First of all, I have repeatedly argued that the mind is different from the brain.
It means the same. That over time we change our brain and its structures is ample proof that brain is only seen and caused, but not the fundamental cause.
Brain itself is an effect of sense organs. It is a wrong thing to attribute to it the functions of seeing-knowing. It is like mistaking the light bulb as producer of light.
The concept of "intelligence" is somewhat amorphous, but the bridgeable gap exists if you understand the concept of emergence in complex systems of interacting processes. Self-awareness is completely understandable in terms of the role it plays in keeping the body healthy and long-living. In fact, that is why roboticists are interested in the concept of self-awareness--because of the need to produce autonomous moving machines that can attend to their own needs.
Your arguments are inane. SORRY. First, you bring in Robotics -- as if a new human race (robots) has already been created. Second, you want us to forget that it is human intelligence that is the intelligence of Robots. You even talk about Robotics because your intelligence is given.
Some AI enthusiasts seem to superimpose human intelligence on machines and then imagine that the machines have original intelligence. pssst.
I don't think of Occam's Razor as an "inane argument",
You are actually forcing certain
seen objects and their processes (brain in this instance) as necessary for intelligence, the very thing that makes it possible to see things and their processes.
. And funny thing is that you refuse to even contemplate that a seen thing cannot be a seer. No one has ever seen any brain to function as intelligence when separated from human consciousness and intelligence.
Bingo! That is exactly what evolution by natural selection is all about--the "design" of biological entities by inanimate forces. The evidence in favor of evolutionary design is supported by evidence that scientists
Does science of evolution argue against the purpose of the evolving species? Does it propose any mechanism of data storage/retreival/interpretation to effect the changes that happen? Or do you have all the explanations? In fact, you do not fully understand the emergent process itself, as was demonstrated earlier. Again:
FROM wiki
Corning's definition of emergence:
"Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature.
These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates precisely why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict “history” — i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the “system” involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by
teleonomic,
cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process;
it involves an organized, “purposeful” activity." (
Corning 2002)
I am also a scientist, and I will never say that TOE has settled all questions of origin of life and its inherent intelligence. You are mixing TOE, Robotics, Ockam -- and what not and arriving at fantastic conclusions that you are imposing on us, as if the knowledge is settled.
I would only quibble with your first bullet. Intelligence is found in nature, but it is a rare side effect of natural processes.
See. How certain you are? I do not know any scientist or any rational thinker to be so certain on origin of intelligence.:yes:
I must bow down to you, sir, and retire.:bow:
