[MD] Quality Conversations

[Heather Perella]

     I would say, along this cybernetics line of
thinking thus human and machine coevolution, has to do
with 'search engines'.  Much information is on the
internet, but how to find it, right.  How to condense
good information, information one needs, to have the
link be focused enough that you can search and find
what YOU need.  I've looked for information and had an
idea as to what I was looking for, but I didn't know
what to type into the search engine.  I would try many
key terms and concepts, but sometimes the information
couldn't be condensed enough to fit what I was
particularly looking for.  How to get what I need for
my hypothetical project and locate the links that are
tied to this hypothetical project of mine and even
ideas in the network somewhere that might even help my
project but these ideas are not directly linked to my
project in the concepts I'm browsing.  These other
ideas are beyond my focus in the project, but these
other ideas though not directly linked to the line of
thinking of my project may enhance my project in ways
that I'm not currently imagining.  It's this link-up,
the search engines it would seem.  


SA





gav:
> 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
> 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/
>