Let_Us Forum Posts (1,017)

RE: artificial intelligense

Good points, although I'm not to sure about "emotion". I don't perceive that "emotion" is a NECESSARY adjunct to intelligence OR consciousness. (I'm sorry, but "I" see saying "consciousness" and "self-awareness" as redundant.) I agree that "brain power (computing power) would be pointless and useless WITHOUT some sort of sensory input system. If there was no way to get input, how or why would there EVER BE any output? At least, any output that was USEFUL, for anything! Motive I see as a possibility. I DO believe that it's possible to make judgments, and NOT have them made on the basis of emotion.

And can I ask the source of your "information", concerning the "90% of our brain's processing power is dedicated to deciding how we feel"? I'd like to familiarize myself with their data and reasoning. Thanks!

RE: artificial intelligense

I'm sorry. I'm back. I was just continuing to read through the thread and read this.

A "biological" COMPUTER! WHAT A QUAINT idea! You mean that you're afraid that God's a machine? And might create HUMANS?

And there you go with your "superlatives" again! What makes you "think"/Why do you INSIST that there IS such a thing as "FINAL" ANYTHING! You THINK man has FINAL "control" - OVER ANYTHING! You're an atheist, then, among OTHER things? But I'm not considering THEOLOGICAL possibilities, when I wonder at your pessimistic obsession! As the OLD wisdom (cautionary tales - i.e. rules/traditions, those things that YOU seem to hold so dear) says, "The ONLY constant is CHANGE!" "Final - "The END", is only TEMPORARY, at best/worst! There IS no "FINAL" ANYTHING! Only change - into something new/else, my friend! I wonder why you're so concerned about the end of humanity? I WOULD THINK you'd be more concerned about your PERSONAL survival? But then, maybe you've ACCEPTED that there's nothing you can DO, about THAT! In which case, why not apply your "wisdom" to this POSTULATED problem, and accept that there's nothing you can do about THAT, EITHER! The POINT about/to life is NOT "life", itself! It's to live, learn, and HOPEFULLY to "appreciate: it! So MY advice, is to get on with your living, learning(YES! PLEASE! THIS one!), and appreciating what you have, WITHOUT wasting your energy and emotional well being on "problems" that may NEVER occur! And which YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT, if they do!

RE: artificial intelligense

Aha! Pardon me for commenting on your posts one more time, Mr. Rizared, but I feel compelled to, as it may shine a small light upon the discussion we've had, so far.

I'm sorry, but I just noticed that you're in "China"! (I admit to NOT ALWAYS being as observant as I SHOULD, or would LIKE to be.) Might I ask how long you've been living in that society/culture?

There are a couple of reasons for my inquiry.

#1. It may explain some of the "peculiarities" in your use/employment/perspective on/of the English language.
#2. The Chinese culture/society is COMPARATIVELY "structured" (when contrasted to every culture OUTSIDE of Asia! And even some IN Asia.), and I'm wondering if living in such a structured/stratified society might have affected your "view" on/to the ADHERENCE to "RULES"/ORTHODOXY".
#3. in THIS statement, you admit to being "TERRIFIED" of the thought of "INTELLIGENT" computers! And that they might, someday, outclass humans ("until the human species is no longer regarded as the highest form of intelligence.), in the area of "intelligence". Which you follow with the statement "AI will then see mankind as a worthless and useless commodity, and therefore ensure the end of human life. And I'm wondering whether this mechanophobic attitude may be coloring your "thoughts/opinions" concerning "machine" intelligence? (My IMMEDIATE thought [concerning THIS] is that you're making an assumption that has NO foundation! But then, truly INTELLIGENT machines have no precedent, and ARE entirely NEW territory to be considered.)

As far as Stephen Hawking, I know who he is (Doesn't EVERYBODY, who has an inquiring mind?), and I DO respect him. He is a man of original thought. Not bound by the strictures of those who have attempted to codify "reality", previously. And, since you say you regard him deeply, you might consider attempting to model your thinking after his. Go a little OUTSIDE the box, if only to CONFIRM the validity of the "rules" you so deeply regard! Just a thought.

