Your response makes my point precisely . . . .
Until you truly understand *why* IBM's top engineers believes that
"autonomic" is the correct term (and it's very clear to someone with enough
background and knowledge that it is), you shouldn't be attempting this
discussion. Yes, *in CURRENT detail*, autonomic computing is different from
the human body -- especially since the computer is much more equivalent to
the brain with much of the rest of the body corresponding to the power grid
and whatever sensors, effectors, and locomotive devices the computer
controls. Where the rest of the body differs is in the fact that a lot of
the smarts, that lie in the computer in the artificial case, are actually
physically embedded in the organs in the physical case. Look at the amount
of nervous tissue in the digestive system. Guess why the digestive system
is so tied into your emotions. But the fact that the computer doesn't
replicate the inefficient idiosyncrasies of the human body is a good thing,
not something to emulate. Further, when you say things like
There is no computer or robot that keeps getting physically excited or
depressed by its computations. (But it would be a good idea).
you don't even realize that laptops (and many other computers -- not to
mention appliances) currently do precisely what you claim that no computer
or robot does. When they compute that they are not being used, they start
shutting down power usage. Do you really want to continue claiming this?
The vast majority of this mailing list is going over your head because you
don't recognize that while the details are different (like the autonomic
case), the general idea and direction are dead on and way past where you're
languishing in your freezing cave bleating because a heat pump isn't fire.
(I also suspect that you've missed most of the humor in this and the
previous message)
((I feel like a villain in a cheesy drama -- helplessly trapped into
monologue when I know it will do no good))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
1.Autonomic [disembodied] computing" is obviously radically different from
having a body with a sympathetically controlled engine area (upper body)
and parasympatheticaly controlled digestive area (lower body) which are
continually being emotionally revved up or down in preparation for action,
and also in continuous conflict. There is no computer or robot that keeps
getting phsyically excited or depressed by its computations. (But it would
be a good idea).
2.Mimicking emotions as some robots do, is similarly v. different from
having the physical capacity to embody them, and experience them.
3.Silicon intelligences - useful distinction - don't "feel" anything -
they don't have an organic nervous system, and of course it's still a
fascinating question as to what extent "feeling" (the hard problem) is
"contained" in that system. (Again true feelings for AGI's would be a
wonderful, perhaps essential idea).
4.To have a sense of humour, as I more or less indicated, you have to be
able to identify with the "funny guy" making the error - and that is an
*embodied* identification. The humour that gets the biggest, most physical
laughs and even has you falling on the floor, usually involves the
biggest, most physical errors - e.g. slapstick. There are no plans that I
know of, to have computers "falling about."
5.Over and over, AI/AGI are making the same mistake - trying to
copy/emulate human faculties and refusing to acknowledge that they are
vastly more complex than AI'ers' construction. AI'ers attempts are
valuable and productive, but their refusal to acknowledge the complexity
of - and to respect the billion years of evolution behind - those
faculties, tend towards the comical. Rather like the chauffeur in High
Anxiety who keeps struggling to carry a suitcase, "I got it.. I got it.. I
got it..... I ain't got it."
6.I would argue that it is AGI-ers who are focussed on the blueprints of
their machine, and who repeatedly refuse to contemplate or discuss how it
will fly, (& I seem to recall you making a similar criticism).
Because you haven't been paying attention (or don't have the necessary
background or desire to recognize it). Look at the attention that's been
paid to the qualia and consciousness arguments (http://consc.net/online).
Any computer with sensors and effectors is embodied. And IBM is
even/already touting their "Autonomic Computing" initiatives
(http://www.research.ibm.com/autonomic/). Computers already divide tasks
into foreground (conscious) and background (unconscious) processes that
are *normally* loosely-coupled with internal details encapsulated away
from each other. Silicon intelligences aren't going to have human
internal organs (except, maybe, as part of a project to simulate/study
humans) but they're certainly going to have a sense of humor -- and while
they are not going to have the evolved *physical* side-effects, it's
going to "feel" like something to them.
Your arguments are very short-sighted and narrow and nitpicking minor
*current* details while missing the sweeping scope of what is not only
being proposed but actually moving forward around you. Stop telling us
what we think because you're getting it *WRONG*. Stop telling us what
we're missing because, in most cases, we're actually paying attention to
version 3 of what you're talking about and you just don't recognize it.
You're looking at the blueprints of F-14 Tomcat and arguing that the
wings don't move right for a bird and, besides, it's too unstable for a
human to fly (unassisted :-).
Read the papers in the first link and *maybe* we can have a useful
conversation . . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor
Obviously you have no plans for endowing your computer with a self and
a body, that has emotions and can shake with laughter. Or tears.
Actually, many of us do. And this is why your posts are so
problematical. You invent what *we* believe and what we intend to do.
And then you criticize your total fabrications (a.k.a. mental
masturbation).
You/others have plans for an *embodied* computer with the equivalent of
an autonomic nervous systems and the relevant, attached internal organs?
A robot? That's certainly news to me. Please expand.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
