[MD] Quality Conversations

[gav]

hiya,

i would like to see natural intelligence evolve before
we even consider the question of artificial
intelligence!

but seriously....

i can see things in accord with dreyfus and others
here who see the glaring metaphysical flaw:
consciousness/mind produces matter, not the other way
round.

but i also see that, in a way,
consciousness/intelligence is ubiquitous. nature is
intrinsically intelligent - but nature also operates
anti-entropically, that is with a mechanical
efficiency >100%. machines work entropically (see mae
wan-ho for more). the question is not that simple it
seems.

the evolution of consciousness/intelligence parallels
the growing complexity of neural networks.

take the net. extrapolate a few years down the track
and the net will be that quick and information-rich
that we will be all virtually interconnected and have
access to the total body of human information - in
real time. that is technology - matter - is helping
accelerate the evolution of human consciousness
towards a truly collective human consciousness.

so what does this mean? is this picture of the net
equivalent to a collective human consciousness? if so
isn't that the same as AI? 

what about a corporation - is that an example of AI?
created by humans but definitely an autonomous
intentional entity.

as far as the possibility of a robot being an
autonomous intelligent entity....hmmmmmm. more likely
the cyborg perhaps...a fusion of the organic and the
electronic. 

there is also a compelling argument that whatever can
be imagined can be made manifest: in which case
robots, cyborgs and my purple sneaker fish will all
happily co-exist in the future.




--- HAMILTON PRIDAY <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> dmb said:
> > Hubert Dreyfus says that artificial intelligence
> will never work.
> > He teaches Heidegger at Berkeley now, but started
> out in the
> > sciences at MIT.  He has the very tough job of
> trying to explain
> > to the IT community that they are working with
> certain metaphysical
> > assumptions that lead them to error. ... They're
> typical SOM scientists.
> 
> Ian replied:
> > Agreed - AI "will never work" until it is realised
> that life has to evolve
> > before intelligence .... and then it's not
> artificial any more, simply 
> > real.
> 
> Krimel replied:
> > I would say it is way to early do discount AI.
> Moore's law is still
> > ticking away and machine capacities continue to
> accelerate.
> > It is impossible to say what capabilities
> inorganic intelligences
> > will have in 20 or 30 years much less 100 years.
> ...But it is ridiculous
> > to assume that philosophical analysis can declare
> anything to be
> > technologically impossible.
> 
> Leave it to an objectivist to put technology before
> metaphysical truth. 
> Dreyfus is right, of course.  A machine, regardless
> of how complex or 
> sophisticated its design and processing capability,
> is not a cognizant 
> being.  The notion that Science will eventually
> produce a conscious machine 
> overlooks the fact that intelligence is information,
> not consciousness.  You 
> can no more put consciousness into an
> electro-mechanical device than you can 
> transform it into a living organism.  I am appalled
> that such illogical 
> thinking surfaces in a purportedly "enlightened"
> philosophy forum, let alone 
> the AI community.
> 
> --Ham
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
>
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 



      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail