1. Artificial What?
I just realized how to better verbalize my approach to AI... listen up all
you AI enthusiasts out there...
You cannot separate True Intelligence(tm) from sentience. And you must
develop sentience first!!! The whole AI industry is trying to develop an AI=
entity backwards by doing the intelligence first, when what we need is,
first, a sentient being.
Here's dictionary.com's definition of intelligence:
in=B7tel=B7li=B7gence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The "capacity to acquire..." You cannot acquire what you cannot perceive.
dictionary.com defines sentient thusly:
sen=B7tient adj.
1.. Having sense perception; conscious
2.. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
Intelligence REQUIRES perception... or, better, sentience (perception not
only of one's environment, but of oneself). Basically, there's no such thin=
g
as a stand-alone AI. You can't have an AI being without that entity also
being sentient. It is impossible. You will always have an expert system ONL=
Y
without sentience.
What does this further have to say about AI?
Well, developing AI in a computer is going to be interesting. When
programming this AI brain, you can't count on any of the standard senses,
except maybe vision and hearing. We can't do touch. We can't do smell.
Vision can be done via a camera, and hearing via a microphone. The computer=
can "sense" what I call a "digital data stream." Humans can't (yet).
Then there's the simulation approach... but that is WAY TOO INTENSIVE.
Simulating reality is much more difficult than actually putting the AI
entity into reality and letting it sense reality. I won't even go there for=
now. Reality is already there... why not use it? :)
The hardest thing to give is motivation. How do you motivate the entity?
You've got to give it a reason. The reason we're alive? To experience joy.
That's it. God made us so that we could enjoy a relationship with Him and
with His creation. How will you motivate a sentient entity of your own
making to be nice? to survive (if at all)?
So, develop something that can receive input, give it "instincts" (basic,
but overridable (as it learns), actions to various stimuli) and let it go..=
--
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
2. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 14, 2003
On 14 May 2003, at 16:36, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> I just realized how to better verbalize my approach to AI... listen up all
> you AI enthusiasts out there...
>
> You cannot separate True Intelligence(tm) from sentience. And you must
> develop sentience first!!! The whole AI industry is trying to develop an AI=
>
> entity backwards by doing the intelligence first, when what we need is,
> first, a sentient being.
>
> Here's dictionary.com's definition of intelligence:
>
> in=B7tel=B7li=B7gence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
> n.
> 1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
>
> The "capacity to acquire..." You cannot acquire what you cannot perceive.
>
> dictionary.com defines sentient thusly:
>
> sen=B7tient adj.
> 1.. Having sense perception; conscious
> 2.. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
>
> Intelligence REQUIRES perception... or, better, sentience (perception not
> only of one's environment, but of oneself). Basically, there's no such thin=
> g
> as a stand-alone AI. You can't have an AI being without that entity also
> being
> sentient. It is impossible. You will always have an expert system ONL= Y
> without
> sentience.
>
> What does this further have to say about AI?
>
> Well, developing AI in a computer is going to be interesting. When
> programming this AI brain, you can't count on any of the standard senses,
> except maybe vision and hearing. We can't do touch. We can't do smell.
Touch and smell are do-able.
> Vision can be done via a camera, and hearing via a microphone. The computer=
>
> can "sense" what I call a "digital data stream." Humans can't (yet).
>
> Then there's the simulation approach... but that is WAY TOO INTENSIVE.
> Simulating reality is much more difficult than actually putting the AI
> entity into reality and letting it sense reality. I won't even go there for=
>
> now. Reality is already there... why not use it? :)
>
> The hardest thing to give is motivation. How do you motivate the entity?
> You've got to give it a reason. The reason we're alive? To experience joy.
> That's it. God made us so that we could enjoy a relationship with Him and
> with His creation.
That's not how i see it. I have no relationship with your god if i can possibly
avoid it. After all, all i get from his followers in real life is crap.
> How will you motivate a sentient entity of your own
> making to be nice? to survive (if at all)?
Can't. Thats why i gave up. After sensing humanity, there is no reason a
superior being would be nice to humans by default.
> So, develop something that can receive input, give it "instincts" (basic,
> but overridable (as it learns), actions to various stimuli) and let it go..=
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
Errr, so who wrote this, Rob or C.K. ?
Kat
3. Re: Artificial What?
--- gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> > except maybe vision and hearing. We can't do
> > touch. We can't do smell.
>
> Touch and smell are do-able.
Your definition of "do-able" is no doubt much less
stringent than mine...
