<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1817256</id>
	<title>New "Wet Computer" To Mimic Neurons In the Brain</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263201900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A new type of "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8452196.stm">wet computer</a>" that mimics the actions of neurons in the brain is slated to be built thanks to a &euro;1.8M EU emerging technologies program.  The goal of the project is to explore new computing environments rather than to build a computer that surpasses current performance of conventional computers.  <i>"The group's approach hinges on two critical ideas.  First, individual 'cells' are surrounded by a wall made up of so-called lipids that spontaneously encapsulate the liquid innards of the cell.  Recent work has shown that when two such lipid layers encounter each other as the cells come into contact, a protein can form a passage between them, allowing chemical signaling molecules to pass.  Second, the cells' interiors will play host to what is known as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky or B-Z chemical reaction. Simply put, reactions of this type can be initiated by changing the concentration of the element bromine by a certain threshold amount."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A new type of " wet computer " that mimics the actions of neurons in the brain is slated to be built thanks to a    1.8M EU emerging technologies program .
The goal of the project is to explore new computing environments rather than to build a computer that surpasses current performance of conventional computers .
" The group 's approach hinges on two critical ideas .
First , individual 'cells ' are surrounded by a wall made up of so-called lipids that spontaneously encapsulate the liquid innards of the cell .
Recent work has shown that when two such lipid layers encounter each other as the cells come into contact , a protein can form a passage between them , allowing chemical signaling molecules to pass .
Second , the cells ' interiors will play host to what is known as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky or B-Z chemical reaction .
Simply put , reactions of this type can be initiated by changing the concentration of the element bromine by a certain threshold amount .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new type of "wet computer" that mimics the actions of neurons in the brain is slated to be built thanks to a €1.8M EU emerging technologies program.
The goal of the project is to explore new computing environments rather than to build a computer that surpasses current performance of conventional computers.
"The group's approach hinges on two critical ideas.
First, individual 'cells' are surrounded by a wall made up of so-called lipids that spontaneously encapsulate the liquid innards of the cell.
Recent work has shown that when two such lipid layers encounter each other as the cells come into contact, a protein can form a passage between them, allowing chemical signaling molecules to pass.
Second, the cells' interiors will play host to what is known as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky or B-Z chemical reaction.
Simply put, reactions of this type can be initiated by changing the concentration of the element bromine by a certain threshold amount.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729706</id>
	<title>Doctor in the House?</title>
	<author>muphin</author>
	<datestamp>1263208140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>great now when my PC breaks down I have to pay its medical bills too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>great now when my PC breaks down I have to pay its medical bills too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great now when my PC breaks down I have to pay its medical bills too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730092</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263209640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing is, although you CAN make a computer out of tinker toys, it isn't the most efficient method of accomplishing it. Given that a brain is far more complex than anything humankind has ever produced, it seems presumptuous to assume that our current methods of computation are ideal for the creation of AI. The intention here is to study the relative merits of mimicking neurons as a method of computation vs. our current transistor based designs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , although you CAN make a computer out of tinker toys , it is n't the most efficient method of accomplishing it .
Given that a brain is far more complex than anything humankind has ever produced , it seems presumptuous to assume that our current methods of computation are ideal for the creation of AI .
The intention here is to study the relative merits of mimicking neurons as a method of computation vs. our current transistor based designs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, although you CAN make a computer out of tinker toys, it isn't the most efficient method of accomplishing it.
Given that a brain is far more complex than anything humankind has ever produced, it seems presumptuous to assume that our current methods of computation are ideal for the creation of AI.
The intention here is to study the relative merits of mimicking neurons as a method of computation vs. our current transistor based designs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729026</id>
	<title>Eureka!</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1263205620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Puts a new spin on computer viruses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Puts a new spin on computer viruses .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Puts a new spin on computer viruses ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730082</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After all, thought itself is only an electrochemical process.</p></div><p>Really? Presumably you have proof of this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , thought itself is only an electrochemical process.Really ?
Presumably you have proof of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, thought itself is only an electrochemical process.Really?
Presumably you have proof of this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729520</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263207300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A chemical based computer could possibly become intelligent. After all, thought itself is only an electrochemical process.</i></p><p>If you believe that thought/sentience/intelligence is only an electrochemical process, then why do you believe that the same effect can't be achieved from a purely electrical process?</p><p>Imagine a computer no different than those we have today, but arbitrarily more powerful.  On this computer is running a perfect simulation of the human brain, down to modeling every quark.  Every process, chemical, electrical, and otherwise that takes place in the brain takes place in the simulation.  We can already do this for small numbers of molecules; the only thing missing is the processing power.  Why exactly could this simulation not exhibit the same intelligence as you or I?  What is it missing, and why can what is missing not be added to the model?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A chemical based computer could possibly become intelligent .
After all , thought itself is only an electrochemical process.If you believe that thought/sentience/intelligence is only an electrochemical process , then why do you believe that the same effect ca n't be achieved from a purely electrical process ? Imagine a computer no different than those we have today , but arbitrarily more powerful .
On this computer is running a perfect simulation of the human brain , down to modeling every quark .
Every process , chemical , electrical , and otherwise that takes place in the brain takes place in the simulation .
We can already do this for small numbers of molecules ; the only thing missing is the processing power .
Why exactly could this simulation not exhibit the same intelligence as you or I ?
What is it missing , and why can what is missing not be added to the model ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A chemical based computer could possibly become intelligent.
After all, thought itself is only an electrochemical process.If you believe that thought/sentience/intelligence is only an electrochemical process, then why do you believe that the same effect can't be achieved from a purely electrical process?Imagine a computer no different than those we have today, but arbitrarily more powerful.
On this computer is running a perfect simulation of the human brain, down to modeling every quark.
Every process, chemical, electrical, and otherwise that takes place in the brain takes place in the simulation.
We can already do this for small numbers of molecules; the only thing missing is the processing power.
Why exactly could this simulation not exhibit the same intelligence as you or I?
What is it missing, and why can what is missing not be added to the model?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736254</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263307560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?</i></p><p>Capable at meth, yes; more capable even. But capable of thought and sentience? I know how computers work, and they don't think. You can program them to make people think they think; hell, I programmed a Timex Sinclair 1000 with 4k of memory and tape drive to (usually) successfuly pass a turing test. I can assure you that it's pure anthropomorphism.</p><p>We don't even know what thought <i>is</i>. How can you construct a device you don't understand? You might as well give a cave man a broken transistor radio and expect him to fix it.</p><p>We're going to have to learn a whole lot more about how the brain creates sentience before we can construct a sentient machine, even a chemical based one (not necessarily carbon). Computation is not thought.</p><p>How many beads do I have to string on my abacus before it becomes self-aware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems should n't be as capable carbon-based ones ? Capable at meth , yes ; more capable even .
But capable of thought and sentience ?
I know how computers work , and they do n't think .
You can program them to make people think they think ; hell , I programmed a Timex Sinclair 1000 with 4k of memory and tape drive to ( usually ) successfuly pass a turing test .
I can assure you that it 's pure anthropomorphism.We do n't even know what thought is .
How can you construct a device you do n't understand ?
You might as well give a cave man a broken transistor radio and expect him to fix it.We 're going to have to learn a whole lot more about how the brain creates sentience before we can construct a sentient machine , even a chemical based one ( not necessarily carbon ) .
Computation is not thought.How many beads do I have to string on my abacus before it becomes self-aware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?Capable at meth, yes; more capable even.
But capable of thought and sentience?
I know how computers work, and they don't think.
You can program them to make people think they think; hell, I programmed a Timex Sinclair 1000 with 4k of memory and tape drive to (usually) successfuly pass a turing test.
I can assure you that it's pure anthropomorphism.We don't even know what thought is.
How can you construct a device you don't understand?
You might as well give a cave man a broken transistor radio and expect him to fix it.We're going to have to learn a whole lot more about how the brain creates sentience before we can construct a sentient machine, even a chemical based one (not necessarily carbon).
Computation is not thought.How many beads do I have to string on my abacus before it becomes self-aware?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730306</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263210660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biological brain processes are so agonizingly slow, though.  It's not just the electrochemical signal, it's the process of learning new things, which involves not only making an electric link, but actually growing new physical connections, extending dendrites and growing synapses.  This takes time, energy, and nutrients for the body.  Doing it in electricity is so much easier, although we pay for it in energy costs.  Compared to a 150 watt computer power supply, the average human body burns around 2000 calories in a day, that's about 2.3 watt hours.  Our brains use significantly less energy, but they are so slow!<br> <br>
I am not against research, I am in favor of studying everything in the world, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that only a chemical based computer could produce artificial intelligence.  Chemical-based has significant disadvantages when compared to silicon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biological brain processes are so agonizingly slow , though .
It 's not just the electrochemical signal , it 's the process of learning new things , which involves not only making an electric link , but actually growing new physical connections , extending dendrites and growing synapses .
This takes time , energy , and nutrients for the body .
Doing it in electricity is so much easier , although we pay for it in energy costs .
Compared to a 150 watt computer power supply , the average human body burns around 2000 calories in a day , that 's about 2.3 watt hours .
Our brains use significantly less energy , but they are so slow !
I am not against research , I am in favor of studying everything in the world , but I do n't think it is reasonable to assume that only a chemical based computer could produce artificial intelligence .
Chemical-based has significant disadvantages when compared to silicon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biological brain processes are so agonizingly slow, though.
It's not just the electrochemical signal, it's the process of learning new things, which involves not only making an electric link, but actually growing new physical connections, extending dendrites and growing synapses.
This takes time, energy, and nutrients for the body.
Doing it in electricity is so much easier, although we pay for it in energy costs.
Compared to a 150 watt computer power supply, the average human body burns around 2000 calories in a day, that's about 2.3 watt hours.
Our brains use significantly less energy, but they are so slow!
I am not against research, I am in favor of studying everything in the world, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that only a chemical based computer could produce artificial intelligence.
Chemical-based has significant disadvantages when compared to silicon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730292</id>
	<title>Re:great, boffins</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263210600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>???<br>Profit</p><p>naked and petrified.</p><p>what you say?<br>take off every zig!</p><p>goatse</p><p>frist post!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>? ?
? Profitnaked and petrified.what you say ? take off every zig ! goatsefrist post !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>??
?Profitnaked and petrified.what you say?take off every zig!goatsefrist post!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729102</id>
	<title>Based on bromine</title>
	<author>TrashGod</author>
	<datestamp>1263205860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromine" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">bromine</a> [wikipedia.org], a dark, red, fuming, toxic liquid with a choking, irritating smell; from the Greek  meaning stench. I'll take two, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on bromine [ wikipedia.org ] , a dark , red , fuming , toxic liquid with a choking , irritating smell ; from the Greek meaning stench .
I 'll take two , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on bromine [wikipedia.org], a dark, red, fuming, toxic liquid with a choking, irritating smell; from the Greek  meaning stench.
I'll take two, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729378</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263206820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>thought itself is only an electrochemical process.</p></div><p>Thats what we think...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>thought itself is only an electrochemical process.Thats what we think.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thought itself is only an electrochemical process.Thats what we think...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729038</id>
	<title>Bring on Mayor Daley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263205680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wet mayor needs a wet computer.</p><p>Or was that white computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wet mayor needs a wet computer.Or was that white computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wet mayor needs a wet computer.Or was that white computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729972</id>
	<title>Easy overclocking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just throw a few ritalin in there, viola!

If you want to go for XTREME overclocking you have to use crystal meth, but you risk overheating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throw a few ritalin in there , viola !
If you want to go for XTREME overclocking you have to use crystal meth , but you risk overheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throw a few ritalin in there, viola!
If you want to go for XTREME overclocking you have to use crystal meth, but you risk overheating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232</id>
	<title>great, boffins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what would you do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and ... what would you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and ... what would you do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731526</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many people bring forward this idea. I think it stems from the fact that "traditional" AI (which has only really been around for 60 years or so) has not yet yielded a "sentient" computer. People feel that this somehow means traditional AI, and even our whole computational model can't yield sentience. They attribute intelligence to the fabric rather than the logic it implements. I think these people fail to realize that whatever computation biological brains implement, we could simulate it on traditional computers, *if we even knew what is being computed*. The problem is that, so far, beyond the first layers of our visual system, and some very simple systems, we know not much about the way the brain is connected. However, from what's been discovered in neuroscience, it seems pretty clear that the early layers of the visual cortex perform simple convolutional operation that do not involve quantum physics, or fancy shmancy things we couldn't do *more efficiently* with silicon.
<br> <br>
The human brain is very complex, but given enough time, we very well might get to understand what makes us sentient and be able to replicate it in a computer. My personal opinion is that the brain is full of specialized hardware that has evolved over a very long time, and helps us to specific tasks (eg: facial recognition, hand-eye coordination, obstacle avoidance, language decoding), with a very powerful abstraction logic built on top (the stuff that "makes us sentient"). This abstraction logic is possibly very complex, and perhaps too difficult for us to conceive of at this time. If we are to learn anything from the rest of the brain, most of this logic probably focuses on transforming perceptual information into a form that makes it easy to reason with. On top of this, we probably again have specialized mechanisms, to do things like deduce causal relationships and generate hypotheses or semi-random associations of concepts (creativity).
<br> <br>
The reason the "traditional AI" camp hasn't succeeded at making sentient machines are multiple, but I would sum them up as follows:<br>
1) They have mostly given up. You probably can't get funding for claiming you'll come up with HAL9000, you'll sound like a wacko. Current AI research focuses simple learning problems (i.e.: supervised learning, reinforcement learning).<br>
2) The approaches tried in the past focused purely on formal logic, which, as we now know, works badly in open-ended environments. For it to work well, the properties of the environment have to be simple, restricted and well-defined.<br>
3) Supervised learning, unsupervised learning, etc., will not yield sentience. These approaches, which may actually exist in the brain, are good at solving problems of limited scope only. Our brains are not big wads of neurons performing a single computation. They are much more intricate and integrate many specialized components.<br> <br>

The "right" approach to AI is probably an overall approach, integrating many existing techniques into one system. Perhaps an "engineering" approach to AI would work better. Focus on constructing it and then refining it, as opposed to developing an overall theory of how it will work first and trying to reduce it to its simplest component. We already have computer systems that do speech synthesis, speech recognition, facial recognition, depth perception, 3D model reconstruction, etc. We also have unsupervised learning, supervised learning, reinforcement learning, fuzzy logic, knowledge bases, automatic theorem provers, etc. It should be possible to build a non-completely stupid AI, if one combined all these techniques in the appropriate way. How to connect them, however, is probably where the true AI problem resides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people bring forward this idea .
I think it stems from the fact that " traditional " AI ( which has only really been around for 60 years or so ) has not yet yielded a " sentient " computer .
People feel that this somehow means traditional AI , and even our whole computational model ca n't yield sentience .
They attribute intelligence to the fabric rather than the logic it implements .
I think these people fail to realize that whatever computation biological brains implement , we could simulate it on traditional computers , * if we even knew what is being computed * .
The problem is that , so far , beyond the first layers of our visual system , and some very simple systems , we know not much about the way the brain is connected .
However , from what 's been discovered in neuroscience , it seems pretty clear that the early layers of the visual cortex perform simple convolutional operation that do not involve quantum physics , or fancy shmancy things we could n't do * more efficiently * with silicon .
The human brain is very complex , but given enough time , we very well might get to understand what makes us sentient and be able to replicate it in a computer .
My personal opinion is that the brain is full of specialized hardware that has evolved over a very long time , and helps us to specific tasks ( eg : facial recognition , hand-eye coordination , obstacle avoidance , language decoding ) , with a very powerful abstraction logic built on top ( the stuff that " makes us sentient " ) .
This abstraction logic is possibly very complex , and perhaps too difficult for us to conceive of at this time .
If we are to learn anything from the rest of the brain , most of this logic probably focuses on transforming perceptual information into a form that makes it easy to reason with .
On top of this , we probably again have specialized mechanisms , to do things like deduce causal relationships and generate hypotheses or semi-random associations of concepts ( creativity ) .
The reason the " traditional AI " camp has n't succeeded at making sentient machines are multiple , but I would sum them up as follows : 1 ) They have mostly given up .
You probably ca n't get funding for claiming you 'll come up with HAL9000 , you 'll sound like a wacko .
Current AI research focuses simple learning problems ( i.e .
: supervised learning , reinforcement learning ) .
2 ) The approaches tried in the past focused purely on formal logic , which , as we now know , works badly in open-ended environments .
For it to work well , the properties of the environment have to be simple , restricted and well-defined .
3 ) Supervised learning , unsupervised learning , etc. , will not yield sentience .
These approaches , which may actually exist in the brain , are good at solving problems of limited scope only .
Our brains are not big wads of neurons performing a single computation .
They are much more intricate and integrate many specialized components .
The " right " approach to AI is probably an overall approach , integrating many existing techniques into one system .
Perhaps an " engineering " approach to AI would work better .
Focus on constructing it and then refining it , as opposed to developing an overall theory of how it will work first and trying to reduce it to its simplest component .
We already have computer systems that do speech synthesis , speech recognition , facial recognition , depth perception , 3D model reconstruction , etc .
We also have unsupervised learning , supervised learning , reinforcement learning , fuzzy logic , knowledge bases , automatic theorem provers , etc .
It should be possible to build a non-completely stupid AI , if one combined all these techniques in the appropriate way .
How to connect them , however , is probably where the true AI problem resides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people bring forward this idea.
I think it stems from the fact that "traditional" AI (which has only really been around for 60 years or so) has not yet yielded a "sentient" computer.
People feel that this somehow means traditional AI, and even our whole computational model can't yield sentience.
They attribute intelligence to the fabric rather than the logic it implements.
I think these people fail to realize that whatever computation biological brains implement, we could simulate it on traditional computers, *if we even knew what is being computed*.
The problem is that, so far, beyond the first layers of our visual system, and some very simple systems, we know not much about the way the brain is connected.
However, from what's been discovered in neuroscience, it seems pretty clear that the early layers of the visual cortex perform simple convolutional operation that do not involve quantum physics, or fancy shmancy things we couldn't do *more efficiently* with silicon.
The human brain is very complex, but given enough time, we very well might get to understand what makes us sentient and be able to replicate it in a computer.
My personal opinion is that the brain is full of specialized hardware that has evolved over a very long time, and helps us to specific tasks (eg: facial recognition, hand-eye coordination, obstacle avoidance, language decoding), with a very powerful abstraction logic built on top (the stuff that "makes us sentient").
This abstraction logic is possibly very complex, and perhaps too difficult for us to conceive of at this time.
If we are to learn anything from the rest of the brain, most of this logic probably focuses on transforming perceptual information into a form that makes it easy to reason with.
On top of this, we probably again have specialized mechanisms, to do things like deduce causal relationships and generate hypotheses or semi-random associations of concepts (creativity).
The reason the "traditional AI" camp hasn't succeeded at making sentient machines are multiple, but I would sum them up as follows:
1) They have mostly given up.
You probably can't get funding for claiming you'll come up with HAL9000, you'll sound like a wacko.
Current AI research focuses simple learning problems (i.e.
: supervised learning, reinforcement learning).
2) The approaches tried in the past focused purely on formal logic, which, as we now know, works badly in open-ended environments.
For it to work well, the properties of the environment have to be simple, restricted and well-defined.
3) Supervised learning, unsupervised learning, etc., will not yield sentience.
These approaches, which may actually exist in the brain, are good at solving problems of limited scope only.
Our brains are not big wads of neurons performing a single computation.
They are much more intricate and integrate many specialized components.
The "right" approach to AI is probably an overall approach, integrating many existing techniques into one system.
Perhaps an "engineering" approach to AI would work better.
Focus on constructing it and then refining it, as opposed to developing an overall theory of how it will work first and trying to reduce it to its simplest component.
We already have computer systems that do speech synthesis, speech recognition, facial recognition, depth perception, 3D model reconstruction, etc.
We also have unsupervised learning, supervised learning, reinforcement learning, fuzzy logic, knowledge bases, automatic theorem provers, etc.
It should be possible to build a non-completely stupid AI, if one combined all these techniques in the appropriate way.
How to connect them, however, is probably where the true AI problem resides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731334</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>WCLPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1263216060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It gives the phrase "the computer is down" a whole new meaning.</p></div><p>Let's hope that's the least of our worries, I don't even want to imagine what a BSOD error would look like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives the phrase " the computer is down " a whole new meaning.Let 's hope that 's the least of our worries , I do n't even want to imagine what a BSOD error would look like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gives the phrase "the computer is down" a whole new meaning.Let's hope that's the least of our worries, I don't even want to imagine what a BSOD error would look like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729066</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>Trecares</author>
	<datestamp>1263205740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome our new wet computing overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome our new wet computing overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome our new wet computing overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1263206700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see why you need chemical based computers in order to construct artificial intelligence.</p><p>One could build the system out of tinker toys and achieve the same results, at different speeds and different costs.</p><p>There is nothing that signifies intelligence which is provided by one construction method that is not present in another.  Electrical, Optical, Mechanical, Chemical, Pneumatic...  They are all just a means to an end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see why you need chemical based computers in order to construct artificial intelligence.One could build the system out of tinker toys and achieve the same results , at different speeds and different costs.There is nothing that signifies intelligence which is provided by one construction method that is not present in another .
Electrical , Optical , Mechanical , Chemical , Pneumatic... They are all just a means to an end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see why you need chemical based computers in order to construct artificial intelligence.One could build the system out of tinker toys and achieve the same results, at different speeds and different costs.There is nothing that signifies intelligence which is provided by one construction method that is not present in another.
Electrical, Optical, Mechanical, Chemical, Pneumatic...  They are all just a means to an end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729498</id>
	<title>Prions</title>
	<author>Max(10)</author>
	<datestamp>1263207180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:<br>"Recent work has shown that when two such lipid layers encounter each other as the cells come into contact, a protein can form a passage between them, allowing chemical signaling molecules to pass. Second, the cells' interiors will play host to what is known as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky or B-Z chemical reaction. Simply put, reactions of this type can be initiated by changing the concentration of the element bromine by a certain threshold amount."</p><p>And then some scientists are shocked to find out that prions can evolve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Recent work has shown that when two such lipid layers encounter each other as the cells come into contact , a protein can form a passage between them , allowing chemical signaling molecules to pass .
Second , the cells ' interiors will play host to what is known as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky or B-Z chemical reaction .
Simply put , reactions of this type can be initiated by changing the concentration of the element bromine by a certain threshold amount .
" And then some scientists are shocked to find out that prions can evolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:"Recent work has shown that when two such lipid layers encounter each other as the cells come into contact, a protein can form a passage between them, allowing chemical signaling molecules to pass.
Second, the cells' interiors will play host to what is known as a Belousov-Zhabotinsky or B-Z chemical reaction.
Simply put, reactions of this type can be initiated by changing the concentration of the element bromine by a certain threshold amount.
"And then some scientists are shocked to find out that prions can evolve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729328</id>
	<title>Research Implications:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heuristics is expected to make a big come back in Artificial Intelligence research, as the machine represents everything in terms of <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bromide" title="etymonline.com" rel="nofollow">bromides</a> [etymonline.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heuristics is expected to make a big come back in Artificial Intelligence research , as the machine represents everything in terms of bromides [ etymonline.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heuristics is expected to make a big come back in Artificial Intelligence research, as the machine represents everything in terms of bromides [etymonline.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729118</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1263205920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it really a computer still though?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really a computer still though ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really a computer still though?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730746</id>
	<title>Re:great, boffins</title>
	<author>gstoddart</author>
	<datestamp>1263212820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what would you do?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's called Slashdot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and ... what would you do ? It 's called Slashdot .
: -PCheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and ... what would you do?It's called Slashdot.
:-PCheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729158</id>
	<title>1.8M Euro?</title>
	<author>MSBob</author>
	<datestamp>1263206040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a joke for funding. A project as ambitious as this cannot get much accomplished with a couple of million eurobucks. Ten times that amount would have been respectable. 1.8 million is money than it takes to open a fast food franchise joint in some cities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a joke for funding .
A project as ambitious as this can not get much accomplished with a couple of million eurobucks .
Ten times that amount would have been respectable .
1.8 million is money than it takes to open a fast food franchise joint in some cities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a joke for funding.
A project as ambitious as this cannot get much accomplished with a couple of million eurobucks.
Ten times that amount would have been respectable.
1.8 million is money than it takes to open a fast food franchise joint in some cities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730480</id>
	<title>Simulating Neurons....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1263211380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is a lot like building an abacus using 3-D software and then manipulating your 3-D abacus to add 1 plus 3 to get four while chewing away millions of computational cycles...</p><p>We need a better way to simulate the effect of a neuron without having to re-create everything down to the last protein and lipid in a nerve cell....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a lot like building an abacus using 3-D software and then manipulating your 3-D abacus to add 1 plus 3 to get four while chewing away millions of computational cycles...We need a better way to simulate the effect of a neuron without having to re-create everything down to the last protein and lipid in a nerve cell... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a lot like building an abacus using 3-D software and then manipulating your 3-D abacus to add 1 plus 3 to get four while chewing away millions of computational cycles...We need a better way to simulate the effect of a neuron without having to re-create everything down to the last protein and lipid in a nerve cell....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729818</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1263208440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean that an electrochemical Kismet is upon us ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean that an electrochemical Kismet is upon us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean that an electrochemical Kismet is upon us ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30788548</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Staniel</author>
	<datestamp>1263674760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The really magical part of the brain is its ability to selectively throw away <b>massive</b> amounts of incoming data before it even begins processing it. We develop a system by which to determine what portions of incoming data are worth considering, and the rest goes into really shoddy temporary storage for a few seconds (just in case) before being destroyed forever. We shouldn't try to get computers to process as much information as we pretend we do, we should train them to recognize what can bear to be ignored based on an overall feeling of the incoming sample.
<br> <br>
Imagine looking at a really pixelly jpeg that has a flesh colored blob in it with two darker blobs at the center and a darker area circling around the top. Based on the hundreds of thousands of times you've seen that type of information, I'll bet you could very effectively decide which portion you'd want to increase clarity on. I'll bet we could get a computer to decide, too. And maybe you're wrong about it being a face, and it's actually a satellite photo of Hawaii in inverted colors. Then all you get is the bad stuff in temp storage or a chance to re-scan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The really magical part of the brain is its ability to selectively throw away massive amounts of incoming data before it even begins processing it .
We develop a system by which to determine what portions of incoming data are worth considering , and the rest goes into really shoddy temporary storage for a few seconds ( just in case ) before being destroyed forever .
We should n't try to get computers to process as much information as we pretend we do , we should train them to recognize what can bear to be ignored based on an overall feeling of the incoming sample .
Imagine looking at a really pixelly jpeg that has a flesh colored blob in it with two darker blobs at the center and a darker area circling around the top .
Based on the hundreds of thousands of times you 've seen that type of information , I 'll bet you could very effectively decide which portion you 'd want to increase clarity on .
I 'll bet we could get a computer to decide , too .
And maybe you 're wrong about it being a face , and it 's actually a satellite photo of Hawaii in inverted colors .
Then all you get is the bad stuff in temp storage or a chance to re-scan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really magical part of the brain is its ability to selectively throw away massive amounts of incoming data before it even begins processing it.
We develop a system by which to determine what portions of incoming data are worth considering, and the rest goes into really shoddy temporary storage for a few seconds (just in case) before being destroyed forever.
We shouldn't try to get computers to process as much information as we pretend we do, we should train them to recognize what can bear to be ignored based on an overall feeling of the incoming sample.
Imagine looking at a really pixelly jpeg that has a flesh colored blob in it with two darker blobs at the center and a darker area circling around the top.
Based on the hundreds of thousands of times you've seen that type of information, I'll bet you could very effectively decide which portion you'd want to increase clarity on.
I'll bet we could get a computer to decide, too.
And maybe you're wrong about it being a face, and it's actually a satellite photo of Hawaii in inverted colors.
Then all you get is the bad stuff in temp storage or a chance to re-scan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734630</id>
	<title>Is this useful?</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1263291360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if you manage to reproduce the human brain, won't it be just as vague, chaotic and mysterious as the original? Is there any point to that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you manage to reproduce the human brain , wo n't it be just as vague , chaotic and mysterious as the original ?
Is there any point to that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you manage to reproduce the human brain, won't it be just as vague, chaotic and mysterious as the original?
Is there any point to that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30735392</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263300360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wow, talk about carbon bias!</p><p>Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?  Silicon-based have developed at a <em>blistering</em> pace as compared to the carbon.  (Though I admit that they have the advantage of <em>actually<em> having intelligent designers . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.)  I mean, life has a head start of a few billions of years!</em> </em> </p><p> <em> <em>-Peter</em> </em> </p></div><p>I'm not sure how you would be able to justify that silicon systems have developed faster than carbon systems. Do you even know the right measure of development for comparison? What we humans perceive as "blistering pace" may be completely irrelevant in the big scheme of the universe. Also, speed is only one factor. At this stage silicon chips are still just man made tools... like hammers except with a different function. They don't yet have the capacity to evolve on their own, so I could argue that while carbon systems take millions of years to evolve, so far silicon systems are yet to display any sign of this ability (though computers are still very young).</p><p>This new computer seems like a positive step forward in technological achievement regardless of the outcome. There will also most likely be spinoff technologies developed that are perhaps completely unrelated to the original objective. I wish those involved luck in their endevour and I'll look out for them in the news of the future.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , talk about carbon bias ! Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems should n't be as capable carbon-based ones ?
Silicon-based have developed at a blistering pace as compared to the carbon .
( Though I admit that they have the advantage of actually having intelligent designers .
. .
) I mean , life has a head start of a few billions of years !
-Peter I 'm not sure how you would be able to justify that silicon systems have developed faster than carbon systems .
Do you even know the right measure of development for comparison ?
What we humans perceive as " blistering pace " may be completely irrelevant in the big scheme of the universe .
Also , speed is only one factor .
At this stage silicon chips are still just man made tools... like hammers except with a different function .
They do n't yet have the capacity to evolve on their own , so I could argue that while carbon systems take millions of years to evolve , so far silicon systems are yet to display any sign of this ability ( though computers are still very young ) .This new computer seems like a positive step forward in technological achievement regardless of the outcome .
There will also most likely be spinoff technologies developed that are perhaps completely unrelated to the original objective .
I wish those involved luck in their endevour and I 'll look out for them in the news of the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, talk about carbon bias!Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?
Silicon-based have developed at a blistering pace as compared to the carbon.
(Though I admit that they have the advantage of actually having intelligent designers .
. .
)  I mean, life has a head start of a few billions of years!
-Peter  I'm not sure how you would be able to justify that silicon systems have developed faster than carbon systems.
Do you even know the right measure of development for comparison?
What we humans perceive as "blistering pace" may be completely irrelevant in the big scheme of the universe.
Also, speed is only one factor.
At this stage silicon chips are still just man made tools... like hammers except with a different function.
They don't yet have the capacity to evolve on their own, so I could argue that while carbon systems take millions of years to evolve, so far silicon systems are yet to display any sign of this ability (though computers are still very young).This new computer seems like a positive step forward in technological achievement regardless of the outcome.
There will also most likely be spinoff technologies developed that are perhaps completely unrelated to the original objective.
I wish those involved luck in their endevour and I'll look out for them in the news of the future.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731122</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">the future of the fun to be 4gain. partner. And if</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the future of the fun to be 4gain .
partner. And if [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the future of the fun to be 4gain.
partner. And if [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730310</id>
	<title>Skynet?</title>
	<author>phreakincool</author>
	<datestamp>1263210660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess we're all fucked when it becomes self-aware.  Do these scientist even watch the movies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess we 're all fucked when it becomes self-aware .
Do these scientist even watch the movies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess we're all fucked when it becomes self-aware.
Do these scientist even watch the movies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30747596</id>
	<title>wet computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263322620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean a computer dedicated to porn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean a computer dedicated to porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean a computer dedicated to porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734800</id>
	<title>Hasn't this already been done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263293400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hasn't this already been done? http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp?doi=b808893d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't this already been done ?
http : //www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp ? doi = b808893d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't this already been done?
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/MB/article.asp?doi=b808893d</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730114</id>
	<title>Re:great, boffins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>slay a beast?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slay a beast ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slay a beast?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736510</id>
	<title>Re:Because the evidence.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263309240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.<br></i><br>I've thought it possible that sentience is a property of water. Who knows, maybe the planet itself is sentient?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.I 've thought it possible that sentience is a property of water .
Who knows , maybe the planet itself is sentient ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.I've thought it possible that sentience is a property of water.
Who knows, maybe the planet itself is sentient?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30735480</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think its funny how many scientists and programmers believ that intelligence is only a function of hardware and programming. Anyone with children will be able to attest that it takes years to raise an intelligent human being, and we have millions of neurons at our disposal. This is possibly something that will become apparent if a human adult is cloned; even if an adult human pops out of the test tube, it will possibly still have the intelligence of a newborn.</p><p>I imagine that the human brain is similar to a conventional computer. It functions as a neural network, but instinct may be sort of the equivalent of a BIOS.</p><p>I will be reluctant to believe any claims of artificial intelligence until I see evidence of years of learning by the subject, as I very much doubt we will invent a computer that processes input data faster than the human brain in my lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its funny how many scientists and programmers believ that intelligence is only a function of hardware and programming .
Anyone with children will be able to attest that it takes years to raise an intelligent human being , and we have millions of neurons at our disposal .
This is possibly something that will become apparent if a human adult is cloned ; even if an adult human pops out of the test tube , it will possibly still have the intelligence of a newborn.I imagine that the human brain is similar to a conventional computer .
It functions as a neural network , but instinct may be sort of the equivalent of a BIOS.I will be reluctant to believe any claims of artificial intelligence until I see evidence of years of learning by the subject , as I very much doubt we will invent a computer that processes input data faster than the human brain in my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its funny how many scientists and programmers believ that intelligence is only a function of hardware and programming.
Anyone with children will be able to attest that it takes years to raise an intelligent human being, and we have millions of neurons at our disposal.
This is possibly something that will become apparent if a human adult is cloned; even if an adult human pops out of the test tube, it will possibly still have the intelligence of a newborn.I imagine that the human brain is similar to a conventional computer.
It functions as a neural network, but instinct may be sort of the equivalent of a BIOS.I will be reluctant to believe any claims of artificial intelligence until I see evidence of years of learning by the subject, as I very much doubt we will invent a computer that processes input data faster than the human brain in my lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</id>
	<title>If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263205680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll have to change my opinion that we won't ever have true artificial intelligence. A chemical based computer could possibly become intelligent. After all, thought itself is only an electrochemical process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll have to change my opinion that we wo n't ever have true artificial intelligence .
A chemical based computer could possibly become intelligent .
After all , thought itself is only an electrochemical process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll have to change my opinion that we won't ever have true artificial intelligence.
A chemical based computer could possibly become intelligent.
After all, thought itself is only an electrochemical process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30733858</id>
	<title>Eureka!</title>
	<author>cyberworm</author>
	<datestamp>1263236580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure I've seen this on television.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure I 've seen this on television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure I've seen this on television.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30741934</id>
	<title>Re:Simulating Neurons....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263329940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is part of the strategy of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_Brain\_Project" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Blue Brain Project</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is part of the strategy of the Blue Brain Project [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is part of the strategy of the Blue Brain Project [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, talk about carbon bias!</p><p>Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?  Silicon-based have developed at a <em>blistering</em> pace as compared to the carbon.  (Though I admit that they have the advantage of <em>actually<em> having intelligent designers . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.)  I mean, life has a head start of a few billions of years!</em></em></p><p><em><em>-Peter</em></em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , talk about carbon bias ! Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems should n't be as capable carbon-based ones ?
Silicon-based have developed at a blistering pace as compared to the carbon .
( Though I admit that they have the advantage of actually having intelligent designers .
. .
) I mean , life has a head start of a few billions of years ! -Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, talk about carbon bias!Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?
Silicon-based have developed at a blistering pace as compared to the carbon.
(Though I admit that they have the advantage of actually having intelligent designers .
. .
)  I mean, life has a head start of a few billions of years!-Peter</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30743032</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263292500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FINALLY, Life imitates Science Fiction.  Here comes the TERMINATOR.  www.MichaelMathiesen.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FINALLY , Life imitates Science Fiction .
Here comes the TERMINATOR .
www.MichaelMathiesen.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FINALLY, Life imitates Science Fiction.
Here comes the TERMINATOR.
www.MichaelMathiesen.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729296</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1263206520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you'll get computers with chemical imbalances. In other words suffering from depression. It gives the phrase "the computer is down" a whole new meaning.</p><p>As a preemptive strike:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin\_the\_Paranoid\_Android" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin\_the\_Paranoid\_Android</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you 'll get computers with chemical imbalances .
In other words suffering from depression .
It gives the phrase " the computer is down " a whole new meaning.As a preemptive strike : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin \ _the \ _Paranoid \ _Android [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you'll get computers with chemical imbalances.
In other words suffering from depression.
It gives the phrase "the computer is down" a whole new meaning.As a preemptive strike:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin\_the\_Paranoid\_Android [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731522</id>
	<title>Imagine...</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1263217320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a forest of these interconnected faux neurons.</p><p>Then imagine that everyone was blue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a forest of these interconnected faux neurons.Then imagine that everyone was blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a forest of these interconnected faux neurons.Then imagine that everyone was blue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730174</id>
	<title>so-called lipids</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1263210000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"so-called lipids" is a strange phrase.  What does that mean?  It is a lipid or it is not a lipid.<br>It's not osama bin laden's secret alias, a value judgment, a marketing campaign, or a trademark.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I realize it was probably written by a journalist, so standards are pretty low, but still...</p><p>I will now hit my "so-called submit button" to post this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" so-called lipids " is a strange phrase .
What does that mean ?
It is a lipid or it is not a lipid.It 's not osama bin laden 's secret alias , a value judgment , a marketing campaign , or a trademark.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid [ wikipedia.org ] I realize it was probably written by a journalist , so standards are pretty low , but still...I will now hit my " so-called submit button " to post this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so-called lipids" is a strange phrase.
What does that mean?
It is a lipid or it is not a lipid.It's not osama bin laden's secret alias, a value judgment, a marketing campaign, or a trademark.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid [wikipedia.org]I realize it was probably written by a journalist, so standards are pretty low, but still...I will now hit my "so-called submit button" to post this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729976</id>
	<title>AI Viruses?</title>
	<author>Aksimel</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"..it will open up application domains where current IT does not offer any solutions - controlling molecular robots, fine-grained control of chemical assembly, and intelligent drugs that process the chemical signals of the human body and act according to the local biochemical state of the cell."

Interesting possibilities abound when you have microscopic computers running around our bodies.  Where will we buy the vaccines?  Pfizer or Symantec?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ..it will open up application domains where current IT does not offer any solutions - controlling molecular robots , fine-grained control of chemical assembly , and intelligent drugs that process the chemical signals of the human body and act according to the local biochemical state of the cell .
" Interesting possibilities abound when you have microscopic computers running around our bodies .
Where will we buy the vaccines ?
Pfizer or Symantec ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..it will open up application domains where current IT does not offer any solutions - controlling molecular robots, fine-grained control of chemical assembly, and intelligent drugs that process the chemical signals of the human body and act according to the local biochemical state of the cell.
"

Interesting possibilities abound when you have microscopic computers running around our bodies.
Where will we buy the vaccines?
Pfizer or Symantec?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729436</id>
	<title>Silicon, carbon. Feh. Bits is bits, guys.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263207000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't see how this is going to be significantly different than something done in silica. It's the organization and processing, not whether it's made of coal or sand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't see how this is going to be significantly different than something done in silica .
It 's the organization and processing , not whether it 's made of coal or sand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't see how this is going to be significantly different than something done in silica.
It's the organization and processing, not whether it's made of coal or sand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30740258</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Abstrackt</author>
	<datestamp>1263323280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>thought itself is only an electrochemical process.</p></div><p>Thats what we think...</p></div><p>&ldquo;I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.&rdquo; - Emo Phillips</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>thought itself is only an electrochemical process.Thats what we think...    I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body .
Then I realized who was telling me this.    - Emo Phillips</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thought itself is only an electrochemical process.Thats what we think...“I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body.
Then I realized who was telling me this.” - Emo Phillips
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731238</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>smidget2k4</author>
	<datestamp>1263215460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Silicon based systems are still terribly sequencial.  While they do nicely augment what our brains are bad at (sequencial problems), they are absolutely terrible at what ours brains can do amazingly easily (Computer Vision, Strong AI, decision making, pattern recognition, face detection, path finding, etc).  <br> <br>Not to mention our brain balancing and controlling tens of thousands of bodily functions all at once and still having plenty of time to do other things.  On the flip side, we know how silicon works, but we have no frackin' clue how the brain actually works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Silicon based systems are still terribly sequencial .
While they do nicely augment what our brains are bad at ( sequencial problems ) , they are absolutely terrible at what ours brains can do amazingly easily ( Computer Vision , Strong AI , decision making , pattern recognition , face detection , path finding , etc ) .
Not to mention our brain balancing and controlling tens of thousands of bodily functions all at once and still having plenty of time to do other things .
On the flip side , we know how silicon works , but we have no frackin ' clue how the brain actually works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silicon based systems are still terribly sequencial.
While they do nicely augment what our brains are bad at (sequencial problems), they are absolutely terrible at what ours brains can do amazingly easily (Computer Vision, Strong AI, decision making, pattern recognition, face detection, path finding, etc).
Not to mention our brain balancing and controlling tens of thousands of bodily functions all at once and still having plenty of time to do other things.
On the flip side, we know how silicon works, but we have no frackin' clue how the brain actually works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729780</id>
	<title>Redundant?</title>
	<author>ActusReus</author>
	<datestamp>1263208320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A "wet computer"?  Didn't you guys <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/01/10/0113248/Futuristic-Sex-Robots-Now-Just-Sex-Robots" title="slashdot.org">just post this story two days ago</a> [slashdot.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A " wet computer " ?
Did n't you guys just post this story two days ago [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "wet computer"?
Didn't you guys just post this story two days ago [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729624</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1263207720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Building an AI program based on neurons is like writing a book review by counting describing the length and frequency of words in the book.</p><p>Of the flip side, someone got a sweet grant and job security for them and their peers. Whoo Hoo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Building an AI program based on neurons is like writing a book review by counting describing the length and frequency of words in the book.Of the flip side , someone got a sweet grant and job security for them and their peers .
Whoo Hoo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building an AI program based on neurons is like writing a book review by counting describing the length and frequency of words in the book.Of the flip side, someone got a sweet grant and job security for them and their peers.
