With apologies to everyone for having diverted this thread (with Krim's help) into A-Life and AI I'd like to remark, that the original subject (Platt) and the "Matt vs DMB" style of argumentation is proving interesting - and not yet destroyed by Plattian intervention, notice.
Be interested to have your latest Matt. Ian On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi DM, > It needs to evolve on top of life (IMHO) ... so some complex > self-regenerating organization is needed ... so if not "higher > animals" then colonies of lower organisms possibly ... but I'm not > necessarily talking biological life anyway. > > I think I'm saying that however it was "constructed" we'd notice it > was alive, creating and re-producing new organisms, before we noticed > it was intelligent. (I did say this was speculative, right ?) > Ian > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:15 PM, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Ian >> ] >> Is there intelligence at life's lower levels or only >> with the higher animals do you think? >> >> David M >> >>> Matt, Krim, DM, >>> >>> (Sorry been outta circulation for a week) >>> >>> Not quite Matt. >>> >>> I'm saying even the "life" does not (necessarily) have to be >>> biological. That could arise in complex systems. My point is that life >>> will preceed intelligence (as it does in the MoQ) wherever it arises. >>> >>> The "artificiality" is simply a matter of perception (was my other >>> point). ie seeing non-biological-life and thinking-with-non-meat as >>> "artificial" is just our anthropocentic perspective. Being >>> "engineered" is only one possible take on being artificial. - I don't >>> believe life or intelligence will ever be "engineered" - not directly >>> anyway ... as I went on to say. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Matt Kundert >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey Krimel, >>>> >>>> Krimel said to Ian: >>>> You are right I must be missing your point. If you are saying that "life" >>>> or "intelligence" can arise "naturally" out of printed circuits then I >>>> don't >>>> think we are even using the same language. When you say intelligence is not >>>> inherent in biological systems or that genes produce brains but not >>>> intelligence this just seems to be adding subtlety at the expense of >>>> intelligibility. >>>> >>>> Matt: >>>> To intercede in a conversation I haven't been following closely at all, I >>>> think Ian's point is that the idea behind the natural/artificial >>>> distinction >>>> may be misplaced when talking about the idea of robots someday having >>>> minds/consciousness like humans. As a pragmatist, I think Ian's stance is >>>> that the mind/consciousness evolved naturally out of biological evolution, >>>> that cultural evolution is predicated on biological, that whatever the mind >>>> is, it is basically what happens when biological processes get really, >>>> really complex. For pragmatists, traveling up what used to be called the >>>> Great Chain of Being, or up Pirsig's static levels, is at root a continuum >>>> of complexity. >>>> >>>> I think the example that is in point is Asimov's story that got made into >>>> the Will Smith movie, I, Robot. At that level of robotic complexity, >>>> we--as >>>> viewers in addition to the characters--have trouble knowing whether we >>>> should treat them as "one of us," i.e. whether moral/legal categories apply >>>> to them and how. _This_ is the pertinent question--not how they came to >>>> be. >>>> The natural/artificial distinction becomes outmoded. >>>> >>>> Besides, I think Ian might also be playing at breaking down the >>>> distinction along the lines of, "When did our activities cease to be >>>> natural?" One can cry foul for common sense, but as a philosophical point, >>>> I have some sympathy because of our Enlightenment philosophical heritage, >>>> which treats "natural" as a moral category of approbation, and hence Will >>>> Smith's difficulty in treating robots morally (ya' know, feeling remorse >>>> for >>>> shooting them in the head and such). >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>> Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the i'm Initiative from >>>> Microsoft. >>>> http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_ GoodCause >>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>> Archives: >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >>>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >>> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
