Deep Sight:

No doubt you will very soon contend that robots may be built which will be capable of emotions such as fear, love, hatred, anger and jealousy.

Do you agree that all the above emotions are induced by electro-chemical reactions in the brain, and thus can be artificially induced and manipulated at will?

If you no, then you are too ignorant and ill-informed for this discussion.

If yes, then why do you think such emotions cannot be electrically induced also?

Dumb, dumber and dumbfounded?
Consider that as your new moniker.

Deep Sight:

Nonsense. Ad hominems can be your only refuge in this matter.

You don't even have the slightest appreciation of what consciousness is, much less self consciousness.

No doubt you will very soon contend that robots may be built which will be capable of emotions such as fear, love, hatred, anger and jealousy.

And worse, in doing so you will hopelessly conflate the simulation of actions portraying these emotions with the actual phenomenon of experiencing those emotions.

Just as hopelessly s.illy as one who makes the elementary mistake of thinking that a programmed Video Camera has sight, or sees anything.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

WANTED: Intelligent arguments from Deepsight!

Seriously, seriously ,and jokes apart.

I am in shock and awe.

You have contributed nothing intelligent to this thread but scoff, scoff and scoff.

I am tired.

Although Okexyz might be coming from far left field, but at least he is making a sincere effort, for which I commend and respect him.
Have you become so lazy that you cannot even mount a credible rebuttal?

You have fallen below the "silly " threshold.

Until you step up your game from this motor park mental zone, I am going to ignore you, albeit, with a sad and dejected face.

Deep Sight:

Let me even indulge you for a second.

Answer me this simple question.

Do you suppose a machine may sommeday instinctively ponder the question "what am I?"

We are machines.


$hitstorm imminent

Deep Sight:

And in anwsering this question, please do make the elementary distinction between pre programmed simulated effects and actual self thought.

I might give you an example.

Computers play chess. Do the computers engage in thought, in so doing. Question.

Apparently, just as expected from mentally lazy dogmatics , you tactfully avoided watching the video on the link I provided earlier.
I am guessing because you are mortally afraid that it may shatter your cozy world view, or should I call it, your boxview.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-robots-become-human.htm#mkcpgn=snag1

Well, according to what is asserted in this video, a robot, rather than being programmed with data, has been designed to learn and adapt in the same way that infants learn and adapt.

Now, after watching this video, if you still scoff unintelligently, then I would have to reclassify you and treat you accordingly.

plaetton:

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-robots-become-human.htm#mkcpgn=snag1

Well, according to what is asserted in this video, a robot, rather than being programmed with data, has been designed to learn and adapt in the same way that infants learn and adapt.

Now, after watching this video, if you still scoff unintelligently, then I would have to reclassify you and treat you accordingly.

Did you just red what you posted up ^ there at all ?

Not 'programmed with data',

Then 'designed' with what ? Smh.

There is nothing one will not hear on NL. Smh again for such information.

plaetton:

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-robots-become-human.htm#mkcpgn=snag1

Well, according to what is asserted in this video, a robot, rather than being programmed with data, has been designed to learn and adapt in the same way that infants learn and adapt.

Mehn!! I laugh at the simple gimmicks and tricks used to entrap people of simple(non-technical) understanding

This robot has simply been programmed to carry out a set of technical procedures and tests on objects around itself, then make evaluations based on internally programmed calibrations(am I losing you already? ). Like I said before, this is a simulation of child like behaviours, not the demonstration of the actual behaviours and learnings processes themselves. Because you are non-technical, you are unable to discern the absence of the most basic entity of life/consciousness which is self!! Even as a non-science analyst, how do you miss this entity called self that philosophy teaches?? Because everything a baby learns is in relation to itself, that's why a baby wants to eat everything it sees, because eating is about the only pleasure and values it understands at the moment. So it keeps trying to eat everything until it understands that some are palatable and the rest are not or are even harmful to itself. Again, self-awareness and self preservation in play.

A baby is always constantly self aware and every learning it acquires is first in relation to itself, whether such experience is good for itself or bad for itself. It sees it's mother as a provider and protector so it would naturally cry when it perceives that it's mom has abandoned it, it perceives a threat when in the company of non familiar members. A baby believes that it can fly until it gets hurt in it's first attempt at flight. Do you see how it's efforts, experiences and understandings all revolve around it's own selfishness? So how does this robot acquire these attributes then?

These guys claiming that the robot learns like a baby is just a trick language they use to capture the imaginations and fascinations of the untrained(which clearly you are ). You cannot learn like a baby if you cannot have the simple self-awareness and selfish interests and almost absolute gullibility of a baby.

I believe I deserve a round of applause

All the chips (diodes, transistors, thyristors, ICs) are functioning based on what ?

The IC is not programmed with datas ? Na wao!

Plaeton! plaeton!! Plaeton!!! Plaeton!!!!!!

Hmmmmmm!

Please lets discontinue with this discussion. Thank you.

loveroftruth:

Did you just red what you posted up ^ there at all ?

Not 'programmed with data',

Then 'designed' with what ? Smh.

There is nothing one will not hear on NL. Smh again for such information.

I perfectly understand what I wrote.
Do you?

Did you watch the video?
If you did, you would have understood what I meant, instead of the recourse to cheap shots.

Sorry, but I cannot force-feed intelligence and common sense into people's head on this forum.

okeyxyz:

Mehn!! I laugh at the simple gimmicks and tricks used to entrap people of simple(non-technical) understanding

This robot has simply been programmed to carry out a set of technical procedures and tests on objects around itself, then make evaluations based on internally programmed calibrations(am I losing you already? ). Like I said before, this is a simulation of child like behaviours, not the demonstration of the actual behaviours and learnings processes themselves. Because you are non-technical, you miss the most basic entity of life/consciousness which is self!! Even as a non-science analyst, how do you miss the most basic entity called self that philosophy teaches?? Because everything a baby learns is in relation to itself, that's why a baby wants eat everything it sees, because eating is about the only pleasure and values it understands at the moment. So it keeps trying to eat everything until it understands that some are palatable and the rest are not or are even harmful to itself. Again, self-awareness and self preservation in play.

A baby is always constantly self aware and every learning it acquires is first in relation to itself, whether such experience is good for itself or bad for itself. It sees it's mother as a provider and protector so it would naturally cry when it perceives that it's mom has abandoned it, it perceives a threat when in the company of non familiar members. A baby believes that it can fly until it gets hurt in it's first attempt at flight. Do you see how it's efforts, experiences and understandings all revolve around it's own selfishness? So how does this robot acquire these attributes then?

These guys claiming that the robot learns like a baby is just a trick language they use to capture the imaginations and fascinations of the untrained(which clearly you are ). You cannot learn like a baby if you cannot have the simple self-awareness and selfish interests and almost absolute gullibility of a baby.

I believe I deserve a round of applause

I think I lost you once you mentioned that the people in video are out to trick you with trick words.

So if you don't like what they are saying, then they must be telling lies.
You now know more than they do on this subject, right?
Typical example of irrational hostility towards scientific thinking.
Na wa.
I tire o.
I sincerely apologize for engaging you in this discussion.

loveroftruth: All the chips (diodes, transistors, thyristors, ICs) are functioning based on what ?

The IC is not programmed with datas ? Na wao!

Plaeton! plaeton!! Plaeton!!! Plaeton!!!!!!

Hmmmmmm! I wish it was someone else o.

Please lets discontinue with this discussion. Thank you.

Have you been following this thread at all, or just compelled to jump in because it is Sunday?
lol.

Deep Sight:

Let me even indulge you for a second.

Answer me this simple question.

Do you suppose a machine may sommeday instinctively ponder the question "what am I?"

The truth is that I do not know what to believe.
We have barely begone to scratch the surface of quantum computing and it has been argued that the brain is just one giant quantum computer. So quantum physics seems to hold a lot of possibilities.
Personally, I am inclined to think that only God can create consciousness hence no machine can have it. But then I remember that not so long ago, some people also believed it was impossible for a hunk of metal to fly in the sky.

PhenomenonVFX:

The truth is that I do not know what to believe.
We have barely begone to scratch the surface of quantum computing and it has been argued that the brain is just one giant quantum computer. So quantum physics seems to hold a lot of possibilities.
Personally, I am inclined to think that only God can create consciousness hence no machine can have it. But then I remember that not so long ago, some people also believed it was impossible for a hunk of metal to fly in the sky.

Thank you so much.
Common sense is so simple.
Bs is very complicated.
Or is it the other way around.
lol

PhenomenonVFX:

The truth is that I do not know what to believe.
We have barely begone to scratch the surface of quantum computing and it has been argued that the brain is just one giant quantum computer. So quantum physics seems to hold a lot of possibilities.
Personally, I am inclined to think that only God can create consciousness hence no machine can have it. But then I remember that not so long ago, some people also believed it was impossible for a hunk of metal to fly in the sky.

Many of these guys have never even heard of quantum computing, let alone understand what it means and how it will change computing power and our present reality.

The point is that these guys don't know anything, zero, about what they are passionately arguing against.
That is what really beats me.

plaetton:

I perfectly understand what I wrote.
Do you?

Did you watch the video?
If you did, you would have understood what I meant, instead of the recourse to cheap shots.

Sorry, but I cannot force-feed intelligence and common sense into people's head on this forum.

Guy, you get big mouth, you just yab big time!

Stop rolling in the mud any further. Take my advise mate.

plaetton:

I think I lost you once you mentioned that the people in video are out to trick you with trick words.

So if you don't like what they are saying, then they must be telling lies.
You now know more than they do on this subject, right?
Typical example of irrational hostility towards scientific thinking.
Na wa.
I tire o.
I sincerely apologize for engaging you in this discussion.

So in your understanding, a baby is nothing but a robot such as the one demonstrated n the video abi chei!!! bros, you need to track back your thoughts and beliefs before you fall-off the cliff.

And i say again; the language they use in the documentary is a trick language, aka public relations and salesmanship. They have to cajole the simple minded public about the wonders and excellence of their inventions so as to keep the funding pool from drying up. If this claims are actually breakthroughs in the achievement of artificial consciousness, perhaps you can point us to the research documentations and peer reviews that validate them.

Deep Sight:

And in anwsering this question, please do make the elementary distinction between pre programmed simulated effects and actual self thought.

I might give you an example.

Computers play chess. Do the computers engage in thought, in so doing. Question.

okay I didnt see this before my first reply to u.
Let me break things down further.
There is something called Run-time game playing or so. I cant remember exactly now. This is when a computer actually learns the rules for interaction with opponents after the game has started. Now it is about a computer learning whatsoever rule a game is working with by using techniques far beyond statistical AI.
Now back to preprogrammed computers. The day a preprogrammed computer begins to function beyond the limits of its programming and probably possess an ability to reprogram itself, that will be the day.
Now I consider the above in the realm of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is bizzare and almost "spiritual" to some people. In that realm of physics, it is said that even the human mind can affect the outcome. It provides us with even a higher probability of computers running beyond the limits of their programming.
Lets look at evolution for instance. It can be argued that evolution is just another way whereby living organisms run beyond the limits of their "program" in order to survive. They improvise new genetic codes and adaptation for continuity.
Imagine the future where we have computers running on giga or tera-qubits of processing power. Also using stochastic and non-deterministic execution techniques unlike the computers of nowadays. Would it be possible for them to run beyond the limits of their programming which has quantum possibilities, reprogram themselves and suddenly be possible for the machines to come alive and say "corgito, ergo sum!!!"? Well I dont know. But some scientists seem to think so. They even believe it will be possible to transfer human consciousness into machines.

U really should try reading Xenocide. It gives a mind-boggling treatise about how consciousness can be formed in an artificial network connection.

okeyxyz:

So in your understanding, a baby is nothing but a robot such as the one demonstrated n the video abi chei!!! bros, you need to track back your thoughts and beliefs before you fall-off the cliff.

And i say again; the language they use in the documentary is a trick language, aka public relations and salesmanship. They have to cajole the simple minded public about the wonders and excellence of their inventions so as to keep the funding pool from drying up. If this claims are actually breakthroughs in the achievement of artificial consciousness, perhaps you can point us to the research documentations and peer reviews that validate them.

If that is all you got from the video, well, it is not my fault.
I can only say, sorry.

plaetton:

Have you been following this thread at all, or just compelled to jump in because it is Sunday?
lol.

See your big lie lie mouth! Close am jari !

You no know anything about science you come dey open your mouth dey disgrace yourself for for public forum.

If you open your mouth again, fly go enter.

Simple blank IC that people dey use computer programmed to give them output the way dem want with an active image memory that is used to run a robot is what you dont even know, you still dey talk, even the information that the robot is taking in (learning) is data itself and you say 'without data' ? Taaaaaaa you.

Do you even know what is data sef

Data is imformation, but unprocessed information or still raw.

However, be it processed or unprocessed > data.

That the computer can take in the information in is based on it operating instruction = data still.

If i curse your ignorance now people go say i get bad mouth. Smh.

Because you want denie God you dey rob poo all over your self ?. Nonsense !

PhenomenonVFX:

okay I didnt see this before my first reply to u.
Let me break things down further.
There is something called Run-time game playing or so. I cant remember exactly now. This is when a computer actually learns the rules for interaction with opponents after the game has started. Now it is about a computer learning whatsoever rule a game is working with by using techniques far beyond statistical AI.
Now back to preprogrammed computers. The day a preprogrammed computer begins to function beyond the limits of its programming and probably possess an ability to preprogram itself, that will be the day.
Now I consider the above in the realm of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is bizzare and almost "spiritual" to some people. In that realm of physics, it is said that even the human mind can affect the outcome. It is provides us with even a higher probability of computers running beyond the limits of their programming.
Lets look at evolution for instance. It can be argued that evolution is just another way whereby living organisms run beyond the limits of their "program" in order to survive. The improvise new genetic codes and adaptation for continuity.
Imagine the future where we have computers running on giga or tera-qubits of processing power. Would it be possible for them to run beyond the limits of their programming which has quantum possibilities and suddenly be possible for the machines to come alive and suddenly say "corgito, ergo sum!!!"? Well I dont know. But some scientists seem to think so. They even believe it will be possible to transfer human consciousness into machines.

Thanks again.
After engaging with these guys for a while, I begin to question my own sanity.
With your posts so far,Ii am convinced that I am indeed the sane one talking to a bunch of deaf and dumb.

PhenomenonVFX:


Now I consider the above in the realm of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is bizzare and almost "spiritual" to some people. In that realm of physics, it is said that even the human mind can affect the outcome. It is provides us with even a higher probability of computers running beyond the limits of their programming.

I have stated it before on this forum that in Quantum Physics, the line between science and spirituality becomes increasingly blurred.
Phenomena was once termed spiritual may now be explained in purely Quantum mechanical terminology.

Even in the human brain, thoughts and consciousness, are now being looked as arising from quantum mechanical processes in the brain.
So if computers begin to Quantum compute, then viola, conscious computers may now be conceptually probable.

That is is just extrapolation from simple common sense.

Personally, the day I will stop believing in the possibility of "conscious" computers is the day we build computers that perfectly replicate the human brain and then nothing comes of it and the computers just remain good old electronic chips.
But even if we manage to create "conscious" computers inadvertently or otherwise, it still wont still stop me from believing in God though.

PhenomenonVFX: Personally, the day I will stop believing in the possibility of "conscious" computers is the day we build computers that perfectly replicate the human brain and then nothing comes of it and the computers just remain good old electronic chips.
But even if we manage to create "conscious" computers inadvertently or otherwise, it still wont still stop me from believing in God though.

What's your concept of GOD? The beginning and continuing? The creator? A guide?

aManFromMars:

What's your concept of GOD? The beginning and continuing? The creator? A guide?

Nonsense!

What has that to do with the thread ?

Dont you have anthing upstair to contribute than to attact the word 'God' ?

Is that where your intelligence starts and ends ?

Contribute something to this thread so that we can use that as a basis to start to know if you have dept to comprehend the reality of God and not another shallow brain that cant comprehend what God is.

Dont be another victim of shallow infinite regress casualty that has come out to make noise o!

aManFromMars:

What's your concept of GOD? The beginning and continuing? The creator? A guide?

Interesting question.
Personally I do not really know what God is. But I am sure it is not the bull crap fed to me in sunday school.
I like to see God as the Source. That inexplicable point from which all life and beauty flows. Personally for me, we humans could just be different parts of God expressing itself in limitless ways. I just like to believe that something started this whole thing we call the physical world and that thing is what I call God. I just like to think all this cant be meaningless nothingness no matter how I rationalise it.
Not that I can prove it though.

PhenomenonVFX:

Interesting question.
Personally I do not really know what God is. But I am sure it is not the bull crap fed to me in sunday school.
I like to see God as the Source. That inexplicable point from which all life and beauty flows. Personally for me, we humans could just be different parts of God expressing itself in limitless ways. I just like to believe that something started this whole thing we call the physical world and that thing is what I call God. I just like to think all this cant be meaningless nothingness no matter how I rationalise it.
Not that I can prove it though.

^^^
An active properly functional brain with dept, seeing all and able to comprehend reality has nothing to do with the ignorance of "no God/mind needed".

PhenomenonVFX:

Interesting question.
Personally I do not really know what God is. But I am sure it is not the bull crap fed to me in sunday school.
I like to see God as the Source. That inexplicable point from which all life and beauty flows. Personally for me, we humans could just be different parts of God expressing itself in limitless ways. I just like to believe that something started this whole thing we call the physical world and that thing is what I call God. I just like to think all this cant be meaningless nothingness no matter how I rationalise it.
Not that I can prove it though.

Cool. I'm still dealing with the meanigless nothingness part as an atheist. All through history, is just endless cycles, new ideas, old ideas... and the more science finds out, the more questions we get, and the cycle goes on. Just endless cycles...

For some, I've come to realize that a belief in God helps. I don't blame them though. I just hope and wish our society would believe in one who rewards rationality and progressive thinking.


Kudos by the way. E be lyk say ur hand strong for the I.T field..

back to sidelines...

aManFromMars:
Cool. I'm still dealing with the meanigless nothingness part as an atheist.

PhenomenonVFX:

I just like to think all this cant be meaningless nothingness no matter how I rationalise it.

The point is that we, the evolved conscious beings , are the ones who give meaning, whatever meaning that suits us, to the workings of the universe.

Take for example,
The universe had been moving along meaninglessly for 14 billions years without us, then as soon as we arrive, as soon as our intelligence (electromagnetic impulses of our brain) reached a certain threshold, we began to contemplate and attempt to give meaning to the universe.

Now , also examine critically, how these meanings have slowly and gradually evolved from the primitive caveman, to the stone age man, tot he bronze age, to the iron age and then all through to the present era.

As we socially evolve, so does our meanings, our values, our worldviews, and our interpretation of purpose.

So, purpose and meaning are not intrinsic in the order of universe.
No.
These are arbitrary qualities that we evolved and conscious advanced primates confer on our realities.

wiegraf:

We are machines.


$hitstorm imminent

Definition of machine(wikipedia):
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

Are we machines?
Do you really think we're machines?

Okay, let's use your stance. Machines are created(bummer?)
Or do machines arise from complex and disordered nothingness?

aManFromMars:
Cool. I'm still dealing with the meanigless nothingness part as an atheist. All through history, is just endless cycles, new ideas, old ideas... and the more science finds out, the more questions we get, and the cycle goes on. Just endless cycles...

For some, I've come to realize that a belief in God helps. I don't blame them though. I just hope and wish our society would believe in one who rewards rationality and progressive thinking.


Kudos by the way. E be lyk say ur hand strong for the I.T field..

back to sidelines...

LOL. I also wish everyone would believe in a God that rewards rationality and progressiveness as well but we are stuck with what we got: A god that believes in the destruction of the earth and humanity and causing untold suffering to dissenters and perceived enemies of his followers.
Sad, isnt it?
I do believe a God that rewards progressiveness is the most plausible. Why create beings and give them ability to reason out their way and think for themselves only for u to go back and throw them in hell for thinking?
Why would a God create different kinds of plants, different kinds of animals, different humans but then say "hey, this is the one religion u must follow. Anything short of that and u will roast for eternity". A creator that obviously loves variety uncharacterisically hates variety in religion. Doesnt make sense does it?
Why would God send a lot of bearded stone age prophets to give different interpretations of who He is in some old wornout parchments and stones when He could easily code it into our consciousness before shipping us to this planet Earth? I thought His objective is to save us all.
The above and more will show u that the mordern religious movements have veered off into the irrational.


Kudos to thee also bro.

