Re: The infinite list of random numbers
--- scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: rwas : To be able to say that a process will be random at infinite time would seem to imply a deterministic process that can generate non determinism. :) That deterministic process might be the construction of this true random number generator: http://www.gapoptic.unige.ch/Prototypes/QRNG/default.asp -s. Intuitively, it would seem to me that the entropy of any temporally aparently random sequence would drop over time. That is a sequence may have high entropy over some sampling interval, but then the entropy would drop over a progressively larger sample. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
Re: The infinite list of random numbers
Norman Samish wrote: Suppose an ideal random number generator produces, every microsecond, either a zero or a one and records it on a tape. After a long time interval one would expect the tape to contain a random mix of zeroes and ones with the number of zeroes equal to the number of ones. Is this necessarily true? Is it possible that, even after an infinite time had passed, that the tape could contain all zeroes or all ones? Or MUST the tape contain an equal number of zeroes and ones? Why? If you have a reference dealing with this topic, please let me know. Thanks, Norm Samish I don't think we can view time in terms of time passed and infinite. I think we can look at the problem in terms of a set of numbers over all time, or we can look at a set of numbers issued as a stream sampled over finite time. I think a set of numbers can only be defined as infinite over all time, not tested as such. To be able to say that a process will be random at infinite time would seem to imply a deterministic process that can generate non determinism. :) As for the ideal random number generator, if it's truly ideal, you could easily never see it produce anything buts all ones or all zeros for your lifetime, then promptly after you're dead, it starts producing something that appears random to a temporally constrained observer. An ideal random number generator could only be proved to be ideal over all time since any finite sampling of the stream would necessarily introduce order into the evaluation, lowering entropy and reducing randomness. IMO Robert W. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: ODP: Free will/consciousness/ineffabili
Brent Meeker wrote: Hello Charles On 23-Oct-01, Charles Goodwin wrote: -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 12:06 p.m. To: Charles Goodwin Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ODP: Free will/consciousness/ineffabili My intuition doesn't tell me whether or not I would have a 'feeling' of free will if I were aware of my subconscious decision processes; but it's pretty clear that I could be completely un-conscious and still behave with 'free will'; whatever it is. My suggestion is that it's lack of knowledge of these subconscious processes which gives you a feeling of free will. If you don't know what a feeling of free will means (hence the quotes?) I'd suggest it's the feeling that you reached a decision uninfluenced by anything external to yourself. You're right, I don't think I know what 'free will' feels like. Do you? Have you ever had a feeling of no-free will? The only think like that I can think of is having a cramp, or a tremor or a tick. I suppose Dr. Strangelove must have had a feeling like that as his right hand tried to strangle him. I can't agree that it's a feeling that I reached a decision uninfluenced by anything external to me. Would that mean putting on a sweater when I'm cold, or because I like the way it looks wouldn't be free will. Suppose your consciousness were delayed even more than in the Grey Walter carousel experiment (more than you now compensate for). Suppose there were a 3sec delay instead of 0.30sec. I think you'd feel out-of-control; even though nothing had changed about your decision processes. However if you could follow all the subconscious processes (you couldn't of course, by definition your consciousness isn't aware of them) This discussion appears to not take in account all the observables of consciousness. If one assumes facilities of observation and self observation support consciousness, then if someone closes their eyes, does that mean their that part of their consciousness that was associated with interpreting visual input has now become part of the subconscious? If one plugs their ears, are they less conscious than before? If one shuts off their symbolic reasoning facility are they less conscious still? I'd argue they have just changed the manner in which consciousness can express. then you'd see that what felt like an 'uninfluenced' decision was actually the result of past numerous influences, which had caused your brain to have a particular configuration. Yes, presumably you *could* be unconscious and have free will, in the sense that your actions couldn't be predicted accurately by some other agent. (Try to swat a fly and you will see what I mean!) What if your subconscious decision processes became known to you *after* you had made your decision and 'felt' that free will. Would you feel something different then? I assert that you cannot detect freewill with a consciousness constrained to temporal thinking and expression. I don't see what you mean. You'd probably feel different from how you felt when you made your decision whether you became aware of the subconscious processes or not. It's just a thought experiment. I imagine that I'm in some amazing brain scanner that is connected to a computer that has analyzed all my past decisions, so that when I make a decision (like putting on my sweater) the computer immediately displays a list of the reasons and how they contributed to my decision. I suspect such a machine would reveal that thoughts look like a picture being moved behind a plate with holes drilled in it, where each hole is representative of a neuron. Robert W. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: ODP: Free will/consciousness/ineffability
Pete Carlton wrote: Hi all, I've been lurking for months and am continually amazed by the discussions going on - I got into this list after branching out from philosophy of mind, after something like the GP/UDA (though completely lacking in rigor) had surfaced in a discussion I was in about artificial intelligence.. My interest in this channel has more to do with ai and synthetic consciousness as well. If you like, we could start our own thread. Robert W. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Immortality
a few weeks ago. One of the interesting things I learned was that the reason many Christians can't accept the theory of evolution is that they have to believe all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve, Adam is the mind, Eve is the soul. This is a symbolic story of the descent of humanity. The garden of eden is a place on the invisible. The fall was about getting stuck in self and descending into such a vibrationally low place (physical existence) the eating of the apple was about assuming separation of god in consciousness. because that's why we share in the original sin, We share in it cause we all signed up for the same crap. which explains why Jesus had to sacrifice himself for us. No, it doesn't. Humanity was to in do course correct it's mistakes. Because of unfortunate acceptance of council we accepted from some unfortunate people, we continued to bury ourselves in misconceptions, lies, and self judgment. It is important to note that all the power that jesus-the-christ demonstrated, we possess. The difference we use our power to keep our consciousness buried and barely eek out an existence on the fraction or power remaining. Yet there are also Christians who do accept the theory of evolution (the program didn't explain how they got around this problem) Easy, god creates through evolution. so clearly Christianity is changing and adapting. Christianity existed long long long before the coming of christ in the form of Jesus the Christ. YOu'd be very very suprised at what christians knew then and accepted back in then. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Re: Immortality
Also the personal religion question: what is religion? What man does to hide himself from himself. definitely not the fable with the old bearded gentleman in the nightgown. Some alternate concepts on god in terms of observations (made by me) -when a man wants his way with a beautiful woman, he wants the god in her. -the opposite sex is a physical shape for something that has no shape. -when you are having sex with your partner, you are having sex with god -all things embody the trinity principle in some form: mother, father, son principle/s. For anything to live, there must be a balance of all three in some expression. For humanity, it is seen externally as man, woman, and child. -when you feel pleasure or ecstasy, your consciousness is operating in heaven (while on earth) -Jesus The Christ could raise the dead, because his consciousness became one with the principles behind physical life (among other things) -We are all the christ, we just don't know it. If we did, we could raise the dead and walk on water as well. We would no longer be separate from the things around us (in consciousness) -The spirit christ is consciousness. -God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent -The spirit Christ is god manifest in his creation It's not my intent to be preachy, I just can't stand seeing people embrace the old man in the white gown thing as the only explanation of god and christ. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com
RE: Immortality
--- Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m. Sequential, temporal, in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view. I think some of the people here would argue that you *can't* transcend the physical (or possibly the computational). I appreciate that that sounds very in-the-box, but if you look at the sort of thing physicists (who *tend* to be materialists - not always) have come up with in last 20-30 years, I'd say there has definitely been *some* jumping out of the box... including quite a lot by David Deutsch. In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has taught me is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence. I agree. Every breakthrough in human thought has been at the expense of preconceived notions. Are you saying we *should* adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness ? (If so I think a lot of the people here would agree - the approach using computationalism is VERY abstract). However - what I'm most interested to know is, what is the almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence ? Charles That time is the fundamental basis for expression or state change: I've gone at length about my theories of timeless consciousness. if you are interested, I can repost. Dimention: that a body must be the locus of computation, or the place that consciousness resides, That the body is not simply a shape for an N-dimentional object that intersects with 4-space, That an observer is seperate from what he observes, cause-and-efect: that fliping a lightswitch causes the light to come on.., (sure, it looks that way, but are our observations flawed by by nature of being immersed in the system observed?) states of consciousness: for one, through my investigations I have found that a person dreams constantly, and typically can only recall such events after having been asleep. There was a comment about discounting observations that cannot be duplicated in a common forum: ie., what one dreams cannot be proved or theorized upon because it cannot be analyized in the physical... Since consciousness is an undefined quagmire in which everybody includes whatever one's digestive tract dictates, I deny the use of such in serious discussions. We can talk about the single concepts of ideation which may or may not be included into one's private consciousness concept. Neither am I impressed by the marvels of the psychology of the machine, especially if it may include mystical fantasies (OOOPS: experiences). Somewhere I seek a line between things to be taken seriously and the fantasy-fables. So, not wanting to open the door to the Brothers Grimm or to Andersen, I rest my case. Sorry, rwas, about your experiences. ...John Mikes At least that is my take on this opinion. I'd have to say that this apears to be a defense of a personal religion than the defense of an investigative method that discounts data for which has direct bearing on the subject investigated. I'm appauled that one could allow himself to attempt to develop a serious theory of consciouness while aparently having no respect for the only source of information and data on the phenomenon, which is the people that claim to posses it. There are documented cases of mystics altering their physiology through concentration and providing outstanding exceptions to conclusions of those bodily functions previously ruled to be impossible to manipulate consciously. If we claim to be lovers of truth by claiming to be scientists, we should readily embrace truth and all roads to it and cast away all that would seperate us from it. Robert W. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
RE: Immortality
--- Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rwas Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite clear memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize that within the context of the narrow communication style prevailent here that this claim means nothing. But your statement would seem to attempt rewrite my experiences as false by default. I resent that. Mystic experiences of course. Experiences which have rendered understanding which makes participating in the predominate discourse found on this list very painful to endure. Sequential, temporal, in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my view. Further more, I notice that despite the ability for the participants in these dialogs to be aware of different clinically demonstrated states of conscious that no attempt to address any but the most simplistic, limited views on consciousness. In addition, if there is anything my own personal journey has taught me is that to breach boundaries in understanding, must discard preconceived notions. It would seem that if one were interested in truth, one adopt a realm of purely abstract thinking to find answers to such an esoteric question as consciousness. But what I feel is happening here is an attempt to force understanding to fit an almost certainly flawed initial assumption about existence. One could easily discard any preconsceived notion about spirituality as well and adopt a purely abstract playground for developing theories. It is a simple matter then to test for fitness of a theory to observable data. I say observable data, not conclusions derived from observable data. That's very interesting. What experiences are you refering to? Charles __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
Re: Immortality
Hello, jamikes wrote: As much as I enjoyed last years's discussions in worldview speculations, I get frustrated by the lately emerged word-playing about concepts used in just different contents from the conventional. May I submit a (trivial) proof for immortality in this sense: Death (of others, meaning not only persons) is a 3rd person (fantasy?), either true or imagined. NOBODY ever experienced his/her own death and the time after such, so immortality is the only thing in consciousness. Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite clear memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize that within the context of the narrow communication style prevailant here that this claim means nothing. But your statement would seem to attempt rewrite my experiences as false by default. I resent that. The world (experienceable worldview) does not include otherwise. To the forgotten things existing in another (branch of?) world: If I 'forgot' something: that dose not necessarily build another world of those things I forgot. Alzheimer patients are not the most efficient Creators. And please do not 'rationalize' about 'near death' and similar fantasies in this respect. These statements *ignore* alternate forms of consciousness. It (in my opinion) arogantly assumes that the consciousness emphasized for sequential thinking and logic is the only perspective worth analyzying and building understanding upon. Excuse my out-of-topic remark to the topic. John Mikes - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 6:30 AM Subject: Re: Conventional QTI = False Hal Finney wrote: Saibal writes: According to the conventional QTI, not only do you live forever, you can also never forget anything. I don't believe this because I know for a fact that I have forgotten quite a lot of things that have happened a long time ago. The consciousness you are aware of cannot access the information. It does not mean it's gone. This is a wreckless assumption. Right, but to make the same argument against QTI you'd have to say, you don't believe this because you have died. But this is not possible. So the analogy is not as good as it looks. You do exist in branches where you have forgotten things, as well as in branches where you remember them. Sounds more like the spiritual model for consciousness. One simply assumes a vehicle for conscious expression and can express (remember etc) based on the capabilites of the vehicle while traveling along the landscape of conscious-all if you will. That is true, but I want to make the point that branches where I survive with memory loss have to be taken into account. In the case of a person suffering from a terminal disease, it is much more likely that he will survive in a branch where he was not diagnosed with the disease, than in a branch where the disease is magically cured. The latter possibility (conventional qti) can't be favoured above the first just because the surviving person is more similar to the original person. You could object that in the first case your consciousness is somehow transferred to a different person (you ``jump´´ to a different branch that separated from the dying branch before you were diagnosed), but I would say that the surviving person has the same consciousness the original person would have if you cured his disease and erased all memory of having the disease. Or you could stop assuming consciousness is sequential and limited to simplistic concepts of identity like: My name is joe and I'm the only expression of awareness of me there is since I'm not aware of anything else Another blatently wreckless assumption. Saibal Robert W. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: FIN
Hello, One might take the position that consciousness just is..., and is focused at a particular point we might call an identity. If we assume time is an illusion, the idea of being much older than the apparent vehicle consciousness, would hold. As for the statement: I exist because somewhere I am computed. under the assumption of infinite consciousness, it is its own computation. The machinery to compute and the thing to compute are the same thing. It exists everywhere existence is. In this model the physical body would be a focal point. In this model, an identical computation could not yield a separate consciousness. One might consider, if it is the method of observation which determines what is observed. If one assumes a limited perspective as the initial conditions of observation, then one observes only what he expects. Those things defying explanation, tend to be ignored less the whole framework collapse. If one considers the kind of thinking and theory generation possible with the thinking prevalent 100 years ago as compared with today, one can see that the initial assumptions seem to be the limiting factor in what can be explained. For example, 100 years ago, it was scarcely believable that powered flight was possible, much less a mission to the moon. This is not just a matter of data in a book to derive one's possible creative space. I maintain it has more to do with consciousness expansion. That is, one cannot help but have expanded consciousness as the result of experiencing, thinking, and creating. A very simplistic example involves learning to drive a car with a manual transmission. At first one labors to consider the coordination of clutch, brake, throttle, and gear shift. Ten years with such experience this same person can drop into any vehicle with a manual transmission and drive it, adapting quickly to the given parameters of the given vehicle. From one perspective this is just a hardwired skill set. But upon close inspection, one can describe just about all aspects of the state space of operating a manual transmission vehicle, even what would happen if things are done incorrectly. This demonstrates a tie between a skill and consciousness. One can further learn to operate any machinery that involves torque control and perhaps a clutch very quickly based on the experience of operating a manual transmission vehicle. This implies extrapolation of fundamental dynamic elements into a new model, all done very quickly. If a mechanic drives a car and in the process of operating it feels certain things, he can quickly determine what if anything is causing the disturbance. This implies not only the consciousness development of a casual operator, but also that of a mechanic, who can model the mechanical workings in his head on the fly. This is not a simple model either, feel, vibration, sound, all tie into a model which he can then verbally describe at length. The point of these examples is to demonstrate that consciousness grows with experience and learning. This example also demonstrates crudely that the expanded consciousness can grow faster with each new addition to it. Now again consider the observer observing his own consciousness. He makes some simple observations in terms of language and established bodies of knowledge. What he learns by observation is flavored by what he has to compare it to. As he learns what's possible to learn by observation of his consciousness, it grows with each observation. Forcing the observer to hit a target that moves faster the more it is observed. One might then consider another possibility. If my theory is correct about consciousness, then this moving target would continue to move toward infinite awareness. That is, aware of all things in the universe, multiverse, or what have you. (It also could move within the space such that it spirals in circles and leads no where.) This could be tested. Consider that thoughts can also serve to expand consciousness. One creates a thought, this thought facilitates consciousness expansion by creating a kind of tool for seeing consciousness. In general we do this anyway. Anytime one creates an explanation of a concept that more readily facilitates understanding by other observers, he's created a kind of dynamic tool for seeing. To continue, the experimenter might consider abstract thoughts that target the most direct route to a goal. This goal being rapid expansion of consciousness. The thoughts would be created and chained successively. (observation is done through awareness, not theory fitting or direct probing. Doing so causes consciousness to collapse on itself) To illustrate: One clears his mind, imagines a thought/awareness that facilitates expansion, then releases the thought and holds his mind blank to disallow preconceived thinking to interfere with what is created. One then continues to repeat the process as gently and as quietly as possible. With practice this process gets easier and easier.
Re: James Higgo
This might be little consolation for those who see this place as the only existence. From my perspective, James has gone home. He's checked out of school for the summer and left his books and his school uniform behind. I seriously doubt he'll miss being here. For what it's worth. Robert W. Marchal wrote: Fred Chen wrote: [...] The multiverse concept is of little comfort on occasions like these. Any concept is of little confort on those occasions, for those who remain. Only ritual and presence of other close person can perhaps be a little comfort. Now remember James proposed a sort of buddhist view about the multithings, it would have been nice to have his opinion on that question. Bruno PS I did not intend to answer to James' mother *on-line*. Sorry. _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)
Check out The Whipping Star by Frank Herbert. A neat story but kind of twisted. The story is about stars that are conscious. Robert W. could be conscious/aware in a way that we might recognize. If so, then stars too would probably have a very different idea about foundations than we planetary dwellers do. But still, I find it almost impossible to imagine that there is no underlying principle that runs everything. Maybe I've been living on the surface too long. Joel _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)
Hello, --- Joel Dobrzelewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell and Brent: I understand this is an extreme position, but I state it this way on purpose: to bring the issue to the foreground and get to the heart of the problem of science today. As long as we insist that continuous objects really exist - we will always* No, we're finite and discrete remember? be fooling ourselves and forever chasing an unobtainable ghost. Descriptions of continuous structures are only that - descriptions. And they will *always* remain finite and discrete. Discrete and finite viewpoints are an artifact of a finite consciousness. The symbol PI is a finite description for an infinite *process*. No sheet of paper or gigabyte of RAM can contain PI. It can, just not all at once. YOu could say Ram and paper are temporally challenged entities. And thus, any theory we create or program we write MUST truncate PI at come point... otherwise we will forever be waiting for the theory to produce its first result. const PI = 3.1415926535 These descriptions are entirely misleading - only approximations - never reality. I strongly disagree. Reality is a relative construct anyway, a construction, and agreement by a group of people large enough to enforce it. It would be better to do this... const PI = 1110101100010000111 But even this is wrong. To truly illustrate the point, we must do the following... function PI () as string do 'calculate PI loop end function Does the function PI() ever return a value? No. It is not within our reach. This is not proof that there is no continuum. Only evidence that there can be no continuum FOR US. *ouch* I just don't agree. If anything, your pi illustration is a demonstration of a kind of continuum. We are forced to interpret this infinite string in finite terms because we *think* in finite terms. One can train his brain to interpret any equation that fits in his field of view simultaneously. That is, the entire equation front to back as one visual/symbolic entity. From there, the information would trickle back through the neurons to form an expression the interpreter disires. So in effect, to the limit of his field of view, he sees the equation in it's entirety simultaneously without delay. Only processing depth incurs any delay. This person could also see a limited sequence of numbers produced by the equation, in this case pi, to the extent of his field of usable vision, and interpret this finite sequence, simultaneousy from paper to brain. Only depth of processing delays would be incurred. Now assume someone with a field of view that is infinite in one direction along with the required neurons for processing. This person could interpret a continuous infinite number set simultaneously. We assume we cannot do this because we assume we are finite and discrete. I say this thinking is limited to self limited consciousness. We might view another concept. This idea assumes that are finite nature is illusory. Our brains made up of ~10^9 neurons and 10^12 connections exist as an intersection into a conscious realm that only sees discretely. We see a single neuron but in fact a single neuron would be (in this concept) an intersection into a preceptual space where discrete conscousness exists. So to our equation to evaluate pi, simply an intersection into discrete perceptual space if something continuous and infinite. This concept allows one to interpret infinite number sets without constraint to time. Assuming time itself is an illusion of descrete/finite perceptual space, our way of thinking may be the exception, and not the rule of all possible perceptional and thinking spaces. For us, there can only be one infinite process in the Universe - the universe itself. Are we truely seperate from the universe that gave birth to us? Could it be, we and are finite/discrete thinking and perceptional viewpoints are simply a snapshot, an intersection of the universe's expression of intelligence? I assert that even our own existence is a continuum, we only happen to be conscious at this point of our development. In that, we are not seperate from the universe that gave birth to us, every atom in our bodies a mini-contimuum of existence, forming a singular (aprently) expression of intelligence. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
Re: White Rabbits, Consistency and Dreaming
I think the problem is that folks are assuming that the only way you can tell whether you are awake or dreaming is by sensory input limited physical senses, ie., 5 senses. If one pays attention, one can be aware of a number of senses that are not quantified by popular understanding. One of these is the awareness of the passage of time. One can remember *typically* which memories come before or after another. Not always, but a sense of temporal organization exists for most people within the ability to manipulate memories. Another more difficult *burried sense* is one that allows to ask the question: where do our words come from? If one concentrates, one can be somewhat aware of the flow of words from the depths of their consciousness as they *feel* a meaning, and turn that meaning into the spoken word. How is that one has the ability to explore this awareness? Is it a journey through some kind of n-space? Is focus something that can be moved? How does one point to an abstract space? I've just explained how one might explore the *where do my words come from* thing. But how do you locate this space? I've not provided the address, just a description of how one might concentrate in a way to illustrate this concept. Another would be minds-eye thinking. How one visualizes something. How do we do this? How do we even know we can do it? One could argue the ability just apeared and we found some kind of tag/button we could toggle to manipulate this space. How does one know the difference between visualization and physical seeing? There are some that can visualize things so powerfully they are more real than what we would call *real*. So what kind of tag or label do we have to tell which space we're in? All of these things I mention illustrate or point to what I would call buried-senses. They seem to be abstract senses we can form as we wish. We can create new one as we can create new burried features of thinking. All of these and many more I don't even know how to go about describing would form a composite that would grant us situational-awareness. This situational awareness is how one tells when one is in dream space. At some point you'd have to ask yourself, what's more real?, that which I see through physical eyes, or things I create and put my own rules and senses on. We have a common ground for which we interact. We see other people and things and can model their behavior well enough that we can be confident that these rules will hold as long as we choose to participate. We have a sense of what is *us* and what is not. Is this learned? Or is it built in? The question of animals morphing to other things is only meaningfull statistically. We've grown up in a world where things like that don't happen. Not many people claim to have seen such things, so we accept that as a-typical behavior. It does'nt fit our model of *reality*. I submit that if people relied on this kind of defintion of reality that they set themselves up for a kind of weirding-out, lost feeling when life then throws us a curve. If one day rabbits do develop the ability to morph, I think most science types could be found wandering around in a stupor and babbling meaningless phrases. To get an idea of this, one might recall a movie or experience like culture-shock that caused a person to feel out of place and lost. For me this is easily accomplished with a really strange movie. I saw a program on WWII where an interviewed paratrooper mentioned mentioned that after puting on all his gear, and while waiting to board the aircraft amidst all the noisy aircraft in preperation for the D-Day invation, he felt a kind of disconnected, surreal feeling. I've felt this as well when some time ago on board a small aircraft wearing a headset and voice activated mike. It seems just the loss of something familiar like aural echos and hearing one's own natural voice can be enough to leave one in a dreamlike state. I think just the loss of the ability to model enough of one's sensory input would cause this loss of connection to reality. Robert W. --- George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a continuation of Consistency? + Programs for G, G*, ...+ White Rabbits Some more thoughts about dreaming. I wrote: To summarize: White rabbits are inconsistent by definition. The issue is inconsistent with respect which frame of reference? If we dream of a real world white rabbit (inconsistency as seen from the real world point of view) then it may be perfectly consistent in the dream world. If it is consistent in the dream world, no problem. No paradox in the dream world. No paradox in the real world.. If we dream of a dream world white rabbit (inconsistency as seen from the dream world point of view), then we realize the dream world is a fake and we wake up. No more dream world. No more paradox. We can resolve the white rabbit paradox if we take relativity seriously. George Let's say you are dreaming
Re: Belief Knowledge
You must have a particular problem in mind to have made this comment. I do, a set of problems: 1. Machine cooperation in fabrication robots and other agents that can cooperate in complex tasks such as manufacturing non-robot-friendly components. 2. Synthetic Autonomous Agent Engineering such as circuit board design (this would operate completely in software) 3. Autonomous Agents for mission and vehicle operation. AA's used in space, and undersea exploration 4. General Robotic Autonomous Agents ie., androids, specialized autonomous robots for augmentation or replace of human presence in any number of environments. Obviously these are biggies no matter how you look at it and are common interests to many researchers. I can invision methods of crude consciousness but consciousness in terms of what is required to solve a particular problem In fact this group has come up with many novel ideas that have been discussed. Some were preconceived ideas brought to the discussion, other arose in the heat of debate. Some have been found to be wanting, and so have been left on the wayside. Other ideas have better stood the test of criticism, but are still contentious. I guess I missed those. Consciousness per se, is a philosophical quagmire, that is unlikely to be solved anytime soon. Based on my explorations I must conclude consciousness of *any* kind is a thread that intersects the physical realm (from somewhere else). Any tool or machine construct that lends itself to observation of identity seperate from other identities provides a scratch and snif kind of intersection between here and *there* and necessarily forms a thread of consciousness. Some might describe this as an emergent construct. Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967 UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Belief Knowledge
--- Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert W. wrote: [...] Logic is a powerful tool for analysis. Some use it intuitively, you people seem to have mastered formalized, symbolic logic. That's great. Logic is just a branch of mathematics which studies discourse and their interpretation. Let's be clear on the meaning of *logic*. Logic as a reasoning power existed before the discipline of formalized logic. One can have a very powerful logical reasoning facility without having attented a course on the subject. My point has to do with the way you folks seem to be trying to understand *everything*. Logic will always play a powerful role in understanding and analysis. I am basically trying to say, there are ways of seeing and understanding that transcend sequential thinking. Most discourses are sequential but the thinking behind does not need to be sequential. The semantics are in general not sequential. Maticulously wondering a search space, with logic should be wandering. or any other method, only reveals what's in that space. It does not help one see outside of the space. Recall I have until here give only an informal (although persuasive IMO) argument showing that if we can survive with a digitale brain then physics transform itself This assumes a great deal... into a branch of machine psychology. UDA = UDA http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1726.html And currently, I have just proposed to some to explain the technical part of my thesis where I will explicitely show how quantum logic in the discourse of the introspective UTM. I' dont feel myself searching in a space. How can it be anything but a space to be searched? One can invision a possibility space where one dimension is time and others possible expression types. One might attempt to write a program to demonstrate consciousness by generating a random program within some set of constraints and then generating many until he stumbles upon what he's looking for. When all the possibilities within the constraints are exhausted, he's searched the possibility space. Obviously there are faster ways to search this space for meaningful results, but it's still a search. I'd love to be expert enough in logic and mathmatics to demonstrate all the brick-walls I see intuitively, unfortunately, I am not now, or likely to be good enough in formalized systems of logic to do so. It is true that logic is poorly taught. But then that is the reason why I propose to take it at the beginning. Of course that demand some works. I have not taken a course on it. I have read a book on Symbolic Logic but found the discipline of little utility and so not worth my time to incorporate as a persistent knowledge. My logical reasoning power is reasonable developed however and find it more than adequate for most endeavours. I have noticed that when it comes to exhausting a possibility space with logic and finding an answer using intuitive methods then verifty the results with logic is far more productive. On the other hand, I can see the temptation to use one's already developed formalized method to explore a subject. I however, do not enjoy considering the possiblity of having my mind placed in a mathmatical bottle by you people. I was hoping to call attention to other facilities we all posses to expand understanding in areas that seem to defy understanding. Thank you. Such facilities are welcome, although they are in general much more difficult to communicate. Read the UDA. It is IMO such a facililities. The logic is only for those who have grasped UDA and want to see the emergence of the quantum in machine's mind. To be honest I think you were also rather hardhearted with Brent Meeker's post. I was having a bad day. My appologies for being harsh. Bruno Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: The role of logic, planning ...
Just as an example, he says most philosophers would agree that []A-A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This is clearly a different meaning of the word to know that we use here in Australia. I get the impression folks here assume that when one person knows something, that only that person knows that something. For other people to know the same something, they have to discover and assimilate it for themselves. It also seems that folks here assume knowledge is some kind of pattern that exists separate from the truth of surrounding it's existence. From a mystic standpoint, this can't be. To know something is closer to the analogy of a subscriber line. When one *knows* something, anything, they subscribe this pattern. Another issue is how folks seem to thing knowledge is inanimate until someone acts on it, like words on a paper being meaningless until someone read them. From a mystic standpoint, that isn't so. Knowledge and expression is simply manifest from one place to another. The knowledge itself is not constrained to the limits of those that would interpret it. Those entities interpret and then express that understanding wherever they happen to be existing. For someone to try to form the basis for existence based on what one thinks others can know in terms of what I've tried to counter, I feel intuitively that they would fail, or not succeed completely. One analogy to explain this is someone caught in an event horizon of a black-hole. The realm formed by this Event-Horizon can be vast, but is still by definition, limited. I see people trying to define existence by illusionary data like someone trying to understand the universe by what he can see from his vantage point in the Event-Horizon. Drawn out, it would look like someone walking in a circle. Eventually, he'd come back to where he started. He might vary his path slightly to see different things, but he'd simply be make the circle bigger. He can never know what lay outside the circle with his given modus operandi. From my perspective, true knowing, is being what you know. Which implies a great deal on what is truly knowable. If you look at what we're used to here, we have belief and knowing implicitly understood in statistical terms. We know we can walk, we've done it so often, so we don't doubt we can. Belief seems to be predicated on the existence of doubt. True knowing has no constraints of doubt. To know is to be one with that knowledge. This from a mystic standpoint, is true faith. Faith is *not* belief. Faith is knowing. I know of plenty of people who know that God exists. And I know of a number of other people who know that God doesn't exist. So, by this application of Modal logic, we can conclude that God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, which seems kind of illogical. Perhaps the way out of this mess is to say that I'me really talking about belief, rather than knowledge, however that would imply that knowledge is devoid of meaning, since it is impossible to establish with certainty whether any particular fact is true. Even Mathematical proof is contingent upon belief of the efficacy of the formal proof, Again, I had thought the point of these threads were to try to describe consciousness with the idea in mind of trying to synthesize consciousness in software or some other artificial means. I propose the best way to do this is to know what one is after specifically, then solve the problem of achieving it. If one attempts to use a limited thinking style to implement something interpreted with that same thinking style, the end result would seem to necessarily be limited to perceptional constraints of that thinking style. I get the intuitive sense, that linear or sequential thinking will not result in the kind of achievement we're talking about. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Leibniz Semantics
I was'nt aware if was a diadic operator. My boolean interpretation of what's been presented: OR: AB:C 00 0 01 1 10 1 11 1 IF: AB:C 11 1 10 0 01 1 00 1 Can someone explain the IF table? Robert W. --- Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A v B A - B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Just to help you guys out, the notation used here puts the 'result' operation in the middle column. The first column is A, the last column is B, and the middle column holds A or B in the first table and if A then B in the second table. This is different than how I have usually seen it displayed, where the result operation is in the rightmost column. That accounts for part of the confusion. *sigh* I was thinking... to myself: MAN! I'm really worse at this than I thought... since I couldn't figure out the rule to make the matrix work! sheesh. Scott __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
Re: Transporter Paradox
Prove is a strong word. I don't think you can prove that we perceive 3-space... I guess it depends on what you mean by perceive. If I develop software that behaves a certain way in 3-space combining observations, a plan, and then demonstrating an action in that 3-space, I'd say that system perceives in 3-space. If I take a black box and train it to do the same thing, without knowing anything about how the blackbox internals are implemented, I'd still say that system perceives 3-space. In the pleasure example, one can perceive pleasurable acts in this realm. They can do so without being limited to experiencing pleasure in this realm. I would argue that pleasure is not a law limited to the physical realm. Likewise, one can perceive in 3-space without being of it. What I mean here is that we may observe or deduce physical facilities (in the human body) for perceiving 3-space. It does not mean one perceives 3-space as a result of, and only-because-of that facility. You might observe these things or facilities (physical mechanisms) and assume that's how such abilities can be. I'd argue these things are apparent, and provide an interface between one realm and another. One might consider software operating in a computer. The machine is the mechanism used to animate the software. The software's operation implies and expresses a logical (usually) intent of the programmer. So we have three layers of expression. One is mechanical, one is descriptive (software itself), and one is the actual intent of the programmer (what it does). We can say that the entity formed at the 3rd layer (what it does) is not bound to what lies beneath it. We could say (similarly to what some sculptors say) that it was always there (what it does), and the software and the machine it runs on, simply revealed it. I would further say, that not only is the act of writing the software and running it simply revealing something that was already there, but it reveals it *here* (physical) from somewhere else (non-physical realm). you can only observe behavior (careful! are you assuming 3-space in which to observe). What is it to observe in a non-temporal realm? If a behavior is expressed non-temporally, you have a static picture (crude approximation). Then did the person producing the behavior create that picture? Or did they simply journey to a place where it already existed? If so, why can't an observer do the same? If he can, what is observation? On the other hand there is plenty of non-verbal as well as verbal evidence for pain and pleasure (avoidance, attraction...) I ment to say, that you may stimulate what is widely considered pleasure in someone, and they might elect to say that the stimulus is pleasurable. You might observe or deduce and test the apparent physical mechanisms for that pleasure. What I am saying is that you can associate the two by apparent cause and effect, but cannot prove the physical mechanism is the reason for the pleasure experienced by the consciousness of the person stimulated. our thinking in this consciousness physical existence tends to express things I can make no sense of these phrases. You seem to have in mind the monads of Leibnitz or Bertrand Russell. our thinking in *this* consciousness.. I am using the term consciousness in terms of a vehicle. So our thinking in *this* vehicle. In other words: One's thoughts in a timeless-consciousness can be organized as a temporal stream of descrete thought frames... physical existence tends to express things.. From a mystic standpoint, the physical realm is just one place out of many, with it's own characteristics. One can take a a thing that is manifest in one place one way, and bring it into the physical and have it manifest another way. So in other words: Consciousness, normally timeless in expression, can be manifest in the physical realm. In doing so (do to the temporal nature of the physical realm) consciousness tends to express temporally as well. You seem to have in mind the monads of Leibnitz or Bertrand Russell. I have no idea who those people are, nor do I have any clue what a monad is. :) Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Transporter Paradox
--- rwas rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course we are hard-wired to perceive the passage of time, three-dimensional space, and the pleasure of sex. Physics and Darwin provide explanations of this. What's your explanation?...oh, never mind, I know...It just is. Brent Meeker I answered some of this in another post We perceive 3-space because we have tools to take data in it and the ability to relate and associate observations in this space with other sensory facilities. Pleasure is a spiritual sensation. You cannot describe it terms of states. Describing it as a feeling that is the opposite of pain does not work. All feelings we have that we say are pleasurable-or-not cannot be correlated to empirical data taken from stimulating someone. YOu can only say that certain brain functions have certain physical results, and that the person *says* they feel pleasure. YOu cannot prove that the consciousness of the person is receiving pleasure as the direct result of stimulus to pleasure centers in the brain. As far as time, I described this in a separate post in terms of my own theory. In it I said time is an illusion and we perceive it because of sampling of descrete events. Our consciousness is timeless but our thinking in this consciousness can be organized as a temporal stream. Each thought being a frame in a sequence. Each frame is timeless. We say time has transpired because of the behavior of external events, the ticking of a clock's second hand for example. If you force the clock to exist over an epoch we might see it as a 4 dimensional object. The hands of the clock would form fluid swirling patterns that extend over the length of the clock's epoch. Someone trying to see this clock as moving forward in time would have to to take 3dimentional slices of the 4 dimensional clock along the direction of the 4th dimension to see descrete frames projecting the clock's apparent forward motion in time. I assert that physical existence tends to express things in such a way that we perceive time, forming an externally driven tendency to form thought this way. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
I think I understand your concern. As to how to form a complete theory, I find that kind of thinking outside my form of expression. Finding an all encompassing theory for consciousness I believe will be impossible. I think all we can do is frame the understanding in terms of what we are trying to achieve with it. In my thinking style, I find myself strugling to turn intuitive thoughts and feelings into words. It's a bit easier if I say: I want to design an AI to achieve *this* kind of robotic cooperation. Trying to develop a *complete* theory is something I've never been able to do. It seems to require forming specifics for things lost in the translation to specifics. For me, understanding of AI and consciousness is the kind of thing one interprets, knowing it's only a limited expression. Robert W. --- Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05-Mar-01, rwas rwas wrote: I think you missed it. I interpret what he's saying to mean that I-ness is an illusion. It implies to me that one's perception of time, integral to I-ness is an illusion. So one moves around an expression space depending on viewpoint. It may be an 'illusion', but it still requires an explanation if the theory is to be anything more than hand waving. Not only does the illusion of personal continuity, but also the 'illusion' of space-time and an external (non-mental) world obeying a fairly specific physics. I can well accept that at some 'fundamental' level the ontology is just thoughts, observer moments, or windowless monads. In fact that seems like a good place to start. That's fine, but when I ask how this explains the things we're interested in - perception, physics, space-time, mathematics - all I hear is, It's just a web of observer moments. which explains nothing because it is consistent with anything. Brent Meeker The perception of being continuous in time is illusory in my view. We are already all things we can be, except in consciousness. Those bound to temporal thinking lack the consciousness to transcend it. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Regards __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: another anthropic reasoning paradox
--- rwas rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had proposed an experiment very similar to a friend some years back concerning identity and consciousness. We start with a machine that can download, upload, and run consciousness. It can also manipulate the functioning of the brain of the person strapped into it. So we take one of you and put you in the chair. You sit there ready to observe. We shut you down and download your consciousness. We awaken you in the machine. Where is your awareness of self? This is not you observing someone else with consciousness. The object is to track *your* awareness of self. Now we reawaken the you still in human form in the chair. Which one do you perceive out of now? The computer or the human form? There is no memory or information to make you aware of your alternate self. An external observer would see two of you operating your consciousness. But you as the subject would experience what? Most people I try this one follow along that their awareness would be in one system or the other. They would perceive being one place or the other. Then I say: now you're both operating, which one are you? Most people say both after a time. I say: but how can you be aware in two places at one with no communication between systems. They start to get mad at this point and degrade into treating the two separate systems from an external observer's view point. Another issue one can experiment with is memory. If we assume that consciousness can be viewed as frames, ie., like frames of a movie film, we should be able to stop and start the consciousness of the entity now in the machine. We can control the frame-rate as it were. The entity should not be able to tell. If they could observe external events, they'd see the clock on the wall move very fast if we slowed his frame-rate down. So if we assume all this, then we must assume that he only knows who he is based on memory of self from one frame to the next. If we replay one frame of consciousness over and over again, his consciousness will not evolve from a given starting point. If we then assume this memory model of consciousness, we might be able to manipulate this memory. We could in effect change his identity at will. With out the ability to compare frames of his own consciousness, the entity in the machine should not be able to determine that his identity had changed. If we apply this concept to all humans, we could say we are just living in one big machine. We could say that our identities are subject to our memories, for which we have no control over. We could say we have no way of knowing if our reality had changed moments ago from something else very different Robert W. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wei writes: If you don't think this is paradoxical, suppose we repeat the choice but with the payoffs for button 2 reversed, so that Bob wins $10 instead of Alice, and we also swap the two minds so that Alice is running on the substrate that generates more measure instead of Bob. They'll again both push button 1. But notice that at the end both people would have been better off if they pushed button 2 in both rounds. Maybe you could argue that if they had known ahead of time what was going to happen, they would push button 2. For example, Alice would know that her measure was going to be first low, then high. Therefore whatever wealth she gains while her measure is low will be boosted while her measure was high. This makes it more important to gain wealth during low measure times than it would have been if she didn't know about the upcoming measure-boost. Hal __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: (Quantum) suicide not necessary?
--- rwas rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: versions of many-worlds theories, one might consider a different approach. By deleting certain sectors of one's memory one should be able to travel to different branches of the multiverse. Suppose you are diagnosed with a rare disease. You don't have complaints yet, but you will die within a year. If you could delete the information that you have this particular disease (and also the information that information has been deleted), branches in which you don't have the disease merge with the branches in which you do have the disease. So with very high probability you have traveled to a different branch. I don't know whether to be relieved or annoyed that I'm not the only person to think of this ;D. As a student of mysticism, I meditate often and explore mind, consciousness, and feeling. Your experiment points to the process of quieting the ego. The framework for I-ness that gives meaning to our existence here. At some point one experiences a complete loss of I and any constraint of consciousness formed by life here. One appears to move through something from here to somewhere else. The strange part is when you are conscious in both places. For the purpose of this convo I'll say alternate universes. I had read in mystic writings that time and space are an illusion. It seems physicists (masters of intellect) are coming to the same conclusion 10,000 years after the masters of the soul and mind had. I offer this comparison not as proof, but mainly to demonstrate the irony I perceive. I grew up with a strong perpensity for intellect and mind. I was attracted to mysticism for some strange reason but found conflict between my understanding of the physical and myself from an intellect's point of view. Melding the two worlds of understanding was and still is difficult. I also have a strong interest in AI and have developed my own theories of synthetic consciousness. Interestingly enough, they seem to point to what I've found through meditation, if not exactly representative of the process. One particular experience involved waking up from sleep after meditating about 3 hours prior. I was aware in a place with no time or dimension. I got up to relieve myself and found myself slipping between two realities. The sensation was that of traveling between two points, but not travel like one expects. It seemed reality was being folded depending on where I went. One or the other by itself was'nt too impressive, but when combined (both points joined) the result was unsettling. The awareness of non-dimension while trying to stand upright is an odd experience. I had no trouble standing up but up had no meaning. It was necessary to keep from falling down but I was not consciously bound to dimension or time. Again, I provide this as an illustration of things that have been discussed in this list found and verified (at least to me) in alternate methods. One important point to emphasize is that in these realms, dimension is useless. This means the classical physics falls down. Without a way to measure something or compare something, one trained in thinking where observables are constrained to things measurable would be lost. Emphasis on characteristics and relationships between characteristics in a completely abstract way are the only way to grasp what is observed. For me, an afterlife is a certainty. I have no doubts that physical science will bridge the gap between *here and there*. The biggest issue I see with the theories I see is that they seem to demand that alternate places behave and act like the physical here. In this place, we are confined to act and perceive with the five senses. We do with our physical body as go-between, between consciousness and the physical. It seems most people proposing theories have no experience effecting outcomes with anything but their physical bodies, so it's not too surprising that they constrain their alternate (theories of) realities to the same limitations found here. I'll provide a mystically influenced frame work to consider... The physical (the apparent in mystic terms) is a place where *things* persist. This is unique to this place. Trying to take something that persists (ie., spacecraft, diagnostic vehicle, etc) else where, would result in the persistent object succoming to in-persistent laws. It would dissolve. The discussions here seem to revolve around consciousness, the laws which it is found in, and methods to delineate consciousness. From my perspective, consciousness is the *only* vehicle in which to transcend the realm of persistence. Again to restate the irony I perceive, the experiment mentioned involving altering memory, is in effect, what mystics do to transcend the physical. They actually train themselves
Re: need for anthropic reasoning
Hello, I'm new in here. I apologize in advance for any inadvertent transgressions... Second, there is no way of knowing whether you are in a so called real world or in a virtual world. So if I don't care about virtual people, I don't even know whether or not I care about myself. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'd argue, all worlds are just as real, or unreal as you make them. Finding a common context as some mechanism to validate truth seems naive. One can only apply truth to issues in the context to be evaluated. Soon we may have AIs or uploaded human minds (i.e. human minds scanned and then simulated in computers). It seems to me that those who don't care about simulated thoughts would have an advantage in exploiting these beings more effectively. I'm not saying that is a good thing, of course. I enjoyed considering this possibility. It sounds a lot like freedom. My current understanding tells me that there is much more to mind than just logic and reasoning power. The power of the intellect is the ability to transcend the chaos of undisciplined thought and feeling. It's downfall is it's declaration of absolutism, that it stands as the pinnacle of understanding. The problem I find is that the intellect developed in this world, only knows *this world*. Some would argue that there is no other world. I'd argue it's the intellect defining it self in terms of the *apparent* world, and religiously maintaining the faith, less it find it's own demise. A truly powerful mind (imo) is one that quickly adapts to any rules found in any context it operates in. Clinging to one realm and making it the center of the universe sounds a lot like religion to me. You're assuming that the AIs couldn't fight back. With technology improving, they might be exploiting us soon. I do a lot of conceptual work in ai. I find without purpose, an entity is one step closer to conceptual death. An ai knowing enough to know it wants to exploit probably isn't burdened by the chaotic thinking humans are plaqued with. It is more likely ai's achieving this level of cognition and consciousness, will seek to cooperate. They would want to achieve things they would recognize that only humans act as a catalyst for. One scenario is that ai's might have less consciousness than just described, and that they operated in competition, not conscious of what they are actually doing. I think this is possible on a small scale, but would not continue very far. Insects are in effect, small machines without much in the way of consciousness. Aside from the occasional plaque or locust swarm, we don't worry about them too much. Do you think that, 150 years ago, white people who didn't care about blacks had an evolutionary advantage? I also value knowledge as an end in itself, but the problems is how do you know what is true knowledge? If you don't judge knowledge by how effective it is in directing your actions, what do you judge it by, I think this is an issue of consciousness. One may operate with knowledge on a small scale. They find harmony in there lives by keeping things simple. There are those that develop skills in applying vast amount of knowledge to complicated problems. You might ask: which is better? I think it depends on what a person wants out of life. To judge something, I think, requires a contextual awareness. What applies for one might not apply for another. In science, we maintain a rigid form of thinking to in effect, keep from deluding ourselves. It also applies as a language that spans over anyone who would join and uphold the principles of science (scientific method, etc). But again, the validity and applicability of the knowledge gained in this club depends on the context it is applied to. A scientist might say: This drug will improve your life. The farmer or other simple person might say: I don't care. The scientist might see statistics that say: These people are dieing needlessly. The simple person might say: That's life. You might make a limited scientist out of a given simple person, making them see your view point. But have you improved their life? Have you made them see? Or have you just blinded them. Robert W. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
