Mind is eternal

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:13 pm
I might feel guilty or not depending on situation. Feeling guilty after action has nothing to do with free will.
"Guilt" is the primary mechanism for enforcing social norms. Peer pressure.
Yes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm
Whether you feel guilt is not up to you - our brains are just wired that way.
No. As you explained bellow "You can develop a habit to ignore guilt, or recognise it early so you don't allow yourself to be manipulated through guilt".
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm
If you (consciously or subconsciously) don't like the feeling of guilt you may end up avoiding behaviour which you associate with the negative emotion.
Yes. But you can revert this.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm
It's statistically validated and all that. You can develop a habit to ignore guilt, or recognise it early so you don't allow yourself to be manipulated through guilt.
Yes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm
Either way, if you respond to guilt - you do not have free will.
That is not correct. I can freely choose the option which does not make me guilty.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:41 pm
What free will means to me is practically the same as anarchy: Refusal to recognise any and all authorities. Except the limits imposed on me by the laws of physics.
Free will has a very practical use, you could not do anything when you like two options equally and if you were not free.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
No. As you explained bellow "You can develop a habit to ignore guilt, or recognise it early so you don't allow yourself to be manipulated through guilt".
That does not mean I no longer experience/feel guilt. I still do - I just learn to recognise it and ignore it.

You can't stop yourself experiencing any emotion. Autonomous nervous system and all that.
You can only stop yourself from acting on it.

Thus creating a choice/option you didn't have before.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
Yes. But you can revert this.
The behaviour, not the emotion.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
That is not correct. I can freely choose the option which does not make me guilty.
I don't know what "make you guilty" means.

I have drawn distinction between "feeling guilt" and "reacting to the feeling of guilt".
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
Free will has a very practical use, you could not do anything when you like two options equally and if you were not free.
I do not have the option/choice to stop feeling the emotion of guilt.

I think some people are born with the ability to turn off their feelings. My brain is not wired that way.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:19 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
No. As you explained bellow "You can develop a habit to ignore guilt, or recognise it early so you don't allow yourself to be manipulated through guilt".
That does not mean I no longer experience/feel guilt. I still do - I just learn to recognise it and ignore it.

You can't stop yourself experiencing any emotion. Autonomous nervous system and all that.
You can only stop yourself from acting on it.
You can practice to do not feel guilty. It is matter of realizing that it is a code.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
Yes. But you can revert this.
The behaviour, not the emotion.
You can revert emotion either. I can do it. I can make myself, sad, happy, etc.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
That is not correct. I can freely choose the option which does not make me guilty.
I don't know what "make you guilty" means.

I have drawn distinction between "feeling guilt" and "reacting to the feeling of guilt".
I mean feeling guilt as a result of choosing the related option.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
Free will has a very practical use, you could not do anything when you like two options equally and if you were not free.
I do not have the option/choice to stop feeling the emotion of guilt.

I think some people are born with the ability to turn off their feelings. My brain is not wired that way.
You can do it by practice. You just need to realize that nothing really matter and everything in reality is indifferent.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:26 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:19 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
No. As you explained bellow "You can develop a habit to ignore guilt, or recognise it early so you don't allow yourself to be manipulated through guilt".
That does not mean I no longer experience/feel guilt. I still do - I just learn to recognise it and ignore it.

You can't stop yourself experiencing any emotion. Autonomous nervous system and all that.
You can only stop yourself from acting on it.
You can practice to do not feel guilty. It is matter of realizing that it is a code.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
Yes. But you can revert this.
The behaviour, not the emotion.
You can revert emotion either. I can do it. I can make myself, sad, happy, etc.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
That is not correct. I can freely choose the option which does not make me guilty.
I don't know what "make you guilty" means.

I have drawn distinction between "feeling guilt" and "reacting to the feeling of guilt".
I mean feeling guilt as a result of choosing the related option.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
Free will has a very practical use, you could not do anything when you like two options equally and if you were not free.
I do not have the option/choice to stop feeling the emotion of guilt.

I think some people are born with the ability to turn off their feelings. My brain is not wired that way.
You can do it by practice. You just need to realize that nothing really matter and everything in reality is indifferent.
You are using the word “revert” in a rather strange manner.