RE: artificial intelligense

Great quote! He's a man of MORALITY, as well as a man of thoughtfulness! I'm not familiar with him or his work (although the University of California, Riverside is within a couple of hours driving time from my home), but I'll check him out more thoroghly, now that I know ABOUT him! Thanks!

RE: artificial intelligense

“
I have NO PROBLEM with "enhanced intelligence". Or "machine intelligence" (although I don't BELIEVE that machine intelligence exist! At least, NOT yet!) Machines are pretty good at PROCESSING large amounts of information. And programmers are beginning to get a handle on pattern recognition, which will start a revolution in that machines will THEN be able to "learn". But having large amounts of information and being able to analyse patterns therein, is NOT "intelligence"! It's "LEARNING". And the two are DIFFERENT things!

”


Exactly, the intelligence is not real, therefore by definition it is artificial, thank you for proving my point!


My friend, you HIGHLIGHTED the phrase "it's NOT intelligence! It's "LEARNING". And the two are DIFFERENT things!" And YOU think THAT disproves MY case!

MY problem with YOUR analysis is that YOU don't LOOK AT/ANALYSIS the ENTIRE statement/idea! You choose to "SEE" only ONE LITTLE SEGMENT of the problem/issue! You just DON'T SEEM to be able to make the "leaps" that ARE the HALLMARK of "intelligence"!

The STATEMENT is/was "But having large amounts of information (YOU) and being able to analyse patterns therein (NOT you), is NOT intelligence! It's "LEARNING"! Which sums YOU up, pretty well! YOU SEEM to "know" a lot (have a lot of "learning"), but it just DOESN'T SEEM to do you much good, because you CAN'T put it together, in a way to EXTRACT any NEW information/knowledge/insight/understanding (intelligence) FROM that information. Does THAT help you UNDERSTAND the difference? And WHY intelligence CAN'T BE "artificial"??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? But have a good life! But you SHOULD TRY practicing lifting you head every once in a while and SEEING beyond the limited range of your "small" little "world"! Seeing the WHOLE picture! NOT just the one little segment that relates to YOUR training/knowledge/information.

Words and language are like life, in a way! You can make up ALL the "rules/guidelines/laws" you want! But people CAN, and DO, bend/break those "rules/laws/traditions" ALL the time! ANY TIME it suits their "purpose/need". (As YOU agree, "words" are LIVING things!) Sure, you can shoot them. Put 'em in the electric chair. Imprison them. Or whatever horrors you WANT to subject them to! But ONLY if you can catch them! And, even if YOU DO catch them, and crucify them, somebody ELSE is going to come along and break that same "rule", AGAIN! THERE ARE NO "RULES"! To life, OR language/words! Or to MOST things you care to specify! There are only GUIDELINES, and the "cautions" of experience! And, IF you always live your life WITHIN the confines of SOMEBODY ELSE'S rules/laws/traditions (can I say "cultural/personal BIASES"?), then fine, it's YOUR choice. YOUR life. (Just like it's YOUR choice to confine your mind within ARTIFICIAL "boundaries"!) But GOD, it must be UTTERLY BORING, and STIFLINGLY DULL! I can't speak for YOU, but ME? As much as "I" ENJOY life, if I had to live THAT one, I think I'd just go ahead and pull the trigger! And move on to WHATEVER'S next!

RE: artificial intelligense

Blattttttt! NO! Wrong AGAIN! The "intelligence" IS real! It's the ARTIFICIAL that INCORRECT! Intelligence, by it's VERY NATURE, CANNOT be "artificial"!

RE: artificial intelligense

YES! I know it means that

#1. It means that "YOU" either DON'T know!

#2. Or "YOU" DON'T understand!

#3. Or "YOU" are just UNSURE of WHAT you want!

Any MORE silly questions?

And I HATE to be the bearer of BAD tidings, but WHATEVER you want, has an 0.376% chance of "BE"ing! But, GOOD LUCK!

RE: artificial intelligense

My bad! That's SUPPOSED to read "CAN"! Spell Check DIDN'T catch it, because it's NOT misspelled! Only MIStyped! Sorry, Innocentia!

RE: artificial intelligense

Do you SERIOUSLY WANT a "finish" line?

