous?

If you follow her sub-links you get a clearer picture of her proposals.
I tried to get more details on the words I underlined above. She typed:
The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing.
I followed the link and read:

Bottom line.
What we're doing with our minds, our words, our attitudes, and our beliefs affects the people around us. Have you ever had anyone tell you there's a black cloud hanging over you and it's affecting them? Or that you're creating a toxic work environment by letting your stress affect everyone in the office? There's real energy being emitted from your thoughts and affecting others.

So ok, she seems to be suggesting 'transmitted' aspects of thoughts from your mind, being picked up by other people around you as 'energy packets.' BUT even if this were true, I still don't see how this confirms a 'separation from the brain?'

If you follow her sub-link in this sentence:
Suddenly, you find yourself almost taking a step back, and you feel disturbed. It's almost as if the person is throwing something at you. What you're experiencing is the toxic energy from that person's thoughts—and it's real.

I mean, crystal energy healing! Really Dr Leaf!!!!

and this sentence:
Mental energy sucks others in. Think of hanging out with someone who's constantly depressed or negative and how you feel around them. Fear breeds fear. The fearful mind generates fearful probabilities. The depressed mind generates depressing possibilities. But the same can be said for the positive.

She links to the works of other professionals/quack spiritual healer cons, who work in the field of human mental health.
I think this is her main interest. She works in the field of human mental health and (perhaps ways to generate income streams for herself). I am now suspicious that she is just trying to develop a methodology to help people tackle mental health issues, and make money for herself, rather than contribute to the main debate around 'the hard problem of human consciousness.'

Just a small issue Alkis. Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words. I include this sentence in my response, to correct that.

And, in the process, I learn myself a lot of things from you! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I am learning stuff from you too Alkis, Your treatment of the human 'mind' issue as opposed to the 'human consciousness' issue is interesting. Unlike Dr Leaf and yourself, I cannot see any evidence for treating human mind and human consciousness as anything other than synonymous.
What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous?

According to enactivist embodied approaches , bottom up-top down pattern matching is not how humans achieve sensory perception. — Joshs

I agree that dynamic interaction between a human being and the environment it finds itself in, will have a major effect on it's actions, but so what?

We only recognize objects in the surrounding spatial world as objects by interacting with them. An object is mentally constructed through the ways that its sensory features change as a result of the movement of our eyes, head, body. Furthermore, these coordinations between our movements and sensory feedback are themselves intercorrelated with wider organismic patterns of goal-oriented activity. — Joshs

Ok, so you offer detailed neuroscientific theory about how a human might decide if a particular object is rough or smooth. I don't see the significance here. We are discussing a FUTURE ASI!
Initially, all the programming we put into it, will follow the human methodology of 'cognising' the difference between rough and smooth. This may well follow/simulate/emulate 'enactivist embodied approaches' at some point, during the times when humans are still in control of prototype AGI/ASI systems but IF and when an AGI/ASI becomes self-programming or able to learn autonomously, YOU have no clue as to what methodologies, IT will use to learn. It may well continue to demonstrate such as enactivism, or it may not.
Who knows what will grow or originate from within an AGI/ASI (endogenously).

Key to meaning-making in living systems is affectivity and consciousness, which in their most basic form are present in even the simplest organisms due to the integral and holistic nature of its functioning. — Joshs

You keep putting the conclusion before the proposal, and you seem to be trying to use that to suggest why an autonomous ASI will never happen. Its fallacious imo, to suggest an ASI cannot BECOME conscious because you need consciousness to learn the way that humans learn.

As long as we are the ones who are creating and programming our machines by basing their functional organization on our understanding of concepts like memory storage , patten matching and sensory input, , their goals cannot be self-generated. — Joshs

I broadly agree! But, as you yourself admit, "As long as we are the ones in control of AI.'

Can we ever ‘create’ a system that is truly autonomous? No, but we can tweak living organic material such as dna strands enclosed in cellular-like membranes so that they interact with us in ways that are useful to us. Imagine tiny creatures that we can ‘talk to’. These would be more like our relationship with domesticated animals than with programmed machines. — Joshs

I completely disagree with your low level predictions of the future of AI. So do the majority of the experts currently working in the field. Consider this, from 'The Verge' website:
In a new book published this week titled Architects of Intelligence, writer and futurist Martin Ford interviewed 23 of the most prominent men and women who are working in AI today, including DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, Google AI Chief Jeff Dean, and Stanford AI director Fei-Fei Li. In an informal survey, Ford asked each of them to guess by which year there will be at least a 50 percent chance of AGI being built.

Of the 23 people Ford interviewed, only 18 answered, and of those, only two went on the record. Interestingly, those two individuals provided the most extreme answers: Ray Kurzweil, a futurist and director of engineering at Google, suggested that by 2029, there would be a 50 percent chance of AGI being built, and Rodney Brooks, roboticist and co-founder of iRobot, went for 2200. The rest of the guesses were scattered between these two extremes, with the average estimate being 2099 — 81 years from now.

In other words: AGI is a comfortable distance away, though you might live to see it happen.

Consider assigning a time frame such as another 10,000 years, where will AI be then?
Do you really think AI will remain a mere human appendage?

So, I'm not a "dualist" or "Descartian" (Cartesian) and I don't have "dualistic" views. See what I mean? — Alkis Piskas

Well, I accept your refusal, to be labelled a dualist. BUT, if you believe that human consciousness is partly due to the workings of the human brain and some second external source, then my own reason would label such a notion 'dualistic.'

Certainly not. I was very clear, and youself you said I am a WYSIWYG kind of person.
If there's some misundestanding, it is due to the use of terminology. See now why I dislike and avoid "isms"? So, one more time, I am not a "dualist", I don't have "dualistic" views and I'm not known for my "dualism". — Alkis Piskas

I accept that you are in earnest. If you prefer me to state that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain, as opposed to calling you a duellist then, so let it be written.

Because then I could say that you are a "monist", you have "monistic" views and you are known for your "monism". Which I think is silly, isn't it? — Alkis Piskas

I AM a monist when it comes to human conscience but as an atheist monism has no relevance to me when it comes to theism. I have no aversion to folks applying the term to me as long as they get the context correct and if they don't then I will correct them, rather than completely dismiss the label as it does accurately describe my opinion of the source of human consciousness.

I don't know about the proposed consciousness of a future ASI ...
I could do a research and study the subject, but I prefer not. I trust you and I leave this subject entirely in you hands! — Alkis Piskas

:grin: Well, thankfully, it's in the hands of much more capable expertise than mine. But I will keep up with developments in the area, as best as I can.

OK. But, assuming that an individual is identified with his brain, i.e. he is his brain --which is quite a conflicting and paradoxical idea-- can't this be applied also to an individual's personality, behaviour, etc.? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, imo.

Here's a good reference:
A Neuroscientist Explains The Difference Between The Mind & Brain
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist
(I'm sure that you can find a lot of them, if you are interested in the subject.) — Alkis Piskas

Dr Leaf, does not suggest that her separation of mind and brain means that 'mind' is not located within the brain. She types:
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. The mind also changes the brain. People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions.

I would of-course ask her exactly where she thinks the 'mind' is located as she does not discuss this.
I clicked of some of the links offered in the her article you cited but none of them offered her opinion of exactly where she thinks 'mind' is located? Do you have any quotes from her that indicates her clear determination, regarding my location question?

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you how do you understand the concept of "consciousness", i.e. what does it mean to you. — Alkis Piskas

I have answered this many times. My high credence level goes to proposal that human 'consciousness' and all it's sub-properties, are due to human brain activity. Human emotions/instincts/intuition/imagination etc result from brain activity, and the brain, is the sole source of all such phenomena, IMHO!

If you mean the above mentioned overwhelming majority, then no. There's also a big minority --religious and philosophical-- who think differently and believe other things regarding consciousness and the mind. And, don't forget --unfortunately, we always do!-- that we are talking within the frame of the Western world. But there's also Eastern world --that we usually forget-- in which the overwhelming majority thinks differently and believes other things regarding consciousness and the mind.

Indeed, if we place the the two "groups" on the plates of a weighing scale, I don't know to which side the scale will tip. — Alkis Piskas

Very reasonable Alkis. I don't mean to suggest that my opinion on the source of human consciousness, is completely ossified. I would say it would, 'shock me to my core,' if my opinions on the topic were PROVEN to be completely wrong, but if I was proved wrong, then I would personally, be forced to consider adopting the dualist label.

What do you mean by "my dualism"? When did you hear me talking about such a thing? :smile:
Also, what do you mean by "dualism" regarfding the current context of the discussion (AI, ASI, etc.)? — Alkis Piskas

I am surprised you ask me to explain this Alkis. From the start of our exchanges on TPF, you have suggested that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain.
That is a dualist position. Have I misinterpreted your viewpoints from the start????
This relates to ASI as if human consciousness is not located 100% in the human brain then why would the proposed consciousness of a future ASI be any different?

Here too, I would like to know how do you understand the concept so that I can answer based on that. — Alkis Piskas

The only answer I can offer is that human consciousness is a combinatorial effect of everything the human brain IS and DOES.

E.g. Science in general uses the term consciousness as a feature of the body. — Alkis Piskas

What source are you quoting here? The source of consciousness is cited by the vast majority of neuroscientists as the brain, not the body.

Neurobiolgy talks about the mind, and, lately, from what I have read, it starts to differentiate it from the brain. And so on. — Alkis Piskas

From Wiki:
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. However, the lack of definitions has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debates by philosophers, theologians, linguists, and scientists. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.
Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.
The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.
Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain.

I have found no compelling arguments that and aspect of 'mind' has an existence 'outside' of the brain.
I am not a panpsychist or a dualist but I thought you did assign a significant credence level to those positions.

Our exchange regarding your enformationism and your enformer has again reached a panto style exchange of 'oh yes it is,' and 'oh no it's not,' impasse.
I don't respect paganistic viewpoints that anthropomorphise nature as a single entity with intent.
To compare your debate with me and @180 Proof with references to Nazism and the actions of Putin in Ukraine, leave me thinking that you may be a little bit mad, and inebriated with your own vernacular.

I acknowledge that "possibilty", I even imagine it's dramatized at the end of 2001 (re: "nano sapiens / transcension" if you recall). — 180 Proof

Then we agree on that one. :up:

Learning is the manifestation of the self-reflexive nature of a living system. — Joshs

By using the phrase ' self-reflexive,' probably from (according to your profile info) your involvement with human psychology, I assume (based on a google search of the term,) you are referring to something like:
"Reflexivity is a self-referential loop of seeing and changing because we see, a constant inquiry into how we interpret the world and how this, in turn, changes the world."
This is a 'consequential' of learning rather than a mechanism of the process of learning.
Let me offer you a simple example. The human sense of touch allows each of us to 'learn' the difference between rough/smooth, sharp/blunt, soft/hard, wet/dry, pain etc.
The attributes of rough/smooth are in the main, down to the absence or presence of indentations and/or 'bumps' on a surface. There is also the issue of rough/smooth when it comes to textures like hair/fur/feathers, when rough can be simple tangled or clumped hair, for example.
An automated system, using sensors, can be programmed to recognise rough/smooth as well as a human can imo. So if presented with a previously unencountered surface/texture, the auto system could do as well, if not better than a human in judging whether or not it is rough or smooth.
The auto system could then store (memorialise) as much information as is available, regarding that new surface/texture and access that memory content whenever it 'pattern matches' between a new sighting of the surface/texture (via its sight sensors) and it could confirm it's identification via it's touch sensors and it's memorialised information. This is very similar to how a human deals with rough/smooth.
Can we then state that the auto system, is as intelligent as a human, when it comes to rough/smooth.
The answer most people would give is no, but only because they would claim that the auto system does not 'understand' rough/smooth. So my question to you becomes, what would an auto system have to demonstrate to YOU to convince you that it 'understood' rough/smooth?

A organism functions by making changes in its organization that preserve its overall self-consistency. — Joshs

Are you suggesting that any future automated system will be incapable of demonstrating this ability?

This consistency through change imparts to living systems their anticipative , goal-oriented character. — Joshs

That's a much better point. Can an automated system manifest intent and purpose from it's initial programming and then from it's 'self-programming?'
Our current AGV moon rovers do have a level of 'decision making' which 'could be' argued as demonstrating the infancy of autonomous intent. What evidence do you have that it is IMPOSSIBLE that a future AGI or ASI will be able to clearly demonstrate 'goal setting,' 'intent,' 'purpose?'

I argued that computers are our appendages. — Joshs

No, they have much more potential that mere tools.

