From the author ...
INTRODUCTION.
Terms
Living and inanimate.
What about the soul?
Chinese room
Neural networks

From the author ...

Do not even hope that it will be easy. Just will not.
The theory is complex, the implementation is simpler. But to write (a program) you need to understand WHAT you write and HOW it works? How does it work? Nobody knows...
I know! And I will write. If you have enough patience, that would finish reading to the end and mind, that would understand. That and you will understand.
Sorry, I'm not going to anyone. Strain brains, if they are. Chew everything to the smallest detail, not even going.
Sources, quotation, conclusions.
If you think that the conclusions are wrong - read and comprehend the sources.
Want to argue? Prove? Refute?
You are welcome! No problem to talk, but remember:
Criticizing - suggest! And if you have nothing to offer, then you just did not understand what was going on. Nothing to offer? Then why are you here?
Go yourself with God! Everyone has his own path.
I am not inviting anyone to join the community; rather, on the contrary, previous experience has shown that the number of people in the community does not solve anything. Totally.

INTRODUCTION.

How to create IR?
How to understand that what we have created will be MIND and not a monster?
Personally, I do not see other methods and principles like “in the image and likeness of my own” ...
Because there are no other samples of the mind than human.
And how is the human mind (EP)? Science has not answered this question.
Should I wait further? Maybe you should "process the data" yourself? To understand WHY science can not answer this question? And try to answer yourself? Take a chance?

Terms

This is the hardest part.
To describe the phenomenon, it is necessary to communicate in one language, but it is difficult to do.
Why?
Because, the described phenomenon is the junction of sciences.
In different sciences, the same phenomenon is described by different words / terms.
And different phenomena are the same. From here confusion is inevitable.
In addition, most of the phenomena do not have terms and descriptions.
How to be? Make up your own? Customize well-known? Use a bunch of synonyms?
Think ... Decide ...
Let's start with the main ones.
And we will gradually replenish.

Living and inanimate.

More Pavlov, http://www.koob.mhost.ru/books/common_psychology/refleks_svobodi.zip
(I recommend to read the source)
I began to think seriously, what is the difference between living and nonliving?
Is the mind of animals the same as man? Or not? What do you think about that?

> In 1863, Sechenov published the book Reflexes of the Brain, in which, far ahead of the views of his time, he considered psychology as part of physiology, reducing the science of mental processes to the study of motor (muscular) activity. Starting from Sechenov's idea of ​​a reflex mechanism, as a general basis of mental life, Pavlov undertook an analysis of the activity of the body's working devices (muscles and glands), considering it as a set of reactions to external stimuli performed by the body in order to adapt to the environment.
> Pavlov's experiments revealed that if, for example, every time you feed a dog, you light a light bulb (or give a call), then a certain connection will be established between the nerve mechanism of the visual apparatus and the reflex mechanism, the manager of saliva secretion. As a result of the repetition of such experiments, one type of light bulb itself, without eating, will cause salivation. A new connection is formed, a new path in the nervous system, a "habit"; this is what Pavlov calls the "artificial" or "conditioned" reflex. Unconditioned reflexes are inborn, constant (instincts), conditional - non-permanent, temporary, acquired (experience, habit). On the basis of unconditioned reflexes, conditional relationships arise that determine the character of the individual behavior of the animal (or person). The biological significance of the conditioned reflex connection is enormous; individualizing the organism’s responses to external stimuli, it infinitely refines its orientation in the surrounding world. Studying the results of his unusually simple experiments on dogs, Pavlov discovered a pattern in adding one conditioned reflex over another (reflexes of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd order) and came to the idea that all mental activity (“soul”) is nothing more than an aggregate reflexes, i.e. natural responses to external irritations.
(source: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/biograf/5090)

Can a non-living mind possess? To the extent that we are accustomed to apply this concept to a person?
We will return to this issue more than once.

Each phrase of this text will provoke anger and resistance and, as a result, violent disputes.
Well - I ask in the forum, we'll talk there ... http://www.gamedev.ru/community/ir/forum/

What about the soul?

> Pavlov discovered a pattern in building up one conditioned reflex over another and came to the idea that the whole "soul" is nothing but a set of reflexes.
Almost any article about AI ends with a holivar about the soul. It is impossible to create an artificial mind, because there will be no soul ... Modern science has not yet proved neither the presence of the soul, nor its absence.
If you push aside religion and philosophy and take a sober look at it ...
I have my own soul concept. Briefly: in humans, the soul is the bioelectrochemical activity of brain neurons that are excited at a given time.
For IR, this is by analogy: the brain is hdd (BD), the soul is Ram (executing program).
We read the article: "The Mind and Soul of Man in Intellect metamodels."

Chinese room

The Chinese Room, one of the main counter-arguments of skeptics.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Any attempt to dispute, is stopped by the same "impenetrable wall" of skepticism.
Even Stanislav Lem could not prove anything ...
http://alt-future.narod.ru/Lem/Tkk/tkk.htm
> According to Stanislav Lem, the intelligence of the “Chinese room” really exists, being located in the brain of its creator - the one who developed the system of rules for handling hieroglyphs for the participant in the experiment. The author of the experiment had to foresee all combinations of questions and answers in advance, or come up with the principle of selecting the answer to the question. In reality, when creating the alleged artificial intelligence is unlikely to be possible.
Strictly speaking, this is the main argument for the failure of the "Chinese room".
> provide all the combinations of questions and answers
IMPOSSIBLE even in principle. "Chinese room" is a myth, nonsense and nonsense.
The structuring of knowledge (system of connections) destroys the main principle of the "Chinese room" - the lack of understanding of Chinese characters. Since “structured knowledge” is no longer “Arabic ligature,” but something more meaningful. As for the "instructions", isn’t all our life described step by step according to such "instructions"?

Neural networks

What about neural networks? Did I ever say something bad about the National Assembly?
The problem is that there is no need to exalt the NA, nothing will arise "by itself", because if you dump the building "by itself" out of the car onto the pavement of bricks, it will not be built by itself. NN is only a PART of the whole, these are blocks / modules from the "general scheme" no more and no less ..
Okay, enough chatter, to the point.