MIT (and the rest of the world as well) would often be perfectly happy with AS (Artificial Stupidity) instead of AI.
To me Skybuck seems like an alpha test version of AS.
Terje
MIT (and the rest of the world as well) would often be perfectly happy with AS (Artificial Stupidity) instead of AI.
To me Skybuck seems like an alpha test version of AS.
Terje
-- - "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
When Mary had a little lamb, the doctor was surprised, But when Old MacDonald had a farm, you should have seen his eyes!
-- Cheers! Rich
Ever drawn a Venn diagram of your own consciousness?
Cheers! Rich
Don't have a cow, man.
Ken
That's the first time I've seen 'Skybuck' and 'intelligence' in one sentence.
Ken
Indeed, once you've extended your conciousness into the second nonspacelike dimension, all you need to do is^W^W^W^X^C:q:q
Oh, bugger. Now I've gone and blown my cover again.
Hang on a sec while I go and find the target population mass mental readjustment device. This won't hurt a bit...
-- David Hopwood Observer-Inquisitor for the Eridanian Collective to Sol III, civilisation B [nuclear net genocidal ecocidal !ai !warp !clue self-limiting]
I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise wrote (in ) about 'Human brains communicating with each other ?', on Wed, 7 Sep 2005:
I thought I'd try something vastly simpler first. Yours. (;-)
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
Will and directed brainwork
It's will that controlls us. Everything you do (think, eat, move) you want it.
You must want it. That's life.
No it dosnt.
No.
The brain is an electro-chemical machine. Period. There is no "I" that controls it. A perceived "I" is simply an illusion. Consciousness is no more than a VDU. Consciousness cannot do anything.
No it isnt.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
I don't fully agree with what you write. It's clear that conciousness is acting as observer, but it is wrong that this observer doesn't feed back. All thoughts inside the brain influence each others, including those that result in conciousness and the imagination of an "I". Also, as the brain is a electro-chemical machine, all thoughts have physical representations, so there is no difference between "thought" and "matter". Thoughts are configurations of matter.
Quantum mechanics does not really tell us whether there's a truly random component, or just a pseudo-random component. Bohm worked on a deterministic QM theory, and his theory gives the same result as the classical Copenhagen interpretaton (with "truly random components"). The funny thing is that a world with the Darwin laws as we find here will create the concept of "free will" regardless if there is pseudo-random or true randomness on the QM level, since a pseudo-random trial and error approach leads to the same results as a fully random one. The concept of free will is superior to the concept of fatalism, so in the long run civilizations are bound to find and use this concept. "Free will" changes the threshold to do things, because you believe that they can be done.
The question, whether the introduction of a "soul" is arbitrary or not: It is really true that people do have a (somewhat) consistent "I", as you can see when you find the few people who have not. The misconception is that the "I" is nothing metaphysical. It is not immortal, as it is bound to the brain that creates it. And it does indeed change when the brain changes.
-- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
I think he nailed it...
Bob
It must be the holiday season. All the loons crawl out of the woodwork.
Block that metaphor!
-- mac the naïf
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.