PhenomenonVFX:

LOL. I also wish everyone would believe in a God that rewards rationality and progressiveness as well but we are stuck with what we got: A god that believes in the destruction of the earth and humanity and causing untold suffering to dissenters and perceived enemies of his followers.
Sad, isnt it?
I do believe a God that rewards progressiveness is the most plausible. Why create beings and give them ability to reason out their way and think for themselves only for u to go back and throw them in hell for thinking?
Why would a God create different kinds of plants, different kinds of animals, different humans but then say "hey, this is the one religion u must follow. Anything short of that and u will roast for eternity". A creator that obviously loves variety uncharacterisically hates variety in religion. Doesnt make sense does it?
Why would God send a lot of bearded stone age prophets to give different interpretations of who He is in some old wornout parchments and stones when He could easily code it into our consciousness before shipping us to this planet Earth? I thought His objective is to save us all.
The above and more will show u that the mordern religious movements have veered off into the irrational.


Kudos to thee also bro.

Irrationality indeed.

Joshthefirst:

Definition of machine(wikipedia):
A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.

Are we machines?

Yes, except intent in our case is subtly complex.

Joshthefirst:
Do you really think we're machines?

Obviously most don't think so. I clearly do, no?

Joshthefirst:
Okay, let's use your stance. Machines are created(bummer?)
Or do machines arise from complex and disordered nothingness?

How can nothingness be disordered? That asides, both.

So much stupidity. Later.

Pain. A hint. Will a robot feel pain. Do Cameras see. Do Chess Computers think. Hints.

Well. Will be back once in front of a laptop.

What is obvious, like I earlier said, is that there is no difference between religious stupidity and atheistic stupidity.

Later.

Is a fly conscious?
Yes. It is alive.
Is a pig conscious?
Yes. It is alive.
Is an ape conscious?
Yes, it is alive. It learns.
Does learning involve thought?
Do animals think?
Or is it just instinct?
Can instinct be overridden or modified by thought?
I do not think so.

Is a dog conscious? Yes. It is alive, it learns and continually adapts to its environment.

Is a computer conscious? Is a computer program conscious and capable of thought?

Humans are conscious. They exhibit the greatest form of consciousness. The breath of life.
The breath of life is the source of thought, will, emotion. The brain is just a pathway that relates this source to the body.
Do computers learn?

Do computers think?
Let's have an example.
Language.
Speaking(organized willful speaking) involves thought does it not?

Is a computer capable of language? Are pigs or insects or even apes capable of language? No.(Do not embarass yourself by telling me the the vocal instincts of animals = language)
Animals may be the most advanced machines ever created, capable of learning and adapting.
Humans are more than machines.
Natural intelligence varies in degrees.
Non-living cannot have natural intelligence. Can they? Do we believe they can in the future?
Well I believe in God. And believing the non-living will have natural intelligence in the future is blind and unreasonable faith.

Humans have the highest form of natural intelligence. Some blame evolution for this. But intelligence cannot be evolved.
Kinds remain kinds.

But humans have more than natural intelligence. They have consciousness and supreme self awareness and rational thought and will.
Humans have spirit. Soul. This is not physical.
This cannot be inculcated into non-living things.

okeyxyz:

Proof?? Really?? I laugh in dothraki

There's no such thing as artificial consciousness. You rush too quickly and naively to declare the above. The only proof here is your lack of understanding of the world of computing and programming. What the robot in the OP does is simply captures data, identifies/determines patterns in the data and organizes such data to simulate learning(it's actually a trick in it's algorithm, rather than actual learning). Like I said before, there's no such thing as artificial or computer borne consciousness. Consciousness entails self-awareness, self-identity, self-determination(eg: ambition) and self-preservation. How can a computer be any of these. Does this program ever ask itself why it is doing what it is doing? It can't because it is not self-conscious. A conscious entity would be aware that it acts in certain ways either out of pleasure, or the will to survive or dominate in it's environment, etc, in other words self-interest. So what is the self-interest of this program? None!! It's just a robot, just processing what it's programmed to process in order to simulate learning.

Considering the fact that Consciousness is an intrinsic fact, a fact only available to the Conscious being itself; wouldn't it be beyond you to claim absolutely that there isn't artificial consciousness?!