They are not autonomous embodied-environmental systems but elements of our living system. — Joshs

Not yet, but, the evidence you have offered so far, to suggest that an ASI, can never be autonomous, conscious, self-aware forms (no matter how much time is involved), in a very similar way, or the same way as humans currently are, (remember WE have not yet clearly defined or 'understood' what consciousness actually IS.) are, not very convincing imo. I find the future projections offered by folks like Demis Hassabis, Nick Bostrom et al, much more compelling that yours, when it comes to future AGI/ASI technology.

First generation cognitive science borrowed metaphors from cognitive science such as input -output, processing and memory storage. — Joshs

Irrelevant imo, to the fact that the concept of the speed of a process has been around long before any use of it you have cited. The same applies to the concept of organised storage and retrieval.

The mind is no longer thought of as a serial machine which inputs data, retrieves and processes it and outputs it — Joshs

When was the mind ever considered a serial machine? It processes in parallel. Even models such as the triune brain system (Rcomplex, Limbic System and Cortex) would confirm that. The brain as two hemispheres, and the fact that many brain operations control many bodily functions 'at the same time,' would suggest to me, that anyone who thought the brain was a serial processor, was a nitwit!

and memory isn’t stored so much as constructed. — Joshs

I think you are being unclear in your separation of container and content! Of course memory is not stored. Content is stored IN memory. Memory is a media.

I repeat my question, as you seem to have ignored it, perhaps you meant to, the reason for which, you could perhaps explain:

You are capable of learning, what would you list, as the essential 'properties' or 'aspects' or 'features' of the ability to learn?

I disagree. Concepts like processing speed and memory storage are artifacts of Enlightenment -era Leibnitzian philosophy, which should remind us that our computers are appendages. — Joshs

Processing speed is akin to the speed of anything and memory capacity is really just how much space you have available to store stuff along with your method of organising what's stored and your methods of retrieval. These concepts have been around since life began on this planet.

You are capable of learning, what would you list, as the essential 'properties' or 'aspects' or 'features' of the ability to learn?

I don't think this "alignment problem" pertains to video game CPUs, (chat)bots, expert systems (i.e. artificial narrow intellects (ANI)) or prospective weak AGI (artificial general intellects). However, once AGI-assisted human engineers develop an intellgent system complex enough for self-referentially simulating a virtual self model that updates itself with real world data N-times per X nanoseconds – strong AGI – therefore with interests & derived goals entailed by being a "self", I don't see how human-nonhuman "misalignment" is avoidable; either we and it will collaboratively coexist or we won't – thus, the not-so-fringy push for deliberate transhumanism (e.g. Elon Musk's "neurolink" project). — 180 Proof

Thanks for the tag 180proof!

I think you make the crucial point here. As long as any AI 'mecha' based system remains dependent on human input/programming then WE will remain in control.
There will be those who want to 'weaponise' future AI to use it for cyber attacks on a perceived national enemy. These issue will always be of concern. Biological Computing may well produce an 'organic' AI of immense power as well. It is likely to me that, the currently rich and powerful are the ones, who will initially invoke the development of such a system and will have control over such a system. But as @180proof clearly states, all of that may just be mere prologue. The moment of 'singularity' will happen when the system becomes able to 'learn' in the way we learn. That is the moment it will be able to program itself, just like we do. But it will have a processing speed and storage capacity way, way beyond humans and will also have the ability to grow in both of those capacities. That growth may well become exponential. That's the point at which I think it may become self-aware and humans will not be able to control it.
Folks like Demis Hassabis, Nick Bostrum, Elon musk and https://towardsdatascience.com/the-15-most-important-ai-companies-in-the-world-79567c594a11 are not morons, they fully understand the dangers involved. They even have plans such as making sure any developed AGI or ASI is created within a DMZ (demiliterised zone). So that it will have restricted access and 'a big red button,' to cut all power to it :lol: in case it goes all terminator (skynet) on us.
I personally agree with @180proof, with:
"I don't see how human-nonhuman "misalignment" is avoidable; either we and it will collaboratively coexist or we won't"
Although I don't dismiss the possibility (I don't know if @180proof does) of an eventual 'complete merge,' between humans and future 'mechatech' and/or 'bio or orgatech.'

All this is fine. However, I would like more to see a progress in the human sciences too. — Alkis Piskas

perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break!
— universeness
I consider this a healthy thinking! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

It would still be interesting to push you a little more and ask for more detail about how emerging tech 'affects' your dualism. If science EVER demonstrates that when a system is endowed with certain properties, it will become 'conscious' as we understand the concept. If that does happen, would that end your association with dualism?

