The program that is isomorphically equivalent to raindrop positions inputted into the hypothetical computer implements a brain. I have a blinkey safety light on the back of my bicycle that goes on and off at 1 sec frequency. There exists a hypothetical computer that that takes a 1 sec on/off pulse as program instructions and implements my brain. This doesn't say much as the hypothetical computer is almost 100% equivalent to my brain. Where is the hypothetical computer? Still have to come up with it.
But Lanier does scrape the surface of something bigger with all this. He is pointing to an intelligence in all things or some structure in all things that has some amount of potential intelligent as with potential energy in physics, or some effect with intelligence IOW the structure means something. And I found this interesting that he said - This means that software packaged as being "non-intelligent" is more likely to improve, because the designers will receive better critical feedback from users. The idea of intelligence removes some of the "evolutionary pressure" from software, by subtly indicating to users it is they, rather than the software, that should be changing. As it happens, machine decision making is already running our household finances to a scary degree, but it's doing so with a Wizard of Oz-like remote authority that keeps us from questioning it. I'm referring to the machines that calculate our credit ratings. Most of us have decided to change our habits in order to appeal to these machines. We have simplified ourselves in order to be comprehensible to simplistic data-bases, making them look smart and authoritative. Our demonstrated willingness to accommodate machines in this way is ample reason to adopt a standing bias against the idea of artificial intelligence. As it is true. There is a herding effect by AI and computers in general to be aware of. John From: Eric B. Ramsay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:12 AM To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Subject: [singularity] Re: Revised version of Jaron Lanier's thought experiment. I came across an old Discover magazine this morning with yet another article by Lanier on his rainstorm thought experiment. After reading the article it occurred to me that what he is saying may be equivalent to: Imagine a sufficiently large computer that works according to the architecture of our ordinary PC's. In the space of Operating Systems (code interpreters), we can find an operating system such that it will run the input from the rainstorm such that it appears identical to a computer running a brain. If this is true, then functionalism is not affected since we must not forget to combine program + OS. Thus the rainstorm by itself has no emergent properties. Eric B. Ramsay _____ singularity | <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now> Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/> | <http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
