Quiéisso, Maorrrrílio! sou contra uma ruma de coisas, a começar por uisque falsificado, comida ruim, livro meu não devolvido, mulher que depila as pudendas(depende, é claro, da depilação), cheiro de vômito alheio, catinga de morto já adentrado na putrefação, usarem minhas facas e cutelos sem minha permissão(minha coleção já conta com 46 artefatos, alguns de fazer babar um açougueiro), enfim tanta coisa que sou contra que nem vou mais listar, melhor esconder algumas das minhas idiossincrasias, pois assim sempre guardo na manga ou na botina um ás.
Oswaldo Ps. Mas Laurita sou a favor, embora nem leia sempre, preguiça, prefiro ler coisas mais prosaicas como o texto abaixo, veja aí: *The Shy Computer* Robert Karl Stonjek In my recent essay series 'Innate and ever present Roots of Religion', I briefly outlined a range of human behaviours and their precursors that spontaneously emerge early in life and that would have led, inevitably, to the kind of religious belief that is found from the EEA through to modern times. Indeed, most of our predispositions toward cultural icons such as art, music, aesthetics, philosophy and so on can also be found in the same set of predispositions or with few additions. But simply being capable of something doesn't mean that it will manifest. Nor does the capability alone explain the existence of that capability or what drove its evolution. Thus there are questions significantly more fundamental than I have dealt with to date to be answered. We must dig deeper into the foundations of human cognition to find the answers. One method I have employed for doing this is the 'empty box' imagery. I am thinking of the metal box one begins with when building an audio amplifier or in more recent times, a computer. You add modules to the empty box, make the connections between modules and between the modules and the case (power external inputs and outputs). Eventually you have the hardware and can start the computer up and deal with software issues (environment, education and culture in the case of humans). Transferring this to the human I see a hybrid - a head with a few cables dangling out of an open top. I like to start with the chimp brain and ask what we might have to add to get the human. Another way of applying this imagery, one which may be more accessible to those who don't build their own computers and other electrical equipment, is the computer-robot. Let's imagine that our computer techs have read my essay series, Piaget, Robby Case, Daniel Stern and other authors of works on child maturation and have included all the enabling capacity the robot needs to perform as an adolescent. What will it do? Our first observation is that, in response to stimuli or instruction, the robot can indeed perform many cognitive functions. But when the response to stimuli is complete it more or less stops. Its curiosity appears to be largely absent and the only conversation it engages in revolves around its basic needs (as programmed in to simulate the living - eg hunger, thirst). What we have is a robot that performs much like a baby or most other animals that use their senses and their cognitive abilities to satisfy their basic need for survival and little more. Other animals need to breed as well, but this is still in the robot's future, as with the child. To progress the robot further we need to inspire it to engage the world, its environment, for reasons other than basic needs. Curiosity is clearly lacking, but how does one program in a general curiosity without telling the robot what to be curious about? Clearly there are differences between people, especially as they mature into adults, so a prescriptive instruction would result in a stereotypical robot whereby every succeeding example had the same interests. Expression is the other element lacking. Expression should be as general as curiosity. We note that there *are* some stereotypical elements to both curiosity and expression in young children, so some prescription or common source may be required. The simplest way to get the Robot to express is to instruct it to externalise (some) internal states. These include both conscious elements (what the Robot can tell you it knows about) and subconscious (processes the Robot can not tell you about because it can not see them from its robot-to/from-other interface ie consciousness.) Language will start to include "Robot think/feel/like" type statements which indicate more than just basic needs. This output will occasionally include information which is not normally conscious ie once a verbal train starts it may be influenced by partly or wholly subconscious processes. The robot will readily express in other ways, such as drawing and painting. We note that visual primitives show up in drawings, such as we know from the progress of children's drawings of people (not normally conscious). But the robot takes no interest in the drawings it has made previously nor those made by other people. The Robot talks almost endlessly, but mainly not *to* anyone - it just talks. And it doesn't take much interest in the chatter of others. This actually mirrors the behaviour of young children and chimps and Elephants and any others when they begin artistic output - they just produce. Autistic savant artists tend to do the same - endless output with little or no interest in previously completed works. If we simply program curiosity into the robot then it will, as instructed, take an interest. But it will do nothing with the information so gained except to store it for later retrieval in exactly the same form as it was first acquired - another Autistic trait!! We want the robot to process the information gained and use that process as a basis of further curiosity. To achieve this we first split the consciousness (current status, working memory, self-other interface) into two with one half concerning itself with exclusively self inputs and issues - proprioception, somatoception, basic physical needs and so on - and the other half concerning itself with self-other issues. Now here we have a slight problem - how do we suddenly invent a whole new form of consciousness in one step and include curiosity, expression etc etc?? This is not easy, but is, actually, possible in a single simple step. Let the External consciousness be functionally a mirror image of the internal consciousness. To build a body image, the internal consciousness senses the body. To build a personality, a self, the externally directed consciousness senses the environment including the culture, the people and so on. Thus three processes are in play - expression, curiosity, and the processing of information into a single composite (self) image. As both the internal and external consciousness can sense both the world and the physical self and each other, the stage is set for all the complexity normally found in humans. Note that the basic single step change is the inversion of 'normal' consciousness to create an additional layer that seeks its 'body' externally. To understand what 'body' means to this layer of consciousness we must try to understand what it means to the lower level, and this is no trivial question. But at least we have established the starting point. Kind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek 2009/5/28 Maurílio Eugênio <[email protected]> > > > ------------------------------ > Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! + Buscados: Top > 10<http://br.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/mail/*http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com/>- > Celebridades<http://br.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/mail/*http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com/celebridades/>- > Música<http://br.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/mail/*http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo..com/m%C3%BAsica/>- > Esportes<http://br.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/mail/*http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com/esportes/> >
<<stat847.jpg>>