> > How will you motivate a sentient entity of your
> > own making to be nice? to survive (if at all)?
>
> Can't. Thats why i gave up. After sensing humanity,
> there is no reason a
> superior being would be nice to humans by default.
Kat, you never even started...
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Rob Craig
> > Rapid Deployment Software
> > http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
> Errr, so who wrote this, Rob or C.K. ?
ck did. i don't know how that got down there, unless i
just forgot to remove that from the message to which I
was replying... :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
4. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 15, 2003
On 14 May 2003, at 18:56, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
>
> --- gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
> > > except maybe vision and hearing. We can't do
> > > touch. We can't do smell.
> >
> > Touch and smell are do-able.
>
> Your definition of "do-able" is no doubt much less
> stringent than mine...
I am saying the electronics exist to provide position and tactile feedback,
and discrimination of molecules in the air. There is new equipment now to
"smell" cancer cells and their byproducts in people's breath. There have been
chips for years that can "smell" assorted fuels (like propane and methane) in
the air. Freon detectors in the air have been around since the 1970's, at
least. The easiest tactile sensor ever used was an olde crystal phono
cartridge, it's small enough to put in several in a artificial fingertip. Put a
dremel grinder to it and make it even smaller.
> > > How will you motivate a sentient entity of your
> > > own making to be nice? to survive (if at all)?
> >
> > Can't. Thats why i gave up. After sensing humanity,
> > there is no reason a
> > superior being would be nice to humans by default.
>
> Kat, you never even started...
Ah, and when will you be writing my biography?
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Rob Craig
> > > Rapid Deployment Software
> > > http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
> >
> > Errr, so who wrote this, Rob or C.K. ?
>
> ck did. i don't know how that got down there, unless i
> just forgot to remove that from the message to which I
> was replying... :)
Your worst episodes of writing emails are those you have brought religion
into.
Kat
5. Re: Artificial What?
>From: "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Artificial What?
>
>
>I just realized how to better verbalize my approach to AI... listen up all
>you AI enthusiasts out there...
>
>You cannot separate True Intelligence(tm) from sentience. And you must
>develop sentience first!!! The whole AI industry is trying to develop an
>AI=
>
>entity backwards by doing the intelligence first, when what we need is,
>first, a sentient being.
>
>Here's dictionary.com's definition of intelligence:
>
>in=B7tel=B7li=B7gence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
>n.
> 1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
>
>The "capacity to acquire..." You cannot acquire what you cannot perceive.
>
>dictionary.com defines sentient thusly:
>
>sen=B7tient adj.
> 1.. Having sense perception; conscious
> 2.. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
>
-A computer program can aquire data easily
-A computer program be aware of its own data and it can be programmed to
know that other data
exists
>
>What does this further have to say about AI?
>
>Well, developing AI in a computer is going to be interesting. When
>programming this AI brain, you can't count on any of the standard senses,
>except maybe vision and hearing. We can't do touch. We can't do smell.
>Vision can be done via a camera, and hearing via a microphone. The
>computer=
>
>can "sense" what I call a "digital data stream." Humans can't (yet).
-It wouldnt need to smell,taste or feel, all it would do is push pixels and
process data.And thats enough
of a task I'll wager.
>
>Then there's the simulation approach... but that is WAY TOO INTENSIVE.
>Simulating reality is much more difficult than actually putting the AI
>entity into reality and letting it sense reality. I won't even go there
>for=
>
>now. Reality is already there... why not use it? :)
-Have you ever had a discussion with someone, and though you seemed to be
disagreeing, you really were just rephrasing the other's arguments? Thas how
I classify most ai discussions.
>
>The hardest thing to give is motivation. How do you motivate the entity?
>You've got to give it a reason. The reason we're alive? To experience joy.
>That's it. God made us so that we could enjoy a relationship with Him and
>with His creation. How will you motivate a sentient entity of your own
>making to be nice? to survive (if at all)?
Just program it to be motivated, give it states, timers and a series of
conditions that must be satisfied.
>
>So, develop something that can receive input, give it "instincts" (basic,
>but overridable (as it learns), actions to various stimuli) and let it
>go..=
>
>
>--
>Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
-Gee I wish I could really hear Rob C's take on ai. But I dont see much
diversion from eu topics with him.Maybe he is a machine himself? Maybe just
some ai? No, just kidding
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
6. Re: Artificial What?
--- Jason Dube <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
> -It wouldnt need to smell,taste or feel, all it
> would do is push pixels and
> process data.And thats enough
> of a task I'll wager.
I hear that.
> Just program it to be motivated, give it states,
> timers and a series of conditions that must be
> satisfied.
All this motivation would have to be subconscious,
obviously. But you must wonder, what if the program
ever found out about its "states, timers and a series
of conditions that must be satisfied." Couldn't it,
then, go in and modify those? Look at what humans are
trying to do... trying to modify our "life span"
conditions, etc.
In the digital arena, it would be much easier to break
into immorality.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
7. Re: Artificial What?
--- gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> I am saying the electronics exist to provide
> position and tactile feedback,
> and discrimination of molecules in the air.
I'll update my database! :)
> There is new equipment now to
> "smell" cancer cells and their byproducts in
> people's breath.
Okay, would you call it more of a simulation of smell,
where it analyzes the molecules? As I sit here
smelling things (testing my aural abilities), I marvel
at what an incredible machine I am.
> Freon detectors in the air have been around
> since the 1970's, at least.
Yes, and that demonstrates that it's NOT smell, but a
simulation thereof. I've not studied much about smell,
so I'm just a newbie there.
> > > Thats why i gave up.
> >
> > Kat, you never even started...
>
> Ah, and when will you be writing my biography?
When hell freezes over... ;)
> > ck did. i don't know how that got down there,
> unless i
> > just forgot to remove that from the message to
> which I
> > was replying... :)
>
> Your worst episodes of writing emails are those you
> have brought religion into.
Let's see... I made one short comment about religion
in the midst of a generous helping of AI comments and
you have to whine about the religion, going so far as
to call it one of my "worst episodes of writing
emails?"
I'm speechless. How does one combat that kind of...
well, I won't characterize with a word just yet...
8. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 15, 2003
On 14 May 2003, at 22:15, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
>
> --- Jason Dube <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > -It wouldnt need to smell,taste or feel, all it
> > would do is push pixels and
> > process data.And thats enough
> > of a task I'll wager.
>
> I hear that.
>
> > Just program it to be motivated, give it states,
> > timers and a series of conditions that must be
> > satisfied.
>
> All this motivation would have to be subconscious,
> obviously. But you must wonder, what if the program
> ever found out about its "states, timers and a series
> of conditions that must be satisfied." Couldn't it,
> then, go in and modify those? Look at what humans are
> trying to do... trying to modify our "life span"
> conditions, etc.
You are saying humans should not strive to get above the physical striving
for sex, the "biological clock" to have babies, the desire for other pleasures
from food and drugs?
> In the digital arena, it would be much easier to break
> into immorality.
But if you preplan it's life and bind it into your idea of how to do things,
you've
made a slave, and that's immoral.
Kat
9. Re: Artificial What?
> > All this motivation would have to be subconscious,
> > obviously. But you must wonder, what if the program
> > ever found out about its "states, timers and a series
> > of conditions that must be satisfied." Couldn't it,
> > then, go in and modify those? Look at what humans are
> > trying to do... trying to modify our "life span"
> > conditions, etc.
>
> You are saying...
Watch what you say about what I'm saying... thanks. :)
> humans should not strive to get above the physical striving
> for sex, the "biological clock" to have babies, the desire for other
pleasures
> from food and drugs?
I never said any of the above. What I simply pointed out was that mankind is
trying to go beyond what we can naturally achieve... or, we're trying to
reprogram ourselves (brains/DNA) to reach beyond our current limits. I never
placed a moral judgment on it...
> > In the digital arena, it would be much easier to break
> > into immorality.
Oops! Typo!!! I meant to type "immortality." immorTality!!!! :)
> But if you preplan it's life and bind it into your idea of how to do
things, you've
> made a slave, and that's immoral.
I don't plan to preplan a life. I propose to create a sentient being with
all the capacities of sense and memory and learning and physical
functioning, then set it loose and raise it and see what happens.
10. Re: Artificial What?
Disclaimer: The views expressed below are expressly those of the author
and in no way reflect the views of the establishment.
All life exists in relationship. An expert system has no need to
understand its relationships as it makes decisions based on rules and
exceptions. Relationships are much more complex, and the "rules" change
rapidly based on each moment of experience. This is what makes true AI
infinitely more difficult than an expert system.
What are some of these relationships?
1) Sentient life has a relationship with itself (self-awareness, not
sensory awareness)
2) All life has a relationship with others like itself (community)
3) All life has a relationship with something bigger than itself
(religion in humans ---
3a) atheists will still have a relationship with something bigger,
even if it is nothing more than an ideal or philosophy, or an
exaggerated view of self
3b) if one believes the New Testament, even the animals have a
relationship with God (Matthew 6, Romans 8))
4) All life has a relationship with something less than itself
(consumption & compassion)
To create true AI, the program must be able to experience thsee
relationships and adapt to them. From previous comments on this list,
Tiggr is aware of itself and aware of her creator. How much motivation
does Tiggr have to do what she does? I haven't seen any discussion on
this point. All life is motivated by its relationships. A program
would be no different. Think of the most unemotional, isolated
individual you can. If that individual has any motivation to exist, it
is because of their desire to develop an improved relationship with
self, community, God, and/or nature.
Every program we write has a purpose, and objective. Even a simple
nonsense program has a reason for existing assigned by its creator. A
true AI program will have, built into its core, a "desire" to develop
relationships of some kind. That is the motivation for learning,
growing, and experiencing.
<end pontification>
Michael J. Sabal
11. Re: Artificial What?
Michael, good ideas...
> From previous comments on this list,
> Tiggr is aware of itself and aware of her creator.
Not hardly... it is programmed to respond to certain stimuli, just as a
chess program does. A chess program is not "aware" of a chess piece,
especially OUTSIDE the context of the game itself.
> How much motivation
> does Tiggr have to do what she does?
There are probably no motivations. It is simply a reactive type program...
it receives input, reacts to it... receives more input, reacts to it. It
can't, I'm guessing, in the middle of a day, being bored, search the 'net
for some interesting information to add to its database. Tiggr is a
simulation of intelligence, which is not intelligence.
> Every program we write has a purpose, and objective. Even a simple
> nonsense program has a reason for existing assigned by its creator. A
> true AI program will have, built into its core, a "desire" to develop
> relationships of some kind. That is the motivation for learning,
> growing, and experiencing.
Well spoken. You've given me something to ponder regarding my own views of
man-made sentient beings...
Thanks!! :)
-ck
12. Re: Artificial What?
>>> cklester at yahoo.com 05/15/03 11:28AM >>>
> Michael, good ideas...
Thank you.
>> From previous comments on this list,
>> Tiggr is aware of itself and aware of her creator.
> Not hardly... it is programmed to respond to certain stimuli,
I don't know enough about the program to agree or disagree. My
observations are based solely on comments from this list.
> It can't, I'm guessing, in the middle of a day, being bored, search
the 'net
> for some interesting information to add to its database.
Why not? I've already laid out just such a system, but have not been
sufficiently motivated to program it.
> Well spoken. You've given me something to ponder regarding my own
views of
> man-made sentient beings...
Hopefully something to ponder about humanity's own reason for being on
Earth as well 
.
> Thanks!! :)
You're welcome!
Mike
13. Re: Artificial What?
> >> Tiggr is aware of itself and aware of her creator.
> > Not hardly... it is programmed to respond to certain stimuli,
> I don't know enough about the program to agree or disagree. My
> observations are based solely on comments from this list.
Well, Tiggr doesn't meet the criteria for a sentient being, so we can
logically conclude that it ain't (yet). :)
Besides, if Kat had achieved the impossible, I would hope she'd let somebody
know (at least this list!), although now that I think about it, she's prolly
not willin' to share anymore...
> > It can't, I'm guessing, in the middle of a day, being bored, search
> > the 'net for some interesting information to add to its database.
> Why not? I've already laid out just such a system, but have not been
> sufficiently motivated to program it.
As long as the approach isn't, "When you've got free time, do this..."
That's programming. That's not intelligence. You have to let the sentient
figure out what to do with its free time... and discover that it can, in
that free time, expand its knowledge via the 'net.
A man-made sentient being will need to "grow up," and will require training,
analogous to the development of a human being... From helpless infant to
fully-functioning adult. The MMSB will need a parent!
14. Re: Artificial What?
His other name is Frankenstein
> I don't plan to preplan a life. I propose to create a sentient being with
> all the capacities of sense and memory and learning and physical
> functioning, then set it loose and raise it and see what happens.
15. Re: Artificial What?
If anyone wants to read a couple of really interesting
books on AI, human versus machine intelligence,
consciousness, building self-replicating machines
with consciousness etc. you should check out:
* The Mind's I
Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul
by Douglas R. Hofstadter & Daniel C. Dennett
* Metamagical Themas
Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern
by Douglas R. Hofstadter
They both contain lots of easy-to-read, short essays,
mostly by computer science people, with
cute examples, and philosophical thought experiments.
Things like:
- If you step into a Star Trek transporter on Earth
and your atoms are separated and scrambled and then
beamed up to the Space Station and reassembled exactly, is it
really "you" who steps out of the transporter, or is it an
exact *copy* of "you", that even "remembers"
entering the transporter on earth, and behaves exactly the
way people would expect you to behave, and thinks that it is "you".
What if different atoms are used on the Space Station,
but connected together in exactly same way?
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
16. Re: Artificial What?
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:40:55AM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
> On 14 May 2003, at 22:15, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Jason Dube <dubetyrant at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > -It wouldnt need to smell,taste or feel, all it
> > > would do is push pixels and
> > > process data.And thats enough
> > > of a task I'll wager.
> >
> > I hear that.
> >
> > > Just program it to be motivated, give it states,
> > > timers and a series of conditions that must be
> > > satisfied.
> >
> > All this motivation would have to be subconscious,
> > obviously. But you must wonder, what if the program
> > ever found out about its "states, timers and a series
> > of conditions that must be satisfied." Couldn't it,
> > then, go in and modify those? Look at what humans are
> > trying to do... trying to modify our "life span"
> > conditions, etc.
>
> You are saying humans should not strive to get above the physical striving
> for sex, the "biological clock" to have babies, the desire for other pleasures
>
> from food and drugs?
I won't put words into C.K.'s mouth, but what he wrote looks to me like
hes just wondering about the possibility of that happening. He didn't seem
to imply that it would necessarily be a bad thing, as you appear to have
thought.
I myself am in the opinion, that its not necessarily a bad thing to be able
to do that, or to even acheive immortality, but thats just me. (Any religous
comments about how this is a bad thing will be cheerfully ignored.)
>
> > In the digital arena, it would be much easier to break
> > into immorality.
>
> But if you preplan it's life and bind it into your idea of how to do things,
> you've
> made a slave, and that's immoral.
I would see a distiction here ... its not slavery if they wanted to be
our eternal servants.
And of course, all humans are bound to some ideals, a human-level AI would
have be the same, or else it would likely be very difficult to relate to.
(Of course, when you really think about it, freedom is an illusion, and we are
all slaves to some sort of society ... but perhaps its not wise to mention
that in too much detail.)
>
> Kat
>
jbrown
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME |
17. Re: Artificial What?
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> ...
> They both contain lots of easy-to-read, short essays,
> mostly by computer science people, with
> cute examples, and philosophical thought experiments.
> Things like:
>
> - If you step into a Star Trek transporter on Earth
> and your atoms are separated and scrambled and then
> beamed up to the Space Station and reassembled exactly, is it
> really "you" who steps out of the transporter, or is it an
> exact *copy* of "you", that even "remembers"
> entering the transporter on earth, and behaves exactly the
> way people would expect you to behave, and thinks that it is "you".
> What if different atoms are used on the Space Station,
> but connected together in exactly same way?
>
Hi Rob,
this isn't at all a philosophical experiment, the clear answer is given
by physics, quantum mechanics: If atoms are in the same state they are
no more different, their are no 'different' atoms possible then! If the
atoms of two systems are in number and states are the same, then the two
systems (humans) are in the same state and not different at all, they
are identical in that moment (which will change normally very soon).
Philosophy is the thinking about problems which could not be proofed
otherwise.
I got this sentence from a philosopher! Actually, it's no science
therefor.
Have a nice day, Rolf
18. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 16, 2003
On 16 May 2003, at 9:29, rolf.schroeder at desy.de wrote:
>
> Robert Craig wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > They both contain lots of easy-to-read, short essays,
> > mostly by computer science people, with
> > cute examples, and philosophical thought experiments.
> > Things like:
> >
> > - If you step into a Star Trek transporter on Earth
> > and your atoms are separated and scrambled and then
> > beamed up to the Space Station and reassembled exactly, is it
> > really "you" who steps out of the transporter, or is it an
> > exact *copy* of "you", that even "remembers"
> > entering the transporter on earth, and behaves exactly the
> > way people would expect you to behave, and thinks that it is "you".
> > What if different atoms are used on the Space Station,
> > but connected together in exactly same way?
> >
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> this isn't at all a philosophical experiment, the clear answer is given
> by physics, quantum mechanics: If atoms are in the same state they are
> no more different, their are no 'different' atoms possible then! If the
> atoms of two systems are in number and states are the same, then the two
> systems (humans) are in the same state and not different at all, they
> are identical in that moment (which will change normally very soon).
>
> Philosophy is the thinking about problems which could not be proofed
> otherwise.
> I got this sentence from a philosopher! Actually, it's no science
> therefor.
I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does the original physical
human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
Kat
19. Re: Artificial What?
> I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does the original
physical
> human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't such a thing anyway.
What it does seem to indicate is that we are our knowledge. It is what we
know that makes us who we are.
20. Re: Artificial What?
At 03:12 PM 5/16/03 -0500, you wrote:
>> I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does
>> the original physical
>> human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
>It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't such a thing anyway.
>What it does seem to indicate is that we are our knowledge. It is
>what we know that makes us who we are.
Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
Regards,
Andy Cranston.
21. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
May 16, 2003
On Friday 16 May 2003 04:12 pm, you wrote:
>
> > I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does the origina=
l
>
> physical
>
> > human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
>
> It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't such a thing anyway.
>
> What it does seem to indicate is that we are our knowledge. It is what =
we
> know that makes us who we are.
Many of us on this list have few or none of the atoms we started off wit=
h -=20
they're replaced on average of every 7 years - yet most of us can remembe=
r=20
things that happened 14, 21, 28 years ago. So it's not the=20
atoms, but the arrangement of the existing atoms, that constitutes memory=
,=20
right?
So if you could arrange a new set of atoms exactly like the old, you'd ge=
t the=20
same memories, appearance, etc. - a preprogrammed clone -=20
(But I bet that's not going to happen any time soon.)
Irv
22. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 17, 2003
On 16 May 2003, at 15:12, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> > I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does the original
> physical
> > human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
>
> It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't such a thing anyway.
ACK!! a religionist like CK is saying humans have no spirits? I thought the
soul was a cornerstone of the everlasting life in heaven or hell story!
Kat
23. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 17, 2003
On 16 May 2003, at 22:48, andy at systemzone.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>
> At 03:12 PM 5/16/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >> I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does
> >> the original physical
> >> human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
> >It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't such a thing anyway.
> >What it does seem to indicate is that we are our knowledge. It is
> >what we know that makes us who we are.
>
> Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
Kat
24. Re: Artificial What?
--- andy at systemzone.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>
> At 03:12 PM 5/16/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >> I believe the question relates to religion, that
> is: does
> >> the original physical
> >> human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed
> body?
> >It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't
> such a thing anyway.
> >What it does seem to indicate is that we are our
> knowledge. It is
> >what we know that makes us who we are.
>
> Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that
> defines you.
I think knowledge is still the basis, because what you
*do* is based on what you *know.*
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
25. Re: Artificial What?
--- gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> >
> > > I believe the question relates to religion, that
> is: does the original
> > physical
> > > human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed
> body?
> >
> > It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't
> such a thing anyway.
>
> ACK!! a religionist like CK is saying humans have no
> spirits? I thought the
> soul was a cornerstone of the everlasting life in
> heaven or hell story!
What is a "religionist?"
Anyway, that is correct... I do not believe that we
have some ethereal wispy spirit or disembodied soul.
Nor does the Bible teach that. If anybody wants to
comment further, please do so privately. Except for
you Kat. I really don't want to discuss it with you
until you're able to take a mature approach about it.
(I won't hold my breath. :) )
-<\<
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
26. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 17, 2003
On 16 May 2003, at 20:16, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> --- gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe the question relates to religion, that
> > is: does the original
> > > physical
> > > > human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed
> > body?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter about the spirit... there isn't
> > such a thing anyway.
> >
> > ACK!! a religionist like CK is saying humans have no
> > spirits? I thought the
> > soul was a cornerstone of the everlasting life in
> > heaven or hell story!
>
> What is a "religionist?"
It's in the dictionary:
A person who manifests devotion to a deity
> Anyway, that is correct... I do not believe that we
> have some ethereal wispy spirit or disembodied soul.
> Nor does the Bible teach that.
I guess it depends on the bible you use.
> If anybody wants to
> comment further, please do so privately. Except for
> you Kat. I really don't want to discuss it with you
> until you're able to take a mature approach about it.
> (I won't hold my breath. :) )
I was hoping you'd address the issue of not allowing an Ai to have the same
"rights" in human society as humans. The lack of a spirit or soul has been
used to supress peoples before, and it's been mentioned in the reason
religionists will suppress other non-human intelligences. I still say the
treatment an Ai will recieve at the hands of humanity will surely put it at odds
with humanity, and it will be anything but benevolent. That's basic
psychology.
Kat
27. Re: Artificial What?
At 07:05 PM 5/16/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
>Kat
Er, I think not. You *do* by contributing to this forum. While alot of
respondents might not personally acknowledge their gratitude I know that
they (and myself) appreciate your input. I, for example, am much more
aware of security issues whilst browsing and downloading from the internet.
We all need to do (and think) more and then pass on the lessons in the best
ways we see fit.
Euphoria Rocks BTW !
Regards,
Andy Cranston.
28. Re: Artificial What?
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:32:29PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2003, at 9:29, rolf.schroeder at desy.de wrote:
>
> >
> > Robert Craig wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > They both contain lots of easy-to-read, short essays,
> > > mostly by computer science people, with
> > > cute examples, and philosophical thought experiments.
> > > Things like:
> > >
> > > - If you step into a Star Trek transporter on Earth
> > > and your atoms are separated and scrambled and then
> > > beamed up to the Space Station and reassembled exactly, is it
> > > really "you" who steps out of the transporter, or is it an
> > > exact *copy* of "you", that even "remembers"
> > > entering the transporter on earth, and behaves exactly the
> > > way people would expect you to behave, and thinks that it is "you".
> > > What if different atoms are used on the Space Station,
> > > but connected together in exactly same way?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > this isn't at all a philosophical experiment, the clear answer is given
> > by physics, quantum mechanics: If atoms are in the same state they are
> > no more different, their are no 'different' atoms possible then! If the
> > atoms of two systems are in number and states are the same, then the two
> > systems (humans) are in the same state and not different at all, they
> > are identical in that moment (which will change normally very soon).
> >
> > Philosophy is the thinking about problems which could not be proofed
> > otherwise.
> > I got this sentence from a philosopher! Actually, it's no science
> > therefor.
>
> I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does the original
> physical
> human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
>
> Kat
>
Well, if you use the concept of a soul, and say the answer is yes, then ...
what if something goes wrong with the teleporter, and you get the same person
recieved TWICE? I.e. you now have 2 people. Which one has the original soul?
Or do they somehow "share" a single soul? But of course that implies a sort
of metaphysical link between the 2 persons, a rather unnatural one.
Of course, if the answer is no, then its simpler ... neither person has the
original soul, they just have 2 newborn souls, and the original soul is
dead.
Of course, I don't believe in the idea of a soul. (Since, a soul is asscotiated
with a person's memory and personaility, but its now known to be part of the
brain that handles that, hence I'd feel the concept of a soul is not even
needed,
but that's just my opinion, and there are arguements for it, after all--ghosts,
anyone? But of course thats getting really offtopic....) And, if the idea of
a soul is done away with, the problem goes away too. (Both people are the same
person initially, but as time goes on they become different from each other,
as well as the original person who stepped on the teleporter. This happens
w/o the transporter in fact: are you the same person you were when you were 5?)
Of course, rejecting the idea of a soul or spirit does away with most religions
...
jbrown
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME |
29. Re: Artificial What?
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 12:28:15AM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
<snip>
> I was hoping you'd address the issue of not allowing an Ai to have the same
> "rights" in human society as humans. The lack of a spirit or soul has been
> used to supress peoples before, and it's been mentioned in the reason
> religionists will suppress other non-human intelligences. I still say the
> treatment an Ai will recieve at the hands of humanity will surely put it at
> odds
> with humanity, and it will be anything but benevolent. That's basic
> psychology.
>
> Kat
>
I wouldn't say "basic" psychology ... but it is rather clear, that if some
humans fear the new AI (which is quite likely, considering that the creation
of such a creature is suppose to be impossible according to some
religions--hence
they'd fear it, as it could be percieved as an attack on those religions), then
they would treat it rather inhumanely, to put it mildly (assuming they didn't
try to outright destory it, that is).
Of course, not ALL humans are like that ... some would see it in a different
light. (Such as myself.) So, it really depends on luck: who builds it, and
how bug a group of supporters it gets to protect itself and assert its own
rights.
(There is another variable here: the programmer's intentions. I.e. a programmer
who makes an AI as a servant, will create an AI which wants to be indentured to
a human (and for which, mistreatment would consist of freeing it and making it
support itself) while an AI created to see itself to have an equal place in
human society will be wanting of the same human rights.)
jbrown
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME |
30. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by xerox_irs at lvcm.com
May 18, 2003
Oh ya, like when (on startrek next gen) Riker was duplicated and one was
left on the planet for years and the otherone lived a normal life, who was
the real person, were they both? and if so who gets the girl?
Daniel Kluss
----- Original Message -----
From: <jbrown1050 at hotpop.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Artificial What?
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:32:29PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> >
> > On 16 May 2003, at 9:29, rolf.schroeder at desy.de wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Robert Craig wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > They both contain lots of easy-to-read, short essays,
> > > > mostly by computer science people, with
> > > > cute examples, and philosophical thought experiments.
> > > > Things like:
> > > >
> > > > - If you step into a Star Trek transporter on Earth
> > > > and your atoms are separated and scrambled and then
> > > > beamed up to the Space Station and reassembled exactly, is it
> > > > really "you" who steps out of the transporter, or is it an
> > > > exact *copy* of "you", that even "remembers"
> > > > entering the transporter on earth, and behaves exactly the
> > > > way people would expect you to behave, and thinks that it is
"you".
> > > > What if different atoms are used on the Space Station,
> > > > but connected together in exactly same way?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > this isn't at all a philosophical experiment, the clear answer is
given
> > > by physics, quantum mechanics: If atoms are in the same state they are
> > > no more different, their are no 'different' atoms possible then! If
the
> > > atoms of two systems are in number and states are the same, then the
two
> > > systems (humans) are in the same state and not different at all, they
> > > are identical in that moment (which will change normally very soon).
> > >
> > > Philosophy is the thinking about problems which could not be proofed
> > > otherwise.
> > > I got this sentence from a philosopher! Actually, it's no science
> > > therefor.
> >
> > I believe the question relates to religion, that is: does the original
physical
> > human's spirit also inhabit the reconstructed body?
> >
> > Kat
> >
>
> Well, if you use the concept of a soul, and say the answer is yes, then
...
> what if something goes wrong with the teleporter, and you get the same
person
> recieved TWICE? I.e. you now have 2 people. Which one has the original
soul?
> Or do they somehow "share" a single soul? But of course that implies a
sort
> of metaphysical link between the 2 persons, a rather unnatural one.
>
> Of course, if the answer is no, then its simpler ... neither person has
the
> original soul, they just have 2 newborn souls, and the original soul is
> dead.
>
> Of course, I don't believe in the idea of a soul. (Since, a soul is
asscotiated
> with a person's memory and personaility, but its now known to be part of
the
> brain that handles that, hence I'd feel the concept of a soul is not even
needed,
> but that's just my opinion, and there are arguements for it, after
all--ghosts,
> anyone? But of course thats getting really offtopic....) And, if the idea
of
> a soul is done away with, the problem goes away too. (Both people are the
same
> person initially, but as time goes on they become different from each
other,
> as well as the original person who stepped on the teleporter. This happens
> w/o the transporter in fact: are you the same person you were when you
were 5?)
>
> Of course, rejecting the idea of a soul or spirit does away with most
religions
> ...
>
> jbrown
>
> --
> /"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
> \ / campain against | Linux User:190064
> X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
> /*\ news, and unneeded MIME |
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
31. Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
May 19, 2003
On Friday 16 May 2003 08:04 pm, you wrote:
> ACK!! a religionist like CK is saying humans have no spirits? I thought=
the
> soul was a cornerstone of the everlasting life in heaven or hell story!
>
> Kat
Kat:
You might someday build a robot which could store data obtained thru=20
interaction with its environment and with other beings (both robotic and=20
non-robotic) and which could modify its own programming based on experien=
ce=20
(what worked / didn't work in the past) without consulting you, its build=
er.
Eventually, before that robot wore out and went to the scrapheap, you mig=
ht=20
decide that it was useful or entertaining and that it might be a good ide=
a to=20
back up that robot's program & data so that you could install it in a new=
ly=20
built robot sometime in the future.
Does that robot have a "soul" or "spirit"? Only in the sense that you hav=
e the=20
essence of its existence, its programming, on backup media.=20
---
That's a not-uncommon scenario for science-fiction stories, and. many peo=
ple=20
have concluded that it is also the core concept contained in the=20
Judeo-Christian scriptures. However, just as in Star Wars or Star Trek,=20
there's lots of added action, adventure, and multiple soap-opera-like=20
subplots which tend to obscure the main message.
Add to that the fact that those (mostly uneducated) writers were struggli=
ng to=20
put into words concepts which were either completely foreign to them, or=20
completely beyond their understanding, then translate it (poorly) a few=20
times, let it simmer for a couple thousand years, and see what you get.
How those writings were (and are) added to, subtracted from, and=20
misinterpreted by superstitious and power-hungry religious leaders for th=
e=20
purpose of maintaining their power and authority is another matter entire=
ly.
---
Irv