I can choose to become happy once I recognise that I am feeling sad, but I can’t revert having felt the sadness.

The event of “feeling sadness” has happened. I cannot travel back in time to make it unhappen.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:28 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:19 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

That does not mean I no longer experience/feel guilt. I still do - I just learn to recognise it and ignore it.

You can't stop yourself experiencing any emotion. Autonomous nervous system and all that.
You can only stop yourself from acting on it.
You can practice to do not feel guilty. It is matter of realizing that it is a code.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

The behaviour, not the emotion.
You can revert emotion either. I can do it. I can make myself, sad, happy, etc.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

I don't know what "make you guilty" means.

I have drawn distinction between "feeling guilt" and "reacting to the feeling of guilt".
I mean feeling guilt as a result of choosing the related option.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:02 pm

I do not have the option/choice to stop feeling the emotion of guilt.

I think some people are born with the ability to turn off their feelings. My brain is not wired that way.
You can do it by practice. You just need to realize that nothing really matter and everything in reality is indifferent.
You are using the word “revert” in a rather strange manner.

I can choose to become happy once I recognise that I am feeling sad, but I can’t revert having felt the sadness.
Feeling happy as a result of being in a happy situation is normal for most people. You can revert this by practicing.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:28 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:26 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:19 pm

You can practice to do not feel guilty. It is matter of realizing that it is a code.


You can revert emotion either. I can do it. I can make myself, sad, happy, etc.


I mean feeling guilt as a result of choosing the related option.


You can do it by practice. You just need to realize that nothing really matter and everything in reality is indifferent.
You are using the word “revert” in a rather strange manner.

I can choose to become happy once I recognise that I am feeling sad, but I can’t revert having felt the sadness.
Feeling happy as a result of being in a happy situation is normal for most people. You can revert this by practicing.
Then what you are saying is that sadness is the absence of happiness.

I don’t think that is the case for I can experience indifference also. Which is neither sadness nor happiness.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:47 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:28 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:26 pm


You are using the word “revert” in a rather strange manner.

I can choose to become happy once I recognise that I am feeling sad, but I can’t revert having felt the sadness.
Feeling happy as a result of being in a happy situation is normal for most people. You can revert this by practicing.
Then what you are saying is that sadness is the absence of happiness.
Sadness is opposite of happiness.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm
I don’t think that is the case for I can experience indifference also. Which is neither sadness nor happiness.
Yes.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:51 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:47 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:28 pm

Feeling happy as a result of being in a happy situation is normal for most people. You can revert this by practicing.
Then what you are saying is that sadness is the absence of happiness.
Sadness is opposite of happiness.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm
I don’t think that is the case for I can experience indifference also. Which is neither sadness nor happiness.
Yes.
So then, once you feel sadness can you choose to feel indifferent instead of feeling happy?

I can’t. I can choose happy to counter sad, which tapers off to equilibrium.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:54 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:51 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:47 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm


Then what you are saying is that sadness is the absence of happiness.
Sadness is opposite of happiness.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:43 pm
I don’t think that is the case for I can experience indifference also. Which is neither sadness nor happiness.
Yes.
So then, once you feel sadness can you choose to feel indifferent instead of feeling happy?

I can’t. I can choose happy to counter sad, which tapers off to equilibrium.
Yes. You can do it either. You need to practice it.

seeds
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by seeds » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:14 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Could you please tell me that what mind is made of?
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
If I had to speculate...

(which, of course, is precisely what we are all doing here - speculating)

...then I would suggest that mind and matter are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental essence, with both working together in tandem to produce what we call “reality.”

In other words, mind and matter are an inseparable amalgam of whatever it is that Spinoza was attempting to describe in his “oneness substance” theories, beyond which nothing else exists.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Essence of what?
I told you already, it is whatever it is that Spinoza was attempting to describe in his “oneness substance” theories.

And as far as I know, we humans are not yet privy to the exact nature of that substance.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
1) Consciousness cannot emerge from something structured.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
What are you talking about, bahman? Isn’t it obvious that consciousness can emerge from the highly structured context of a physical brain?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
No, it cannot. There is no such a thing as emergence. Basically particle physicists are trying to come up with theory of everything in which the behavior of everything is explained in term of behavior of parts, so called elementary particles. Standard theory to the best of my knowledge is an accurate model which explains reality very well.
Consciousness cannot be explained by particle physics.