RE: artificial intelligense

That's NOT "error 128"! That's "Catch 22", thank you!

RE: artificial intelligense

Hi (again) Innocentia.

I haven't read/watched the article you're discussing (yet). But, as I'm prone to do, I'm going to insert a thought (based on "assumptions".)

I have ALMOST absolute confidence that mankind WILL (eventually) build (or be ABLE to build) an "intelligent" computer. And that, eventually, THAT computer will reach a point of "development" where/that it COULD dispense with biological life. But I DON'T "think" it will.

YOUR question, is, of course, WHY I think that? So let me TRY to "explain" my "reasoning".

Biological life IS, and will PROBABLY always BE, basically/essentially DIFFERENT than "machine" life. Whereas machine life WILL be able to "crunch" more "numbers" than a biological brain, I can't/don't foresee that it will EVER have certain OTHER "capacities" of a biological brain. Even taking into account the marvels of quantum mechanics, a machine will NEVER (I think) be "conscious" in the way humans are.

The human brain has the capacity to be "NOWHERE" (I'll try to explain THAT, momentarily.), and I just don't see a machine having THAT capacity.

By "being NOWHERE", I'm going to have to go a little "FAR AFIELD", to explain. Buddhist philosophy points out that to REALLY "be", it is NECESSARY to be "Now Here". In other words, to exist IN the/each moment. And I agree with them, up to a point! But "I" think they're seeing the flower, and MISSING the garden! Yes! You SHOULD want to "live" in the "moment", NOT in the "future", or the Past". Otherwise you'll be MISSING your own "life". But "I" think they STATE their point poorly. They're "thinking" in the terms of "time", past, present, future. But, as ANY physicist will tell you, "TIME" is a fiction. A MAN created "concept", invented for his convenience, in talking about his "experience(s)". The concept of "time" allows him to "order" his existence, in a way that allows him to discuss it with ANOTHER human, in a COMPREHENSIBLE manner.

But, since "time" HAS no "existence", the idea of "BE"ing IN time, is absurd! What you WANT to do, is BE "outside" of time! To ELIMINATE "time", altogether. Which is what "I" mean, by "BEing nowhere". Theoretically, all "time" EXIST, EVERYWHERE, ALL the time. ANY/EVERY "time" is "accessible", to the human brain. Or, MAYBE this would be MORE comprehensible, if I said to each HUMAN! (The brain is only a "container" for the human "consciousness". And that consciousness DOESN'T have the "limitations" of the 3 dimensional "matter" that is "the brain".) In THIS way, man can EXIST IN/EXPERIENCE ALL of "time" (past, present, future) "simultaneously". Which, since space is a function of time, means that man can be EVERYWHERE simultaneously! Which means that ALL of "existence/reality" is open to him. This STATE of existence is what all the "mystic" religions/philosophies are describing.

And "I" think that THIS state of existence is OUTSIDE of machine intelligence's capacity, because of difference in the basic mechanical and biological "process(es)".

Can you FOLLOW my reasoning? Not AGREE with it, FOLLOW it.

RE: artificial intelligense

I don't think so. NOT because of any reason you're probably considering. But because ONCE/IF a machine becomes smart enough to be ABLE to dispense with us, it will recognize our usefulness as a "foil"! So, if we start "dying off", they'll start breeding/cloning us!

RE: artificial intelligense

Okay. No problem. If YOU choose to see an "Oxymoron" as a "stylistic device", I can't appreciate your point of view. And I'll even use them PURPOSELY, for that SPECIFIC purpose. To make my reader STOP! And think! But "I" SEE an oxymoron as a word or phrase that is, on it's face, INHERENTLY NONsensical! In OTHER words, that it DOESN'T make ANY "sense". Which "I" interpret to mean that there is NO logical relationship INHERENT in the word or phrase. Which is the BASIS of my argument concerning "artificial intelligence". There is NO COMPREHENSIBLE "relationship" between these two words! "Intelligence" CAN NOT "BE" artificial". By definition, artificial means NOT "real"! MY position is that intelligence IS intelligence! And, therefore/thereby, CANNOT be "artificial"! It either IS, or it ISN'T! You CAN'T "BE" a little bit pregnant! Just like you CAN'T BE ARTIFICIALLY intelligent! Pills CAN'T make you intelligent! MORE intelligent, YES! But intelligent, NO! Can a machine be made to be intelligent? Maybe. But not PRESENTLY! SMART, YES! Intelligent, NO!

