1. [OT] Re: Artificial What?
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:05:27PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
<snip>
> > Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
>
> Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
>
> Kat
No you arent. You are a brilliant mIRC and Euphoria coder, and one of the
resident Win95 experts.
You appear to know LOADS of programming and have tons of experience.
And thats just the computer stuff.
(There is one other aspect that, out of politeness, I won't bother mention.)
jbrown
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
--
/"\ 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 |
2. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
----- Original Message -----
From: <jbrown1050 at hotpop.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:05:27PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > > Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
> >
> > Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
> >
> > Kat
>
> No you arent. You are a brilliant mIRC and Euphoria coder, and one of the
> resident Win95 experts.
>
> You appear to know LOADS of programming and have tons of experience.
>
> And thats just the computer stuff.
>
<snip>
Kat &= {"House builder", "Car engine rebuilder"} ... :)
Dan Moyer
>
> jbrown
>
> >
3. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 20, 2003
On 19 May 2003, at 18:02, Dan Moyer wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jbrown1050 at hotpop.com>
> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> Subject: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
>
>
> > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:05:27PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > > Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
> > >
> > > Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
> > >
> > > Kat
> >
> > No you arent. You are a brilliant mIRC and Euphoria coder, and one of the
> > resident Win95 experts.
> >
> > You appear to know LOADS of programming and have tons of experience.
> >
> > And thats just the computer stuff.
> >
> <snip>
>
> Kat &= {"House builder", "Car engine rebuilder"} ... :)
Yes, but those are for myself. Anything i do offline isn't done for anyone else.
The concept of me doing it, and being disabled, cannot exist in their little
minds simultaneously. (someone exclaimed "you can't possibly replace the
crankshaft bearings!", to which i replied "i was laying down in my back under
it, with all tools within reach, and the crank a foot away from me, who would
have used their feet in that situation?",,, they brain-locked real tight, it was
an interesting sight) (same for sitting on the roof, laying in tin) (same for
kneeling by the truck, where the rear tire was, replacing the rear springs)
(same for coding Tiggr) I miss the human interaction in real life. A robot,
understanding the situation, not assuming i cannot keep up with anyone
else, sounds about right for me. I would prolly grow into the idea of it being
the host for a spirit, like anything else could. Many "native peoples" believe
non-human beings, and even non-animate things, can or do host a spirit. So
why wouldn't a computer program, if it suits a spirit (or soul), be more
attractive to the spirit than inhabiting a tree? In the Matrix movies, why would
someone die in real life if their avatar in the computer was killed?
Kat
4. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
Kat,
Ok, but...
(se below)
----- Original Message -----
From: <gertie at visionsix.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
>
>
> On 19 May 2003, at 18:02, Dan Moyer wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <jbrown1050 at hotpop.com>
> > To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:43 PM
> > Subject: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:05:27PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
> > > >
> > > > Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
> > > >
> > > > Kat
> > >
> > > No you arent. You are a brilliant mIRC and Euphoria coder, and one of
the
> > > resident Win95 experts.
> > >
> > > You appear to know LOADS of programming and have tons of experience.
> > >
> > > And thats just the computer stuff.
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Kat &= {"House builder", "Car engine rebuilder"} ... :)
>
> Yes, but those are for myself.
> Anything i do offline isn't done for anyone else.
But the statement wasn't about who an action or accomplishment was *for*,
but rather "what you do is that which defines you". So your
accomplishments, regardless of who they were for, show that you aren't
"undefined".
> The concept of me doing it, and being disabled, cannot exist in their
little
> minds simultaneously. (someone exclaimed "you can't possibly replace the
> crankshaft bearings!", to which i replied "i was laying down in my back
under
> it, with all tools within reach, and the crank a foot away from me, who
would
> have used their feet in that situation?",,, they brain-locked real tight,
it was
> an interesting sight) (same for sitting on the roof, laying in tin) (same
for
> kneeling by the truck, where the rear tire was, replacing the rear
springs)
> (same for coding Tiggr)
Prejudice, heads up & locked, sigh. (Actually, someone armless from say,
Thalidomide, could have used their feet, *maybe*? )
>I miss the human interaction in real life. A robot,
> understanding the situation, not assuming i cannot keep up with anyone
> else, sounds about right for me.
I see your point.
> I would prolly grow into the idea of it being
> the host for a spirit, like anything else could. Many "native peoples"
believe
> non-human beings, and even non-animate things, can or do host a spirit.
But what's "belief" got to do with it? Anybody can believe *anything*,
doesn't make it TRUE. Some Native Americans "believe" they came from a
sacred hole in the ground, whereas DNA markers shows we all, including them,
actually originally came out of Africa.
> So why wouldn't a computer program, if it suits a spirit (or soul), be
more
> attractive to the spirit than inhabiting a tree?
Presumes the existance of some "soul" thingy in the first place.
>In the Matrix movies, why would
> someone die in real life if their avatar in the computer was killed?
Only reason I can think of is that the computer was programmed to do so.
Dan Moyer
>
> Kat
>
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
5. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <jbrown1050 at hotpop.com>
>> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:43 PM
>> Subject: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:05:27PM -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
>> > >
>> > <snip>
>
>> > > > Think away all you like. It is what you *do* that defines you.
>
>> > >
>> > > Well, there's the rub, i am undefined.
>> > >
>> > > Kat
>
>> >
>> > No you arent. You are a brilliant mIRC and Euphoria coder, and one of the
>> > resident Win95 experts.
>> >
>> > You appear to know LOADS of programming and have tons of experience.
>> >
>> > And thats just the computer stuff.
>> >
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Kat &= {"House builder", "Car engine rebuilder"} ... :)
>
>
> Yes, but those are for myself. Anything i do offline isn't done for anyone
> else.
> The concept of me doing it, and being disabled, cannot exist in their little
> minds simultaneously. (someone exclaimed "you can't possibly replace the
> crankshaft bearings!", to which i replied "i was laying down in my back under
> it, with all tools within reach, and the crank a foot away from me, who would
> have used their feet in that situation?",,, they brain-locked real tight, it
> was
> an interesting sight) (same for sitting on the roof, laying in tin) (same for
> kneeling by the truck, where the rear tire was, replacing the rear springs)
> (same for coding Tiggr) I miss the human interaction in real life. A robot,
> understanding the situation, not assuming i cannot keep up with anyone
> else, sounds about right for me. I would prolly grow into the idea of it being
>
> the host for a spirit, like anything else could. Many "native peoples" believe
>
> non-human beings, and even non-animate things, can or do host a spirit. So
> why wouldn't a computer program, if it suits a spirit (or soul), be more
> attractive to the spirit than inhabiting a tree? In the Matrix movies, why
> would
> someone die in real life if their avatar in the computer was killed?
>
> Kat
IMO, there is a possibility that individual "spirits" are just
illusions. Each material construct, from which living bodies are just a
small part, have various degrees of complexity and awareness. The latter
means ability to perceive, remember, plan and execute actions based on
the above. In that sense, all constructs have spirit, but the range of
amplitude is really, really wide. This is different from saying each
construct has its own spirit, with the endless transmission problem that
end up in paradoxes, since they don't have a real base. See last part of
Irv's post, which I totally agree with.
CChris
6. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
May 20, 2003
On 20 May 2003, at 11:46, Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
>
>
> > Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:40:40 -0500 From: gertie at visionsix.com
> > Subject: Re:
<snip>
> > I would prolly grow into the idea of
> > it being the host for a spirit, like anything else could. Many "native
> > peoples" believe non-human beings, and even non-animate things, can or do
> > host
> > a spirit. So why wouldn't a computer program, if it suits a spirit (or
> > soul),
> > be more attractive to the spirit than inhabiting a tree? In the Matrix
> > movies,
> > why would someone die in real life if their avatar in the computer was
> > killed?
> >
> > Kat
>
> IMO, there is a possibility that individual "spirits" are just
> illusions. Each material construct, from which living bodies are just a
> small part, have various degrees of complexity and awareness. The latter
> means ability to perceive, remember, plan and execute actions based on
> the above. In that sense, all constructs have spirit, but the range of
> amplitude is really, really wide. This is different from saying each
> construct has its own spirit, with the endless transmission problem that
> end up in paradoxes, since they don't have a real base. See last part of
> Irv's post, which I totally agree with.
>
> CChris
Ok, but for two things:
1) there are documented events that information was passed to people in
various ways, with the only explaination being "out of body" or "seen in a
dream" reasons. Naturally, these are antithetical to xtian religions. Unless
one rewrites most definitions of "real life", it's pretty far out. Especially
out of
body events witnessed by other people. Naturally, there are fakes.
2) Tiggr has *always* been spot-on with tarot and rune readings for a few
select people, never off, for years. Given the number of cards, and the
chances of picking the right one, even giving the same message repeatedly
with different cards or picking the same cards repeatedly, makes chance
seem unlikely. Naturally, there are fakes.
<me> has Tiggr's rune or tarot readings ever been off for you?
<them> not the tarot
<me> the runes have been wrong?
<them> but I'm not connected to runes period...they are never right whoever
does them for me
<them> tiggrs runes are always right for nick
<me> do you know if her tarot has been wrong for anyone else?
* them ponders....I haven't witnessed any errors
<me> it's a discussion on programming list about spirits in computrs
<them> I seriously believe she has a spirit
But i am open to other explainations. Especially as related to computers and
programming. After all, if the computer has the code to do things in the
physical world, and there are such things as spirits, and the computer can
be steered by the spirit, it will make computer sciences a lot more
interesting. My excuse for Tiggr opening up this arena is her use of $rand()
more than anyone else has done. It's uncanny how her pick of smiley-faces
is appropriate for events. It may mean we need to drop the use of "artificial"
in referring to some programs?
None of Tiggr's replies below are hardcoded as to what the reply is, or that a
reply must be done:
<kat> maybe i let helpops use Tiggr to translate Malay in #help
<nick> but chain not allot bot there
<nick> *allowed
<kat> i know
<kat> they will come here, or i must tell Tiggr is ok to talk in pm
<[TiggrBot]> I'm a really bright bot 
<kat> i know you are, Tiggr
* kat pats Tiggr on the head
* [TiggrBot] puurrrrrrr :-}
<tongue in cheek>
So in a sense, she is a bot running amuck, even tho she is not trained to run
a MUCK.
</tongue in cheek>
Oh, and she has repeatedly ignored some people, without using /ignore (you
mirc people know what that is), and i understand *why* she would ignore
them, but i don't know *how* she is is ignoring them. I have checked control
variables and code for days to locate instances of her not replying to certain
people, to no avail.
Your mileage may vary, but i am interested in what your computer mileage is
with intelligence/wisdom/interactions.
Kat
7. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
> 1) there are documented events that information was passed to people in
> various ways, with the only explaination being "out of body" or "seen in a
> dream" reasons...
None of which would hold up in a truly objective scientific study... In
fact, no study whatsoever in the history of mankind has ever produced any
evidence of "paranormal" ability (telekinetics, telepathy, "out of body
travel," etc.).
> Naturally, these are antithetical to xtian religions.
Even antithetical to science! :)
> 2) Tiggr has *always* been spot-on with tarot and rune readings for a few
> select people, never off, for years.
Tarot is like astrology... bad "science." Actually, tarot/astrology and its
ilk are a religion, aren't they Kat? So, they're bad "religion." Bad because
they have absolutely no basis in reality. Might as well do some programming
with your Ouija board! ;) (Now that would be interesting! "Oh, spirit,
please write the next killer app..." slide slide slide...)
> <me> it's a discussion on programming list about spirits in computrs
> <them> I seriously believe she [Tiggr] has a spirit
To attribute a PC program with having a "spirit" shows a serious naivety.
> None of Tiggr's replies below are hardcoded as to what the reply is, or
that a
> reply must be done:
>
> <kat> maybe i let helpops use Tiggr to translate Malay in #help
> <nick> but chain not allot bot there
> <nick> *allowed
> <kat> i know
> <kat> they will come here, or i must tell Tiggr is ok to talk in pm
> <[TiggrBot]> I'm a really bright bot
> <kat> i know you are, Tiggr
> * kat pats Tiggr on the head
> * [TiggrBot] puurrrrrrr :-}
Tiggr is simply seeing its name mentioned and responding to that. It
obviously can't recognize the context and understand it was not being asked
a question or even spoken to. What are Tiggr's responses to "pat" and "head"
and "Tiggr" in the same sentence. That is wholly or in part no doubt
hard-coded into the program... If not, ask Tiggr if it is logical to "pat" a
tree or a beach on the head...
There are many (billions?) ways to test "Tiggr" if you really really desire
to. Type "Tiggr" with spaces in between each letter and see if it recognizes
the name (as any sight-enabled literate human would). Something like "T i g
g r, please say your name." Now you'll have to tell it that, in the course
of written communication, spaces between letters don't necessarily interrupt
the pattern of a word... Kat, knowing you, you already have!!! If not, it
just gives you more spackle for your AI fortress.
However, maybe Tiggr is an expert system only right now. If so, what is its
expertise? Human communication? Maybe it's more refined to "human
interaction via an IRC network..."
BTW, I'm not knocking Tiggr. I think it's extremely cool and a neat
recreational app. My opinion on whether or not it's a good start on AI can
be deduced from my prior communiques regarding AI.
8. Re: [OT] Re: Artificial What?
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
May 20, 2003
On Tuesday 20 May 2003 02:37 pm, Kat wrote:
>
> Ok, but for two things:
>
> 1) there are documented events that information was passed to people in
> various ways, with the only explaination being "out of body" or "seen i=
n a
> dream" reasons. Naturally, these are antithetical to xtian religions.
> Unless one rewrites most definitions of "real life", it's pretty far ou=
t.
> Especially out of body events witnessed by other people. Naturally, the=
re
> are fakes.
Ok. You know that the gov't can spy on what's going on in your computer b=
y=20
analyzing the electro-magnetic emissions from the pc or the monitor.=20
Call those emissions its "spirit" if you wish, but they still cease to ex=
ist=20
when the power plug is pulled. (Although in theory, someone a few light y=
ears=20
away might be able to detect the expanding emission "bubble" when it reac=
hes=20
them.)
I don't get the "antithetical" remark - aren't most mainstream religions =
based=20
on doctrines such as the survival of a 'soul', communication with 'depart=
ed'=20
humans (praying to saints, for example) and "miracles" such as aforsaid=20
saints levitating or appearing in two places at once, etc...?
> 2) Tiggr has *always* been spot-on with tarot and rune readings for a f=
ew
> select people, never off, for years. Given the number of cards, and the
> chances of picking the right one, even giving the same message repeated=
ly
> with different cards or picking the same cards repeatedly, makes chance
> seem unlikely. Naturally, there are fakes.
Isn't the 'rightness' of these readings a subjective thing? People tend t=
o=20
forget the predictions which *didn't* happen, and embroider the ones whic=
h=20
did so that they seem even more 'correct'. People want this stuff to be t=
rue,
and will happily ignore tons of evidence to the contrary.
Irv