And unless I misinterpreted what you stated in an alternate thread, then you, yourself, have pointed out the insolvability of the “hard problem of consciousness.”

So I am puzzled as to why you are now suggesting that particle physics “explains reality very well” when it cannot answer one of the most fundamental and dominant questions of all.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
2) Something structured cannot be free.
3) Something which is structured cannot cause.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
I have already debunked 2 and 3 in my earlier rebuttal, here:
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
No, you didn't. You didn't also reply to -1-.
I was formulating a reply to -1-, but then I remembered him insisting that any reply to him from me can never include a question. My reply included a question. And even though his own replies to others include questions, I simply chose not to post mine as per -1-'s own request, here - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25469&start=15#p387600
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
Your argument is constructed to support your personal assumption of why a “free agent cannot be created.”

However, I have given you a hypothetical scenario wherein God...

(a Being that you agreed is a “free agent” under the terms that I laid-out)

...is able to replicate itself, thus causing a new free agent (just like God) to come into existence.

In other words, with specific and structured knowledge (as is possessed by God), a free agent can indeed be created.

Therefore, your argument is thus refuted, period, full-stop.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
That is just an opinion.
Of course it’s just an opinion.

And I suppose that everything you have to say is irrefutable fact?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
You need to tell me what is wrong with my argument.
Are you kidding me, bahman?

Everything that I have been posting back to you is basically an effort to show you what is wrong with your argument.

You either do not understand what I am saying (perhaps a language issue – see next post), or you simply refuse to accept any of it because it refutes your theory.

(Continued in next post)
_______

seeds
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by seeds » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:15 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Don’t get me wrong here, bahman, because I am always deeply impressed by anyone who can converse in more than one language, but it appears as though English is not your native (first) language. Is that correct?

If that is true, then it seems as though the way you word things may be causing some of our squabbles.

With that being said, I have to take us back to a couple of assertions you made that drew me into our latest round of disagreements:
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:29 pm
To me a being is a set of interacting minds.
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:05 pm
Yes, human has many minds. Have you ever wondered that a mind needed for each change in your body?
Now in our latest exchange, I asked you the following:
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
Again, name and describe some specific changes that are not under my control?
To which you replied:
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
The process of your thoughts. All metabolism inside your body.
So the question is: are you actually trying to suggest that a singular human being consists of a variety of distinct and separate minds wherein one mind is dedicated to analyzing a math problem, while another mind works on metabolizing food in the intestinal tract, while yet another mind oversees the process of stitching together proteins to heal a cut, and so on, and so on?

Is that really what you mean?

If so, then are each of these distinct and separate minds equipped with a self-aware agent that is directly conscious of the task it is performing?

Or, again, are we simply having a language problem here?
_______

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:04 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:14 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Could you please tell me that what mind is made of?
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
If I had to speculate...

(which, of course, is precisely what we are all doing here - speculating)

...then I would suggest that mind and matter are two complementary aspects of the same fundamental essence, with both working together in tandem to produce what we call “reality.”

In other words, mind and matter are an inseparable amalgam of whatever it is that Spinoza was attempting to describe in his “oneness substance” theories, beyond which nothing else exists.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
Essence of what?
I told you already, it is whatever it is that Spinoza was attempting to describe in his “oneness substance” theories.

And as far as I know, we humans are not yet privy to the exact nature of that substance.
I see. To me as I argued mind is different from physical. Mind and physical also are not two aspects of same essence.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
1) Consciousness cannot emerge from something structured.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
What are you talking about, bahman? Isn’t it obvious that consciousness can emerge from the highly structured context of a physical brain?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
No, it cannot. There is no such a thing as emergence. Basically particle physicists are trying to come up with theory of everything in which the behavior of everything is explained in term of behavior of parts, so called elementary particles. Standard theory to the best of my knowledge is an accurate model which explains reality very well.
Consciousness cannot be explained by particle physics.

And unless I misinterpreted what you stated in an alternate thread, then you, yourself, have pointed out the insolvability of the “hard problem of consciousness.”