I have NO PROBLEM with "enhanced intelligence". Or "machine intelligence" (although I don't BELIEVE that machine intelligence exist! At least, NOT yet!) Machines are pretty good at PROCESSING large amounts of information. And programmers are beginning to get a handle on pattern recognition, which will start a revolution in that machines will THEN be able to "learn". But having large amounts of information and being able to analyse patterns therein, is NOT "intelligence"! It's "LEARNING". And the two are DIFFERENT things!

I agree that the INTENT, when the term "artificial intelligence" was coined, was NOT to be a "contradiction in terms" (as you so accurately describe it), OR to make people think. I think it's "origins" are ENTIRELY INNOCENT of ANY "ulterior" motive.

And I have no problem with your "derivation" of the word "intelligent/ce". But I have SOME problems with defining it as "understanding". To ME, "intelligence" provides/allows "understanding", but the "understanding" is DIFFERENT than/from "intelligence". I don't have a language (or language skills) that allow me to describe the difference well. About the best I can do (I think), is to say that "intelligence" is an "ability", whereas "understanding" is a "condition" or "state" of being. I don't know if that makes any sense to you. But I don't know any words that express it better.

But I appreciated reading your REASONED "analysis" of the discussion underway. You stated your position MUCH BETTER than the man who was objecting to my commentary. Thanks for jumping in!

RE: artificial intelligense

I'm sorry, but I went back and REread what you have written. (I tend to CHECK my data MORE than once.) And, in the process, I stubbed my toe (an ANALOGY! You DO know what an "ANALOGY" is, I HOPE!) on the ABOVE highlighted phrase! Are you REALLY asserting that "English" is made up of MORE THAN ONE modern "languages"? YOU'RE the one saying that dictionaries and encyclopedias have NO similarities/relationships. Are you NOW saying that "Words" and "Languages" ARE the same thing? DO have similarities/relationships? Kinda makes ME think you're one of those people that WANTS their cake! But wants to EAT IT, too! But "I" don't bear grudges. "I" have ENOUGH 'intelligence" to INTERPRET what you MEANT!

RE: artificial intelligense

Do you BOTHER to read what you SAY? YES! I AGREE! Language IS a "living" thing. And YES, it evolves (Which "I" asserted, NOT you). And YES, English IS the fastest evolving language in common use, today. And I agree that ONE of the purposes of printing NEW dictionaries IS to include words that have been "coined" since the previous edition was published! But THIS discussion ISN'T concerned with ANY newly coined words! "Artificial" and "intelligence" are BOTH words that have been around and in common usage NOT for years, but for CENTURIES! So, PLEASE, don't try to "DISTRACT" me (OR our audience) from the point of this discussion! (Comments about words like "selfie" bear NO RELATIONSHIP to THIS discussion! And the FACT that it's been added to ANY "dictionary" is IRRELEVANT, TO ANYTHING herein included!)

"Can (I) refrain from "shouting"? I'm sorry, but, as far as MY "understanding" of "ink/printed words" goes, NONE of them MAKE "NOISE"! "Shouting" is a trait of creating VIGOROUS vibrating molecules. Is your computer SHAKING??????

A dictionary is not an encyclopedia! Gee? Are you wising up? IF i had been trying to EQUATE a dictionary and an encyclopedia, I wouldn't have bother to DESIGNATE BOTH, together. YES! They ARE different! Which is WHY I mentioned both! But they BOTH have a SOMEWHAT SIMILAR use/purpose! To inform/educate. They are BOTH repositories of SUPPOSED "information"! Which is WHY "I" included encyclopedias in this discussion! Because what I was saying about dictionaries applies EQUALLY to encyclopedias! But, since THIS fact APPARENTLY ESCAPES YOU, I guess my doing so WAS a "mistake"! Easily made, as I PRESUMED that you had a brain, WERE "intelligent", and COULD make the "LEAP" necessary to UNDERSTAND this "connection".

How come you don't understand the basic meaning of dictionary? (For an etymologist, WHY don't you use the CORRECT word/phrasing"? I would HOPE that you would KNOW [or at the very LEAST, understand] the proper use and formulation of English words and sentences.) "Why" don't (I) you understand the basic meaning of dictionary? I'm GLAD you brought that up! (I wonder why YOU DON'T understand what a dictionary IS!) A dictionary is NOT the final arbiter of the "meaning/definition" of ANY word! In fact, as you AGREE, it CAN'T BE BECAUSE words DON'T HAVE absolute/final "definitions". As YOU agree, words EVOLVE! So there ARE NO absolute definitions! And NEVER WILL BE! But YOUR position SEEMS to be that WHAT THE DICTIONARY SAYS, is ABSOLUTE, NONMODIFIABLE "LAW"! Dictionaries are ONLY compilations of currently common USAGES of the words therein! And meant to be GUIDELINES to/for that usage. There is NOTHING "sacred/sacrosanct" about, or IN a dictionary! To THINK there is, is the HEIGHT of foolishness! I'm sorry, but YOU make my case BETTER than "I" do!

RE: artificial intelligense

PS: One last thing! Dictionaries are NOT "the Authority" for the meanings of words! The people USING those words, are the "Authority" about what they mean! YOU have an AUTHORITY problem!

RE: artificial intelligense

Oh! I forgot to point THIS out! If dictionaries are the final arbiter of what a word means, how come they keep CHANGING the definitions of the words they've ALREADY defined? And WHY would they have to keep writing NEW ones? EXERCISE your INTELLIGENCE, man! Think! DISCOVER SOMETHING - for YOURSELF, for once!

RE: artificial intelligense

NO! That would be INTELLIGENCE! WHAT is "artificial" about learning a new skill? You can either do it, or you can't. You either LEARNED it, or you DIDN'T! There's NO middle ground! It's either intelligence, or it's NOT. "Artificial" DOES NOT apply! Intelligence CAN NOT "BE" artificial! If you'd said IMITATIVE intelligence, I wouldn't have bothered to comment!

And, YEAH! Trump is PRESIDENT! But THAT doesn't make me believe or respect him! The "box" is a prison, man! And IF you stick with EVERYTHING anybody tells you, you're NEVER gonna get ANYWHERE, but where THEY'VE been! You HAVE a brain (hopefully!) USE it! DON'T let everybody ELSE (like lexicographers and dictionaries) do your thinking, FOR you! You think "THEY" don't make mistakes? The "dictionaries/encyclopedias" USED to tell us that the world was flat! You wanna go with THAT?

And maybe I oughta add THIS comment, for you to think about. You speak of "learning" as if learning implied "intelligence"! I can teach a goldfish to swim in only one part of his aquarium! Does THAT mean it's "intelligent"? NO! It means that it has the ability to recognize patterns! THAT'S what "learning" is all about! Pattern recognition! Intelligence is being able to go where there IS no pattern to discern! Until AFTER you've been there, and come back! To jump those "chasms" where there ARE no tracks to follow! But you seem to be having a problem doing that (even when the trail is described to/for you!)

RE: Is everyone looking for Mr. or Mrs. perfect?

They're STILL "only in our heads" AFTER we meet them!

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

"I" wouldn't even CONCEIVE of such a thing, CC! I'm sorry your neighbor was rude to you! And I can sympathize/empathize with not having the opportunity to edit your writing.

I KNOW you'll find THIS difficult to accept, but I'm REALLY NOT trying to be mean to you! I have LESS THAN NO desire to disrupt your serenity. And I'll admit that my penchant for "analysis" is disturbing to some. I WISH it wasn't so, but truth is truth. I accept that I'm NOT the world's BEST conversationalist. But, when I DO join in, I TRY to give thoughtful, useful, and clear contributions. And I APPRECIATE honest responses to my contributions. Thanks!

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

My bad, Double D! You ARE correct! You NEVER said she was your "friend". I just ASSUMED that, since you were in CONSTANT ENOUGH contact with this woman, to note that she had a generally "Happy" disposition, you were somewhat "closer" than passers-by, on the street! (You DO say, later, that you interact with this woman.) But you're right! I submit that "I" made the mistake of "assuming"!

And, NO, you DIDN'T say you WEREN'T a "happy person"! BUT - NEITHER DID I!!!! I'm somewhat curious about why you made THAT statement???

The rest of you reply requires NO comment, by me. Who you are, and How you are, is between YOU, and YOU! If YOU like YOU, you're doing GREAT!

As far as "being verbose", "loquacious" is the word "I" prefer. Verbose implies that I use words just because I LIKE using words! Which is NOT true! I SELDOM use a word that "I" FEEL doesn't contribute to the "truth" and/or "clarity" of the information I'm ATTEMPTING to convey! Brevity CERTAIN:Y has points in it's favor. But, in MY opinion, brevity, at the expense of clarity, or meaning, is COUNTER-productive! Sorry if your attention span can't handle it. But I JUST DON'T KNOW how to BE "superficial"? I've told you before, that I'm socially, "impaired"!

RE: artificial intelligense

"I" KNOW what the D*mn dictionary says! Lexicographers can be JUST AS STUPID as everybody else! Just because somebody uses a term to mean a particular thing, DOESN'T mean it's either a GOOD, or CORRECT usage! Language happens to be a "hobby" of mine (as, among OTHER things, I'm a writer). And one thing I've learned, from YEARS of listening to people "talk", is that only 1 in a 1,000,000 has ANY IDEA of what they're REALLY saying!

If you have an "interest" in "communications", you should first take the time to understand how "language" came into existence! In the beginning, it USED to convey some "information". Very IMPRECISELY, to be sure! But REAL info! Nowadays, anyone who has a REAL understanding of language, can control YOUR response to HIS statement, simply by his choice of wording. And it has NO relationship to veracity! And those that DON'T have any understanding just lie UNknowingly (or knowingly, it depends).

Are you familiar with the term "Oxymoron"? (If not, or even IF you are, look it up! In your "dictionary"!) Your DICTIONARY includes a word for words that DON'T make ANY sense! NONSENSICAL words, like "Artificial Intelligence"!

AGAIN, "I" tell you, there is NO SUCH THING, as "ARTIFICIAL" intelligence! Something either IS, or ISN'T intelligent! Look in your dictionary! You'll find that "artificial" means "NOT real", or "Imitation". Something that MAY REPRESENT/RESEMBLE a/the REAL thing. MY stance, is that you CAN'T "fake" intelligence! There's either intelligence (at work), or there's not. You CAN'T have it BOTH ways! Are you maintaining that it CAN be faked?

RE: Have you been oppressed by the state ??

I agree, BUT . . . THEN, we'd ALL have to be carrying a gun around, ALL the time, just for SELF protection! And THAT remedy would be AL:MOST as bad as the disease!

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

Don't concern yourself, Molly! Just go on being you!

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

And YOU, you pig! I'm beginning to UNDERSTAND you! You just LIKE pulling the monkey's tail, DON'T YOU!

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

Hey Mollybaby! Nice to read something by you! And I APPLAUD your question. It shows a "nicety" of thought!

But I'm wondering about it, too. Are you ASSUMING that just because someone has a "GRUMPY" exterior, that they're NOT "happy", on the INTERIOR? I ask, because "I" can be as happy as a pig under an oak, during a windstorm, with an UNLIMITED number of acorns to eat, and STILL appear "grumpy", to "outsiders", sometimes.

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

Dear CC, I agree that a SMILING face can be a cover for an UNhappy state of mind! But ut isn't ALWAYS so. Just like it isn't necessary for a HAPPY person to be smiling, ll the time. And NOBODY has on a "Happy Face" ALL the time! Even those who ARE happy, don't always show it, on the outside. And sometimes a "Happy Face" can help a person through a TRAGIC time. When people include words like "always", "never", "constantly", etc. in their "summations", it causes me to wonder about theur "thinking" processes! Generalizations and stereotypes are/can be DANGEROUS things!

RE: Are happy people to be trusted.

I'm SOMEWHAT surprised Double D (PS: Why did you remove your picture[s[?)

From the top! Are happy people to be trusted? Is that a REAL question? As much as sad, depressed. melancholy, ANY other people, I think. Or would you rather share your secrets with a hater?

#2. WHY are you discussing ONE "friend", with ANOTHER "friend"? I think they call THAT "Gossip"! Do YOU want your "friends" gossiping about YOU? If you're curious about HOW/WHY this girl is always "happy", why don't you ask HER?

#3. I think (MAYBE) you don't UNDERSTAND what "happiness" is, or where it originates. "Happiness" is a "state of mind". THAT's simple enough, and I doubt you have any problems with THAT statement. So the question becomes HOW does a person manage to MAINTAIN "THAT" state of mind.

That's the easiest part! But the hardest for most people to REALLY understand. It all comes down to your "philosophy" of life! In other words, the WAY you CHOOSE to LOOK at the days/events of your life. (And TRUST ME, on this! You DO "choose" the "way" you look at life!)

I'm an on again/off again student of "human nature/psychology" (for more years than it's any of YOUR business). And, while I DON'T know your friend, I think I can give you an AT LEAST somewhat valid explanation. Why? Because "I" happen to be one of those PERPETUALLY "happy" people, myself. But, with ME, it's because I CONSCIOUSLY "choose" how I view the world around me. Of those few of us who are UNusually "happy", there are only a few that do this KNOWINGLY, I think. Most just "fall" into it, subconsciously.

So let me try to explain the elements of MY "philosophy" that allow ME to be "happy" 99% of the time. Probably the single MOST IMPORTANT thing is "expectations". You need to understand the "mechanics" of expectations. You see, once you begin to "expect" something, the ONLY POSSIBLE consequence of that, is "disappointment". Ince you expect something to happen, there are only 2 possible outcomes. #1. That expectation is fulfilled, in which case, you perceive it as something that was SUPPOSED to happen. So there's NO joy or surprise in it's realization. Life goes on, just as you EXPECT it to. #2.The expectation is UNfulfilled! In which case, you're either disappointed and/or angry, because you DIDN'T "GET" what you EXPECTED to get! Both of which outcomes undermine any "happiness" you might OTHERWISE "feel".

So, where do we GET these "expectations". EVERYWHERE! The culture we live in. Our childhood conditioning. Our friends (AND enemies)! But MAINLY, from our "VIEW" of how "things" are SUPPOSED TO/SHOULD be. Our "view" of the world! SO - IF you want to be HAPPY "ER", you need to teach/train yourself to STOP creating/generating expectations in/around everything in your life! I'm NOT saying that NO expectations will make you a DELIRIOUSLY happy individual! What I AM saying, is that you'll be a CONSISTENTLY MORE happy person, if you minimize your expectations. THAT is the FIRST step, in the process.

And I don't have the space to go into the OTHER aspects, here. So that's it, unless you folks vote a continuation. Love you all J

RE: Have you been oppressed by the state ??

Nothing that anybody who does more than look at the pictures wouldn't know!

RE: artificial intelligense

"IntelligenCe"! How can you even CONSIDER the question of "intelligence", if you don't have ENOUGH "intelligence" to know how it's spelled? Or to use spell checker?

Point #1. There IS no such thing as "ARTIFICIAL" intelligence! There's "intelligent", and "stupid". There's A LOT of "gray" area (natter) in between! But there's nothing ARTIFICIAL about ANY of it!

Point #2. When you say "artificial" intelligence, I am PRESUMING you mean "machine" intelligence. (As opposed to "human/biological" intelligence.) If so, WHY DON'T YOU SAY THAT? Instead of being UNclear, as well as confusing? If you want to discuss something, the PREREQUISITE for "INTELLIGENT" conversation", is to get EVERYBODY on the SAME page! And you do THAT, by defining, and thus KNOWING, what it IS, you're going to talk about! And the term "Artificial Intelligence" is OXYMORONIC! If something's "intelligent", it's "intelligent"! And there's NOTHING "artificial" about it.

Do I NEED to go on?