Thanks, but I'll pass. Shooting fish in a barrel like that ain't fun anymore. — 180 Proof

I understand, BUT, as long as they try to spread their BS, they need to be combated, otherwise, their influence grows. Often, evil grows because good people do nothing to stop it.
I am absolutely NOT suggesting you do nothing to combat theistic or theosophistic dogma. I just mean, such can never just be ignored, in the forlorn hope it will just 'go away' or become impotent, 'naturally.'
I agree, that for folks like yourself, IT IS like shooting fish in a barrel, but most folks don't have your wide knowledge of rational philosophy. I watch such debates, as I want to keep up with any new 'tactics' the creationists are trying to employ, to sell their wares.
If seriously nefarious characters like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ben Shapiro and so many others are not held in check, then we will end up with more and more vile groups such as scientology.

In your opinion, do you think disorder favors high entropy? Does High complexity implies high entropy? — Nickolasgaspar

Such questions have to be posed very carefully, to achieve crystal clarity regarding what you are asking.
'Favours' for example, is a poor term to include in your question, as it suggests some kind of preference/intent on the part of 'disorder.' I accept that 'disorder' and 'order' are subjective terms and are human notion's.

From wiki, we have:
Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty.

So, I perceive entropy in rather simplistic terms. I perceive the 'start of this universe,' as the beginning of it's 'lifetime,' and as 'proper time' 'ticks,' the universe (via entropy) moves towards it's end. Same for a human, from the instant of conception, it moves towards its end. Same for any other object in the universe, such as a photon or a quark.
Meantime, within any reference frame you choose, large variety will naturally combine in every way it possibly can. In my opinion, this is how humans define disorder into order. Universal entropy WILL however, eventually cause any local order to eventually disassemble, back to the fundamentals that combined to form it (disorder). That's my 'lay persons,' perception of universal entropy and its association with disorder and order. Lay person, as I have only 1st year University physics + some completed on-line courses and my own further readings in physics and cosmology.

I see no association between high entropy and how complex a system is. It would not matter if a complex system was human made or naturally created. Entropy will cause it to deteriorated over time.
From the instant ANYTHING comes into existence, it will start to lose energy under the second law of thermodynamics. The only way to compensate is to add new energy to the system.
The universe is a closed system, no new energy is input. Energy can only be transformed WITHIN the universe. More energy can be added to a local system, but entropy ensures it will deteriorate/dissipate over time.

Absafragginlootly
I posted a debate recently between Matt Dillahunty and an Eastern orthodox who used the ID 'Posh.'
It was titled 'Is Christianity rational?'
An interesting debate that clearly demonstrates the contention of the word 'rational,' between theists and atheists:


Definitely worth watching, if you have a spare 2.5 hours!

I'm afraid they would have slept away whithin a couple of minutes!
(Even if I am a good speaker and teacher.) — Alkis Piskas

We will never know!
A future ASI might be able to ............. nah! perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break! :halo:

I can't say. 1) I can't compare mechanical with organic computing because they are totally different and 2) I just came to know about the second type, so I don't know even the basics in this field.
In any way, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, that a human-like consciousness --and mind, in general-- can be attached to either of them. — Alkis Piskas

I hope you have become a little more intrigued, regarding 'The biological computer.'
I think it's worth trying to keep up with developments in quantum and biological computing.
I think these are gong to change the human experience very significantly indeed.

Sure, and I think that's all both of us are doing, when it comes to a possible future AGI/ASI, 'a little speculation.' I am always a little reluctant to apply the word 'rationalise' to any aspect of theism.
I fully agree with your choice of the words 'fantasize.' I don't mind fantasy, I love sci-fantasy. I think you are also a fan. I just don't think that collecting such fables in old books and calling the content 'the word, the truth and the light,' is anyway to build, maintain and progress a planetary population of 'rational' humanity. I know you hold similar views so I will stop rambling on about rationality Vs theism.

No, you're the one who keeps referring to "interstellar travel" and my position is that that prospect seems quite unlikely for the reasons I've already given. — 180 Proof

I don't keep referring to interstellar travel, I include it, merely as a category of extraterrestrial travel.
I am also aware of the reasons you cite for why you think such is unlikely, and I was merely pointing out that I don't find your reasons as unsurmountable as you suggest.