Whoo Hoo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729688</id>
	<title>We'll develop highly advanced "wet computers"...</title>
	<author>truparad0x</author>
	<datestamp>1263208020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>then we'll:

-add AI
-make them in the image of ourselves
-make them capable of self replication
-make a male version and a female version
-put them in a perfect, kick@ss new colony...wait a minute...</htmltext>
<tokenext>then we 'll : -add AI -make them in the image of ourselves -make them capable of self replication -make a male version and a female version -put them in a perfect , kick @ ss new colony...wait a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then we'll:

-add AI
-make them in the image of ourselves
-make them capable of self replication
-make a male version and a female version
-put them in a perfect, kick@ss new colony...wait a minute...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731800</id>
	<title>Because the evidence.</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1263219060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wow, talk about carbon bias!</i></p><p><i>Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?</i></p><p>Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.</p><p>You can hypothesize that consciousness and cognition are just another kind of computation, and a lot of people do, which near as I can tell is how we get the idea that silicon-based systems will someday do cognition and maybe even self-awareness when we find the right algorithm. But there are no such systems at the moment, and there's no particular evidence that given hypothesis is correct. It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , talk about carbon bias ! Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems should n't be as capable carbon-based ones ? Because there 's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.You can hypothesize that consciousness and cognition are just another kind of computation , and a lot of people do , which near as I can tell is how we get the idea that silicon-based systems will someday do cognition and maybe even self-awareness when we find the right algorithm .
But there are no such systems at the moment , and there 's no particular evidence that given hypothesis is correct .
It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, talk about carbon bias!Can you cite a reason why silicon-based systems shouldn't be as capable carbon-based ones?Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.You can hypothesize that consciousness and cognition are just another kind of computation, and a lot of people do, which near as I can tell is how we get the idea that silicon-based systems will someday do cognition and maybe even self-awareness when we find the right algorithm.
But there are no such systems at the moment, and there's no particular evidence that given hypothesis is correct.
It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736570</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263309480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It gives the phrase "the computer is down" a whole new meaning</i></p><p>How is a computer like a woman? You don't really appreciate one until it goes down on you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives the phrase " the computer is down " a whole new meaningHow is a computer like a woman ?
You do n't really appreciate one until it goes down on you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gives the phrase "the computer is down" a whole new meaningHow is a computer like a woman?
You don't really appreciate one until it goes down on you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729500</id>
	<title>Re:1.8M Euro?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1263207240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I was thinking too.</p><p>If they are trying to make a replacement for a single transistor, fine.  But aiming for a whole computer made of chemical components for 1.8M euros seems ridiculous.</p><p>Sounds like just enough money to be pissed away in a year, and milked for another grant with "amazing progress" reports just before the funds run out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I was thinking too.If they are trying to make a replacement for a single transistor , fine .
But aiming for a whole computer made of chemical components for 1.8M euros seems ridiculous.Sounds like just enough money to be pissed away in a year , and milked for another grant with " amazing progress " reports just before the funds run out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I was thinking too.If they are trying to make a replacement for a single transistor, fine.
But aiming for a whole computer made of chemical components for 1.8M euros seems ridiculous.Sounds like just enough money to be pissed away in a year, and milked for another grant with "amazing progress" reports just before the funds run out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729386</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Prune</author>
	<datestamp>1263206820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your comment doesn't make sense.  Even neuroscientists (as opposed to computer scientists) will tell you that the type of process, electrochemical vs any other, has no impact on the ultimate information processing ability, which can be abstracted from the process which is but mere mode of implementation.  A sufficiently complex biological or chemical computer will be Turing-complete, just like an electrical computer, and \_can be no more\_ powerful--just more or less efficient at various tasks in terms of time or energy or whatever.  No one working with neurons has any illusion that the information processing of the neurons indelibly depends on electrochemical actions; the same information processing can be replicated by any other process such as mechanical, electronic, or whatnot.  Saying that "thought is only an electrochemical process" is doubly misleading because 1) it implies that the complexity of though have to do with electrochemical reactions when the correct level of abstractions is information processing, and 2) because it implies that only electrochemical processes can represent thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment does n't make sense .
Even neuroscientists ( as opposed to computer scientists ) will tell you that the type of process , electrochemical vs any other , has no impact on the ultimate information processing ability , which can be abstracted from the process which is but mere mode of implementation .
A sufficiently complex biological or chemical computer will be Turing-complete , just like an electrical computer , and \ _can be no more \ _ powerful--just more or less efficient at various tasks in terms of time or energy or whatever .
No one working with neurons has any illusion that the information processing of the neurons indelibly depends on electrochemical actions ; the same information processing can be replicated by any other process such as mechanical , electronic , or whatnot .
Saying that " thought is only an electrochemical process " is doubly misleading because 1 ) it implies that the complexity of though have to do with electrochemical reactions when the correct level of abstractions is information processing , and 2 ) because it implies that only electrochemical processes can represent thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment doesn't make sense.
Even neuroscientists (as opposed to computer scientists) will tell you that the type of process, electrochemical vs any other, has no impact on the ultimate information processing ability, which can be abstracted from the process which is but mere mode of implementation.
A sufficiently complex biological or chemical computer will be Turing-complete, just like an electrical computer, and \_can be no more\_ powerful--just more or less efficient at various tasks in terms of time or energy or whatever.
No one working with neurons has any illusion that the information processing of the neurons indelibly depends on electrochemical actions; the same information processing can be replicated by any other process such as mechanical, electronic, or whatnot.
Saying that "thought is only an electrochemical process" is doubly misleading because 1) it implies that the complexity of though have to do with electrochemical reactions when the correct level of abstractions is information processing, and 2) because it implies that only electrochemical processes can represent thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734196</id>
	<title>Re:great, boffins</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263328380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what would you do?</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well obviously they'd be used to power a constructor to build a Natalie Portman replicant (naked and petrified, of course) that runs Linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and ... what would you do ?
Well obviously they 'd be used to power a constructor to build a Natalie Portman replicant ( naked and petrified , of course ) that runs Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now just take a beowulf cluster of these and ... what would you do?
Well obviously they'd be used to power a constructor to build a Natalie Portman replicant (naked and petrified, of course) that runs Linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730318</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1263210720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there is precedent.  You see, when a mommy computer and a daddy computer love each other very much, they show this sometimes with a special dance.  And if they are compatible, sometimes they will plug their interfaces together and engage in in a high bandwidth conversation.  And much, much later, out of Mommy's USB port pops a very special process controller, just like you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is precedent .
You see , when a mommy computer and a daddy computer love each other very much , they show this sometimes with a special dance .
And if they are compatible , sometimes they will plug their interfaces together and engage in in a high bandwidth conversation .
And much , much later , out of Mommy 's USB port pops a very special process controller , just like you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is precedent.
You see, when a mommy computer and a daddy computer love each other very much, they show this sometimes with a special dance.
And if they are compatible, sometimes they will plug their interfaces together and engage in in a high bandwidth conversation.
And much, much later, out of Mommy's USB port pops a very special process controller, just like you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729980</id>
	<title>Batman reference</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember watching an episode batman <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Batman:\_The\_Animated\_Series\_episodes" title="wikipedia.org">Batman: The Animated Series</a> [wikipedia.org] about an AI developed in wet tissues. I think it was called "Heart of steel" but can't tell...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember watching an episode batman Batman : The Animated Series [ wikipedia.org ] about an AI developed in wet tissues .
I think it was called " Heart of steel " but ca n't tell.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember watching an episode batman Batman: The Animated Series [wikipedia.org] about an AI developed in wet tissues.
I think it was called "Heart of steel" but can't tell...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30732460</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263223860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's missing is positive and negative feedback loops. For AI to be emergent, there must be a number of different subsystems communicating, which allows the overall system to "learn". Kickstart an evolutionary process on silicon-based lifeforms and intelligence and other elements will arise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's missing is positive and negative feedback loops .
For AI to be emergent , there must be a number of different subsystems communicating , which allows the overall system to " learn " .
Kickstart an evolutionary process on silicon-based lifeforms and intelligence and other elements will arise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's missing is positive and negative feedback loops.
