On 4/18/10 12:05 PM, "Mary" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Hi Mary and all,
³What is consciousness?²
Imho it¹s a pile. DQ/SQ a description of evolution suggested by Pirsig to
describe a metaphysics of the undefined/defined logic.
The defined for me is best described in a hierarchy in existence called
evolution:
1. Inorganic,
2. Organic life 1: reproduction by cell-splitting,
3. Organic life 2: reproduction by penetration of the egg-call wall by a
sperm-cell
The undefined for me is best described as a hierarchy in existence of a
further evolution of undefined consciousness (self-awareness).
4. DQ Consciousness evolves to an emotional/social level DQ only.
5. DQ Consciousness evolves to an intellectual level DQ/SQ.
6. DQ Consciousness evolves to a higher-emotional level, DQ only.
7. DQ Consciousness evolves to a higher-intellectual level, DQ only. (The
last two levels are the high country of Heroes.) Esoteric literature is the
basis of this schema for evolution.
Joe
>
>
>> -----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
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