So I am puzzled as to why you are now suggesting that particle physics “explains reality very well” when it cannot answer one of the most fundamental and dominant questions of all.
Particle physics explains physical reality. Mind is separate from physical reality. Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. Consciousness is therefore to me is a property of mind and it cannot be emergent.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
2) Something structured cannot be free.
3) Something which is structured cannot cause.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
I have already debunked 2 and 3 in my earlier rebuttal, here:
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
No, you didn't. You didn't also reply to -1-.
I was formulating a reply to -1-, but then I remembered him insisting that any reply to him from me can never include a question. My reply included a question. And even though his own replies to others include questions, I simply chose not to post mine as per -1-'s own request, here - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25469&start=15#p387600
Ok. That is alright.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
Your argument is constructed to support your personal assumption of why a “free agent cannot be created.”

However, I have given you a hypothetical scenario wherein God...

(a Being that you agreed is a “free agent” under the terms that I laid-out)

...is able to replicate itself, thus causing a new free agent (just like God) to come into existence.

In other words, with specific and structured knowledge (as is possessed by God), a free agent can indeed be created.

Therefore, your argument is thus refuted, period, full-stop.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
That is just an opinion.
Of course it’s just an opinion.

And I suppose that everything you have to say is irrefutable fact?
I have an argument for each of my claim.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
You need to tell me what is wrong with my argument.
Are you kidding me, bahman?
No, I am serious.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 am
Everything that I have been posting back to you is basically an effort to show you what is wrong with your argument.

You either do not understand what I am saying (perhaps a language issue – see next post), or you simply refuse to accept any of it because it refutes your theory.

(Continued in next post)
_______
For now I question the concept of transformation introduced by you. You didn't reply to that part so I don't know what to do. For now my argument stands.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:11 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:15 pm
_______

(Continued from prior post)

Don’t get me wrong here, bahman, because I am always deeply impressed by anyone who can converse in more than one language, but it appears as though English is not your native (first) language. Is that correct?

If that is true, then it seems as though the way you word things may be causing some of our squabbles.
Yes. English is my second language.
seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:15 pm
With that being said, I have to take us back to a couple of assertions you made that drew me into our latest round of disagreements:
bahman wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:29 pm
To me a being is a set of interacting minds.
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:05 pm
Yes, human has many minds. Have you ever wondered that a mind needed for each change in your body?
Now in our latest exchange, I asked you the following:
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
Again, name and describe some specific changes that are not under my control?
To which you replied:
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:07 pm
The process of your thoughts. All metabolism inside your body.
So the question is: are you actually trying to suggest that a singular human being consists of a variety of distinct and separate minds wherein one mind is dedicated to analyzing a math problem, while another mind works on metabolizing food in the intestinal tract, while yet another mind oversees the process of stitching together proteins to heal a cut, and so on, and so on?

Is that really what you mean?
Yes.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
If so, then are each of these distinct and separate minds equipped with a self-aware agent that is directly conscious of the task it is performing?
Mind is self aware. An agent is made of minds.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:11 pm

bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:11 pm
seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:15 pm
So the question is: are you actually trying to suggest that a singular human being consists of a variety of distinct and separate minds wherein one mind is dedicated to analyzing a math problem, while another mind works on metabolizing food in the intestinal tract, while yet another mind oversees the process of stitching together proteins to heal a cut, and so on, and so on?

Is that really what you mean?
Yes.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
If so, then are each of these distinct and separate minds equipped with a self-aware agent that is directly conscious of the task it is performing?
Mind is self aware. An agent is made of minds.
You might as well call them organs.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Mind is eternal

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:21 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:11 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:11 pm
seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:15 pm
So the question is: are you actually trying to suggest that a singular human being consists of a variety of distinct and separate minds wherein one mind is dedicated to analyzing a math problem, while another mind works on metabolizing food in the intestinal tract, while yet another mind oversees the process of stitching together proteins to heal a cut, and so on, and so on?

Is that really what you mean?
Yes.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:38 pm
If so, then are each of these distinct and separate minds equipped with a self-aware agent that is directly conscious of the task it is performing?
Mind is self aware. An agent is made of minds.
You might as well call them organs.
Yes and thanks.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests