What is consciousness? Is it self-awareness? If so, that would imply ego. So, one could say that any entity that achieves the concept of ego is self-aware and thus conscious. No? At various times in my life I've been given a paycheck to be a programmer. Now all of those jobs are being off-shored to India or China, but that is beside the point. Does anyone have an "ego object" in their Java toolkit (my preferred language since it has automatic garbage collection, and is also platform independent in its own little JVM)? Is it open-source? Can I download it somewhere? We programmers really hate reinventing the wheel, you know.
Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ would seem to imply that above human > intelligencecomputers > > > On Friday, April 16, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Tudor Boloni > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Humans are very much on tract to build Artificial General > Intelligence > > systems within 15 years (one (http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/tutorial/) > has > > already replaced 300 workers at a naval base in their main work > capacity > > (with the displaced workers (they were job consultant for sailors) > making > > comments like "that's just the way i would do it too")... so for the > sake > > or > > argument lets assume this is coming (there is too much money behind > it not > > be coming) in 15 yrs. lets also assume its value system is calculated > > using > > symbolic conceptual logic along MoQ lines, it seems to me that the > > machines would find it MORAL to eliminate the growth of new humans > > once they believe: > > > > a) computers are more effective at generating Intellectual Patterns > than > > humans, and > > b) humans are removing too many resources from the needs of future > > computing power requirements > > > > We will be like the bacteria doctors hit with antibiotics, screaming > to > > each > > other that its not moral to limit our growth... but the computer > would > > test > > our claims and find us too resource needy and/or too dumb. > > At first I thought this fellow, who calls himself Boloni, was playing a > belated April Fools joke on us, and I'm still not sure. However, > Horse, > Bodvar, Platt, and the gang seem to be taking him seriously. > If nothing else, Boloni's posts are unearthing some of the pitfalls of > MOQ > reasoning. (And, they have nothing to do with "right-wing" politics or > "anti-intellectualism".) > > For example, Bo (who apparently "just noticed" Tudor's arrival), > immediately > sought to defend the Intellectual Level. But his rebuttal only made > the AI > argument sound even more plausible. > > [Bo]: > > I don't think Horse says that an artificial intelligence system has > > INTELLECTUAL patterns, nor do we humans "have intellect", the > > intellectual level resides on top of the social level and it was the > > biological species Homo Sapiens that DQ "rode" to the social level, > > only in THAT capacity are humans the biology under society and > > intellect. OK, a bit uncalled for, but it must be pointed out. > > And Platt's quote from Lila that ""It was this intellectual level that > was > screwing everything up" is a true statement, but not because it makes > hay > out of intellectualism. > > You see, folks, Artificial Intelligence=Consciousness is one of the > fallacies that belief in an intellectual level fosters. In fact, it is > that > very dogma that has screwed up Bo's thinking. At the risk of > committing > heresy, I strongly object to his assertion that humans do not "have > intellect". Intellect is part and parcel of human intelligence. It > cannot > simply be relegated to some extracorporeal realm that an electro- > mechanical > device can access for its "own purposes". > > Furthermore, to confound a newcomer with such tangled rhetoric as > "resides > on top of the social level", "that DQ 'rode' to the social level", and > "in > THAT capacity are humans the biology [??] under society and intellect" > is > doing the MoQ a disservice. It's just as silly to claim that man has > no > intellect as to equate artificial intelligence with consciousness. Mr. > Boloni is getting some real baloney thown at him, in my opinion. > > Although RMP doesn't specifically say so, I don't think he would deny > that > existence is an anthropocentric system. The universe is designed for > MAN's > value sensibility and intellectual apprehension. It is MAN who > realizes > Value and brings it into being as a multiform reality. It is MAN by > and for > whom Pirsig wrote about values. It is MAN who is the locus of > existence and > who, on completing the life-cycle, reclaims the Value lost in becoming, > thereby restoring the absolute integrity of the Source. > > It is the nature of man to be a thinking-feeling-intellectual being. > But > man cannot synthesize or build "sensible awareness" from digital chips > and > diode networks.. A computer or processing system designed by man to > duplicate his experience and produce "intelligent" data is just that--a > machine. No matter how closely its actions resemble human behavior, a > machine will never be a conscious entity. > > So, if you are "for real", Tudor Bolini, you will spare yourself a lot > of > anguish by directing your AI speculations to Ray Kurzweil, Hans > Moravec, or > some other cybernaut who espouses the coming of a Singularity that will > put > machines in charge of mankind. > > Essentially speaking, > Ham > > > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
