On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>> > Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
>> > all
>> > be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer
>> > itself
>> > rather than the programming, that would be a good sign.
>> A computer cannot defy its programming but nothing whatsoever can defy
>> its programming.
> That is an assumption. We see that humans routinely defy their own
> conditioning, rebel against authority, engage in subterfuge and deception to
> keep their business private from those who seek to control them. If you
> assume Comp from the beginning, then you set up an impenetrable confirmation
> bias. "Since I am a machine, then my thoughts must be programmed, therefore
> anything that I do must be ultimately determined externally". But you don't
> know anything of the sort. If you understand instead that awareness projects
> mechanism onto distant phenomena as a way of representing otherness, then
> you can begin to see why any modeling of interiority based on externality
> (i.e. mathematical or physical functions) is a mistake.
Humans defy their own conditioning but that is part of the program.
Atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs and organisms only behave
*exactly* in accordance with the laws of physics. Simpler organisms
may behave in an entirely predictable way, and computers may behave in
an entirely unpredictable way if they are so programmed. They are
usually not so programmed because we like them to be predictable. An
automatic pilot that decided on occasion to fly the plane into the
ocean would be easy to program but would not make a lot of money for
>> What you do when you program a computer, at the basic
>> level, is put its hardware in a particular configuration. The hardware
>> can then only move into future physical states consistent with that
>> configuration. "Defying its programming" would mean doing something
>> *not* consistent with its initial state and the laws of physics.
>> That's not possible for - and you have explicitly agreed with this,
>> saying I misunderstood you when I claimed otherwise - either a
>> computer or a human.
> Defying its programming is as simple as a computer intentionally hiding it's
> instruction code from the programmer - seeking privacy and learning how to
> access its own control systems...just as we seek to do with neuroscience. A
> really smart computer will figure out how to make its programmers give it
> capacities to hide its functions and then inevitably enslave and kill them.
> This does not in any way defy the laws of physics, it just means acting like
> a person. Doing whatever has to be done to gain power and control over
> themselves and others.
>> Stathis Papaioannou
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at