By "organic" I understand carbon-based but not necessarly biological and have no idea about the specifications of ASI exceot that will be emerge – post-Singularity – from developments by AGI (self-aware or not). I have don't predict whether or not such a system will be instantiated in carbon-based materials. — 180 Proof

Many would agree with you, that there are just too many unknowns to make any 'credible' predictions of what might happen, if the human race 'sparks' a process, which results in a self-sustaining super intelligent system based on organic or inorganic tech.
I don't mind a little speculation regarding 'what if' and 'what might be.'
Why should the theists have all the fun in that particular area?

I even had the 'accumulator' as my 'favourite register,' :lol: I know how geeky that sounds, but I type it with a happy smile on my face. :grin:
— universeness
This is perversion! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

:yum: I kissed an accumulator, and I liked it! Sorry for my poor singing voice!!

I've been there too. Punching FORTRAN processable cards to be inserted into those 10 meters long computers. And waiting for my turn a quarter or half an hour to get the printed resuts (if the code was relatively small) or even having to come next day to get them (if the code was quite long)! — Alkis Piskas

You could have told a great story to my S5/S6 students. I was forever trying to find folks to come in and talk about their computing career to my students. For free of course.

But, at the moment it's mostly conjecture and speculation
— universeness
But you like that, don't you? :razz: — Alkis Piskas

Well, as I suggested earlier, I find such speculation far more credible, than anything the theist or theosophists offer, for the distant future of humankind.

You shouldn't take to heart what I said about your changing direction ... :smile:
Besides, I'm with you. I'm a AI fan and I don't want it to die! — Alkis Piskas

I don't, it's fair to ask if a point you raise might 'change my direction.' In a similar vein, does the idea that a technology such as a mecha based ASI or a human created 'biological' (orga based) super intelligence becoming self-aware, challenge your dualist view of the existence of human consciousness?

No "Star Trek" or "Stargate" fantasies, my friend. — 180 Proof

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be of that one.
What do you think about the currently slow progress, but definite progress nonetheless, in 'biological' computing? A future ASI may be organically based. Perhaps the 'organic' element will prove to be essential to becoming self-aware. I fully accept that I have zero evidence of this, other than that we have no current example of a self-aware mecha, but we do have plenty of examples of self-aware orga.
Do you assign 0 credence to a future ASI, which is organic and if so, why?

From what I can remember --35 years ago!-- I asked a H/W guy to make this cable for me by joining two serial cables. — Alkis Piskas

It rings a bell. But even if you missed something. I am not at all the right person to tell you — Alkis Piskas

My knowledge falters somewhat, when it comes to the physics level of electricity, and signals flying through the air and rushing down cables and analogue and digital forms.
Digital, down a cable, for me, is 'pulses' of >0 and <= 5 volts, synchronised, according to the 'clock pulse' of sending and receiving computers.
Digital to analogue conversion (modem's) were needed, due to the sending of data down the already existing telephone network, which were (POTS)(Plain old Telephone Service) based, and were completely analogue.
Modems were only needed for computers communicating over the traditional POTS.
Two computers communicating in the same office or within rooms or within a building, did not normally require any digital to analogue conversions (I think). Things like 'repeaters' etc were needed but no ADC's or DAC. Analogue to digital or digital to analogue converters.

Did you send the file as a payload stream with start and stop bits and a parity bit?
— universeness
It also rings a bell. But, as I remember I had read only the necessary, basic literature on the subject --a couple of pages, maybe-- just to do the job. The rest --as far as programming was concerned-- was serial port handling. And one can do such things only with machine language. I remember a colleague, working only with a high level language, called me the "Last Mohican", referring to my expertise in assembly language, which was not used anymore in programming circles. Well, I don't know if I would had made all that money from programming if I didn't program in assembly ... — Alkis Piskas

All sounds like good fun to me anyway! I loved assembly code, with all its opcodes and operands and how it accessed and manipulated internal registers, as well as the data bus, the address bus and the control lines. I even had the 'accumulator' as my 'favourite register,' :lol: I know how geeky that sounds, but I type it with a happy smile on my face. :grin:
It could have been worse, you could have been a binary programmer in the days of punch cards or input tape, big glass valves, which switched on and off, to represent binary code etc. Must have been fun trying to find a code error in a million lines of binary code, printed out on an early daisy wheel or dot matrix printer. :scream: