Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 25 Jan 2010, at 07:52, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, having postulated the natural numbers with addition and multiplication, they organized themselves, independently of our whishes, in a way which escapes *any* attempt of *complete* unification. They defeat all o

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2010, at 20:52, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, On 21 Jan 2010, at 22:19, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, you took extra pain to describe (in your vocabulary) what I stand for (using MY vocabulary). --

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 24 Jan 2010, at 22:39, Mark Buda wrote: 2010/1/24 Mark Buda Bruno Marchal wrote: [a lot of stuff I'd probably agree with if I understood it all] Bruno, I desperately need to understand your stuff. Where do I start? Computer science, compiler theory , number theory, what is a program, s

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 24 Jan 2010, at 21:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2010/1/24 Mark Buda Bruno Marchal wrote: >[a lot of stuff I'd probably agree with if I understood it all] Bruno, I desperately need to understand your stuff. Where do I start? Computer science, compiler theory , number theory, what is a p

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

> 2010/1/24 Mark Buda >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >[a lot of stuff I'd probably agree with if I understood it all] >> Bruno, I desperately need to understand your stuff. Where do I start? > Computer science, compiler theory , number theory, what is a program, > strong AI. > > Wikipedia on those sub

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

2010/1/24 Mark Buda > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >[a lot of stuff I'd probably agree with if I understood it all] > > Bruno, I desperately need to understand your stuff. Where do I start? > Computer science, compiler theory , number theory, what is a program, strong AI. Wikipedia on those subject

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Bruno Marchal wrote: >[a lot of stuff I'd probably agree with if I understood it all] Bruno, I desperately need to understand your stuff. Where do I start? -- Mark Buda I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 22 Jan 2010, at 20:52, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, On 21 Jan 2010, at 22:19, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, you took extra pain to describe (in your vocabulary) what I stand for (using MY vocabulary). - On Thu, Jan 2

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, On 21 Jan 2010, at 22:19, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, you took extra pain to describe (in your vocabulary) what I stand for (using MY vocabulary). - On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Hi John, On 21 Jan 2010, at 22:19, John Mikes wrote: Dear Bruno, you took extra pain to describe (in your vocabulary) what I stand for (using MY vocabulary). - On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: John, What makes you thin

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Dear Bruno, you took extra pain to describe (in your vocabulary) what I stand for (using MY vocabulary). - On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > John, > > What makes you think that a brain is something material? I mean * > primiti

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Bruno, while appreciating your reply to ferrari, I have to ask you a question. You wrote: *"...What is your theory of mind? In case of disease, would accept an artificial kidney, heart? If yes, would you accept that your daughter marry a man who already accepted an artificial brain? ..." * giving

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Hi ferrari, It is weird, my computer decided that this mail was junk mail. It is the first time it put an everything list post in the junk list. I am afraid you hurt its susceptibility :) On 20 Jan 2010, at 19:15, ferrari wrote: come on silky, the answer you know yourself of course. arti

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

come on silky, the answer you know yourself of course. artificial is artificial. to say you are alive, you must be able to reflect on yourself. you must be able to create and to understand without someone teaching you and most important there is nobody who turns you on or off (exept your girlfrie

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

2010/1/20 Brent Meeker : > But it also needs to be similar enough to us that we can intuit what hurts > is and what doesn't, to empathize that it may feel pain.  If my car runs out > of oil does it feel pain?  I'm sure my 1966 Saab doesn't, but what about my > 1999 Passat - it has a computer with

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 20 Jan 2010, at 03:09, silky wrote: On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2010, at 03:28, silky wrote: I don't disagree with you that it would be significantly complicated, I suppose my argument is only that, unlike with a real cat, I - the programmer - kno

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 19 Jan 2010, at 03:28, silky wrote: > > I don't disagree with you that it would be significantly complicated, I > suppose my argument is only that, unlike with a real cat, I - the programmer > - know all there is to know about this comp

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2010/1/19 silky : > > > Exactly my point! I'm trying to discover why I wouldn't be so rational > > there. Would you? Do you think that knowing all there is to know about > > a cat is unpractical to the point of being impossible *forever

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jan 2010, at 03:28, silky wrote: I don't disagree with you that it would be significantly complicated, I suppose my argument is only that, unlike with a real cat, I - the programmer - know all there is to know about this computer cat. I'm wondering to what degree t

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2010/1/19 silky : Exactly my point! I'm trying to discover why I wouldn't be so rational there. Would you? Do you think that knowing all there is to know about a cat is unpractical to the point of being impossible *forever*, or do you believe that once we do know,

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Dear Bruno, you picked my 'just added' small after-remark from my post and I thought for a second that it was Brent's reply. Then your signature explained that it was YOUR stance on life (almost) (- I search for even more proper distinctions to that term). Maybe we should scrap the term altogether

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 19 Jan 2010, at 03:28, silky wrote: I don't disagree with you that it would be significantly complicated, I suppose my argument is only that, unlike with a real cat, I - the programmer - know all there is to know about this computer cat. I'm wondering to what degree that adds or removes

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

People seem to be predisposed to accept AI programs as human(oid) if one can judge by reactions to Hal, Colossus, Robby, Marvin etc. m.a. - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" To: Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 6:09 PM Subject: Re: on consciousness levels and a

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

2010/1/19 silky : > Exactly my point! I'm trying to discover why I wouldn't be so rational > there. Would you? Do you think that knowing all there is to know about > a cat is unpractical to the point of being impossible *forever*, or do > you believe that once we do know, we will simply "end" them

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: > > [...] >> > > >> Here we disagree. I don't see (not that I have experience in >> AI-programming specifically, mind you) how I can write a program and not >> have the results be deterministic. I wrote it; I know, in general,

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com> >

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Brent Meeker >> > meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >> >>silky wrote: >> >>On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker >>mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: >> >>

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: silky wrote: On T

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> >>> 2010/1/19 silky : >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou < stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/18 silky

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2010/1/19 silky : On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2010/1/18 silky : It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to do. We can design a program t

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >> >>> silky wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou < stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/18 silky :

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2010/1/18 silky : It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to do. We can design a program that has a

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2010/1/19 silky : > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > > > 2010/1/18 silky : > > > > It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to > > > > do. We can design a program that has a

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>> 2010/1/18 silky : >>> It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to do. We can design a program that has a desi

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

2010/1/19 silky : > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: >> 2010/1/18 silky : >> > It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to >> > do. We can design a program that has a desire to 'live', as desire to >> > find mates, and otherwise entertain itsel

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2010/1/18 silky : It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to do. We can design a program that has a desire to 'live', as desire to find mates, and otherwise entertain itself. In this way,

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2010/1/18 silky : > > It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to > > do. We can design a program that has a desire to 'live', as desire to > > find mates, and otherwise entertain itself. In this way, with some >

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On 18 Jan 2010, at 16:35, John Mikes wrote: Is a universal mchine 'live'? I would say yes, despite the concrete artificial one still needs humans in its reproduction cycle. But we need plants and bacteria. I think that all machines, including houses and garden are alive in that sense. Ci

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

Dear Brent, is it your 'conscious' position to look at things in an anthropocentric limitation? If you substitute consistently 'animal' for 'pet', you can include the human animal as well. In that case your #1: would you consider 'distress' a disturbed mental state only, or include organisational

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

2010/1/18 silky : > It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to > do. We can design a program that has a desire to 'live', as desire to > find mates, and otherwise entertain itself. In this way, with some > other properties, we can easily model simply pets. Brent's reasons

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: silky wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: silky wrote: I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the most direct way to find out is to ask it :) Clearl

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker >> wrote: >> >>> >>> silky wrote: >>> I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the most direct way to find out is to ask it :) C

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: silky wrote: I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the most direct way to find out is to ask it :) Clearly, creating AI on a computer is a goal, and generally we'll try and implement to the sa

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > silky wrote: >> >> I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the >> most direct way to find out is to ask it :) >> >> Clearly, creating AI on a computer is a goal, and generally we'll try >> and implement to the same deg

Re: on consciousness levels and ai

silky wrote: I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the most direct way to find out is to ask it :) Clearly, creating AI on a computer is a goal, and generally we'll try and implement to the same degree of computational"ness" as a human. But what would happen if we simp

on consciousness levels and ai

I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the most direct way to find out is to ask it :) Clearly, creating AI on a computer is a goal, and generally we'll try and implement to the same degree of computational"ness" as a human. But what would happen if we simply tried to re-