For AI to be emergent, there must be a number of different subsystems communicating, which allows the overall system to "learn".
Kickstart an evolutionary process on silicon-based lifeforms and intelligence and other elements will arise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729690</id>
	<title>Is it always wet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or just when it is turn on?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just when it is turn on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just when it is turn on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730606</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1263212040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just speculating here, but I'd guess that it would be easier to create a massively parallel processing computer using this approach.  Eventually at least.  Right now the best we can do is simulate neurons on what are largely linear processing systems, which isn't very efficient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just speculating here , but I 'd guess that it would be easier to create a massively parallel processing computer using this approach .
Eventually at least .
Right now the best we can do is simulate neurons on what are largely linear processing systems , which is n't very efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just speculating here, but I'd guess that it would be easier to create a massively parallel processing computer using this approach.
Eventually at least.
Right now the best we can do is simulate neurons on what are largely linear processing systems, which isn't very efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734274</id>
	<title>Re:Because the evidence.</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1263329340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.</p></div><p>Given the the extremely tiny portion of the universe we've actually explored, "no evidence" proves nothing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.</p></div><p>That idea is popular in some circles.  I find the arguments in  favor less than compelling. It  seems to come down to the idea that intelligence is too complicated a phenomenon for any mechanical system. Considering the fact that we're only beginning  to understand how complicated the universe is, and the sophisticated emergent behavior it can produce, that strikes me as a willfully ignorant attitude.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there 's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.Given the the extremely tiny portion of the universe we 've actually explored , " no evidence " proves nothing.It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.That idea is popular in some circles .
I find the arguments in favor less than compelling .
It seems to come down to the idea that intelligence is too complicated a phenomenon for any mechanical system .
Considering the fact that we 're only beginning to understand how complicated the universe is , and the sophisticated emergent behavior it can produce , that strikes me as a willfully ignorant attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there's no evidence thus far for consciousness and cognition in anything other than carbon-based wetware.Given the the extremely tiny portion of the universe we've actually explored, "no evidence" proves nothing.It may well be self-aware intelligence is tied to the particular mix of phenomena that take place inside of carbon brains.That idea is popular in some circles.
I find the arguments in  favor less than compelling.
It  seems to come down to the idea that intelligence is too complicated a phenomenon for any mechanical system.
Considering the fact that we're only beginning  to understand how complicated the universe is, and the sophisticated emergent behavior it can produce, that strikes me as a willfully ignorant attitude.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30732444</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263223680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>look..nobody's judging you terminator. WE know ur a cyborg sent back from the future and u want to be treated equally and all,<br>nut<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. wet jelly-like protein things are flexible, maliable, dynamic things that can grow and learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>look..nobody 's judging you terminator .
WE know ur a cyborg sent back from the future and u want to be treated equally and all,nut .. wet jelly-like protein things are flexible , maliable , dynamic things that can grow and learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>look..nobody's judging you terminator.
WE know ur a cyborg sent back from the future and u want to be treated equally and all,nut .. wet jelly-like protein things are flexible, maliable, dynamic things that can grow and learn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731154</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1263214860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admit to a Carbon Bias.</p><p>Wanna make something of it Mr Sandman?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admit to a Carbon Bias.Wan na make something of it Mr Sandman ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admit to a Carbon Bias.Wanna make something of it Mr Sandman?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731454</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>AC-x</author>
	<datestamp>1263216840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only an electrochemical process? Maybe not... can't find a link to the article but read an interesting piece a while ago on certain structures in nerve cells that trap electrons and seem to behave like quantum computers, so it may be the case that nature is already tapping into quantum computing for thought and consciousness, imagine the brain as billions of networked quantum computers - it's no wonder AI hasn't caught up yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only an electrochemical process ?
Maybe not... ca n't find a link to the article but read an interesting piece a while ago on certain structures in nerve cells that trap electrons and seem to behave like quantum computers , so it may be the case that nature is already tapping into quantum computing for thought and consciousness , imagine the brain as billions of networked quantum computers - it 's no wonder AI has n't caught up yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only an electrochemical process?
Maybe not... can't find a link to the article but read an interesting piece a while ago on certain structures in nerve cells that trap electrons and seem to behave like quantum computers, so it may be the case that nature is already tapping into quantum computing for thought and consciousness, imagine the brain as billions of networked quantum computers - it's no wonder AI hasn't caught up yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730988</id>
	<title>New meaning for a old expression.</title>
	<author>Cr0vv</author>
	<datestamp>1263214020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this gives a new meaning to:  "My computer died".

blackcrow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this gives a new meaning to : " My computer died " .
blackcrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this gives a new meaning to:  "My computer died".
blackcrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729176</id>
	<title>Don't see too many mentions of B-Z on /. nowadays.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263206100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just thought I'd flag it... <a href="http://bzflag.org/" title="bzflag.org" rel="nofollow">http://bzflag.org/</a> [bzflag.org]</p><p>I'll be here all week, try the veal, etc. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just thought I 'd flag it... http : //bzflag.org/ [ bzflag.org ] I 'll be here all week , try the veal , etc .
etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just thought I'd flag it... http://bzflag.org/ [bzflag.org]I'll be here all week, try the veal, etc.
etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30738824</id>
	<title>Re:If anything comes of this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263318060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well why do you trust chemical computers more than physical? After all chemical reactions are just a pretty name to micro-physical ones!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well why do you trust chemical computers more than physical ?
After all chemical reactions are just a pretty name to micro-physical ones !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well why do you trust chemical computers more than physical?
After all chemical reactions are just a pretty name to micro-physical ones!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731542</id>
	<title>Uh, tech support?  My PC isn't workin</title>
	<author>mnemotronic</author>
	<datestamp>1263217500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I kinda dropped a sponge on it.  I squeezed the goop back out, but I think maybe the sponge had some windex and everclear in it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... yea, it <b>was</b> a pretty good party.  The leds are blinking, but they're, like, orange and purple.  Is that normal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I kinda dropped a sponge on it .
I squeezed the goop back out , but I think maybe the sponge had some windex and everclear in it ...... yea , it was a pretty good party .
The leds are blinking , but they 're , like , orange and purple .
Is that normal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kinda dropped a sponge on it.
I squeezed the goop back out, but I think maybe the sponge had some windex and everclear in it ...... yea, it was a pretty good party.
The leds are blinking, but they're, like, orange and purple.
Is that normal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30733066</id>
	<title>Re:Easy overclocking</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263228840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and as soon as you stop with the Ritalin (e.g. because your wallet is drained empty), <a href="http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2004/images/jpg/z-machine.jpg" title="sandia.gov">your brain will look like this</a> [sandia.gov], because of what is known as &ldquo;brain-zaps&rdquo;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and as soon as you stop with the Ritalin ( e.g .
because your wallet is drained empty ) , your brain will look like this [ sandia.gov ] , because of what is known as    brain-zaps    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and as soon as you stop with the Ritalin (e.g.
because your wallet is drained empty), your brain will look like this [sandia.gov], because of what is known as “brain-zaps”.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729972</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30743032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30740258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30735392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30732460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30733066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30735480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30741934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30738824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30788548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30732444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1817256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30732460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30740258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30738824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731800
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30735392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30743032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30735480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30732444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30788548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30736570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30731334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30734196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30730480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30741934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30729972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30733066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1817256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1817256.30747596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
