Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[R. Steve Walz]

Of course, this particular line of reasoning would allow you to eat
Belgians too.
Bent Dalager - (e-mail address removed) - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd

-----------------------
And it makes some sense. If a kind won't protect itself, then
what can they expect? But of course we can argue with the Belgians
about that, but we can't with lower species. And they ARE "lower"!
They are NOT our "equals".

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

?? How in the hell did you parse that from what I wrote?

-------------------------------
Well, we may NOT actually be conscious, we may only entertain the
notion that we are, and poorly. There might be quite a lot of higher
levels of awareness between where we are and actual consciousness,
for which that state may be in sight at moments, but not truly
possessed by us.

While an amusing verbal and semantic device here, I see no proof
that awareness would or could ever be MORE than what we have, or
that it could be less than what we have either.

[shrug] Depends on what you mean by "MORE". There's clearly a
continuum--even among humans. Extend intelligence beyond humans,
and no doubt the continuum is larger.

-------------------------------
It is hard to see awareness as being other than total or absent.
This is one of those things that is simply true. If we are not
truly fully conscious yet, we can at least see it, sometimes.

That's one way to *start* defining it. A full definition if
probably more elusive than that. And I think we need to be open
to the uncertainty of our position. Nevertheless, I do very
much suspect--and believe the evidence supports--that "intelligence"
transcends species. When/If we meet *truly* intelligent beings,
there will be no question.

---------------------------
You see, you're doing it too. But animals don't, and we know they
don't, for in waking from sleep we pass through their level of
existence, in which we are unconscious and reflexive, but we emerge
from it, and they never visit ours.

The flip side is that, assuming animals don't have "critical mass
intelligence", they still deserve respect and care similar to that
we give infants--who also aren't "fully human"[1] yet.

|_ CJSonnack <[email protected]> _____________| How's my programming?

----------------------------
We don't eat infants. Now before they become aware, at between 2-4
months, according to congitive researchers, we COULD eat them, but
as I have said elsewhere, primitive attachment reflexes overwhelm
reason by the least aware among us, Pro-Lifers, etc., and they
go nuts.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

UNESTABLISHED--so far--is whether a true consciousness, which is
so different from our own as to be unrecognizable, can exist.

I contend that, not only is this unestablished, it's unlikely.

?? How in the hell did you parse that from what I wrote?

It's quite fanciful to imagine minds so different from ours that
we would not credit them as minds at all, but I think it is just
that: a fancy. I see no reason full "consciousness" wouldn't
transcend the particular "iconic and verbal lingo" of a species.

While an amusing verbal and semantic device here, I see no proof
that awareness would or could ever be MORE than what we have, or
that it could be less than what we have either.

[shrug] Depends on what you mean by "MORE". There's clearly a
continuum--even among humans. Extend intelligence beyond humans,
and no doubt the continuum is larger.

------------------------
We can't see up or down from here. There's no continuum, it's strictly
quantized.

Intelligence is the capacity to choose an appropriate action in
one's current situation.

-------------------------
No, that's a faculty of animals, even unconsciouly, as is a computer
that is properly programmed to protect its assigned tasks.

Animals certainly have that capacity--
and we human animals often fail to exercise it. Animals fare
should fine as situation-action agents in their native habitats, and
frequently adapt well to the environments we impose on them.
I enjoy animals tremendously and take care not to injure or in-
flict suffering on them. I respect them and their abilities. Why
demean or disparage them?

--------------------------
Saying what they are doesn't disparage them, and they wouldn't care
or understand those ideas.

The flip side is that, assuming animals don't have "critical mass
intelligence", they still deserve respect and care similar to that
we give infants--who also aren't "fully human"[1] yet.

Very well stated, Dude.
George

 

[R. Steve Walz]

But in that case we've still not gotten anywhere in understanding what
intelligence is. You're effectively saying that whatever one did at
any given time was probably an appropriate thing to be doing at that
time?

Unless you are saying that the degree to which one is able to enjoy
oneself is a measure of how intelligent one is?
Bent Dalager - (e-mail address removed) - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd

-----------------
Intelligence is not awareness. Intelligence is what an intelligent
computer program manifests, it isn't awareness. The Turing Test is
often mis-described as a test for self-awareness, and it is not, it
is merely that humans recognize intelligence and the lack of it, so
they can judge it when they interact with it. Turing simply said an
agency you found similar to human response must possess some degree
of intelligence, not self-awareness.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I agree that's an *attribute* of intelligence. I don't think it
(alone) *defines* it.

I was struck, just this morning, reading an article about an
archeological dig, how all human civilizations--ancient and
modern--contain a specific kind of art: representations of
both human and animal forms. Also representations of objects
both real and imagined in the environment.

I believe that urge to re-represent perceptions is likely one
of the "species-transcendent" properties of intelligence.
Others might be:

* the drive to modify the environment to insure security
* the drive to communicate
* the drive to keep and manage information.
* the drive to explore

---------------------------------
Now try to figure out why Neanderthal didn't make art or improve
their weapons over a million and ahalf years. My surmise is that
they WEREN'T TRULY SELF-AWARE!!! And if THEY were not, then NO
animals are either!

-Steve

 

[Roedy Green]

We can't see up or down from here. There's no continuum, it's strictly
quantized.

One thing I know is that something even a tiny bit dumber than you are
seems very dumb and something only a tiny bit smarter seems very
smart.

I noticed this developing a program to design transmission lines.

We thus tend to overvalue our own intelligence. We ignore all the
hard problems that animals can solve we cannot using our computers.

 

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

Programmer Dude wrote:
---------------------------
You see, you're doing it too. But animals don't, and we know they
don't, for in waking from sleep we pass through their level of
existence, in which we are unconscious and reflexive, but we emerge
from it, and they never visit ours.

The uncertainty is warranted, unless you have more tautologies to spew:

URL:http://newswise.com/articles/view/502197/

 

[Bent C Dalager]

It's fine to talk to telephones, they have "intelligent" agency
(though not necessarily conscious in the case of speech recognition
menus lately) on the other end, but talking back to a "Chatty Cathy"
is stupid.

Talking to a doll in order to get it to do things is no more stupid
than it would be to push buttons on it in order to make it do things.
It's simply a different user interface.

You might want to look up the fighter aircraft industry and their use
of voice control in the cockpit

Cheers
Bent D

 

[D. Jay Newman]

-----------------------
And it makes some sense. If a kind won't protect itself, then
what can they expect? But of course we can argue with the Belgians
about that, but we can't with lower species. And they ARE "lower"!
They are NOT our "equals".

-Steve

Very few people believe that animals are human's intellectual
equals. You keep putting words in other's mouths and then calling
them liars.

I do believe that self-awareness (sentience) is a continuous
function and that many species of animals are self-aware. Of
course, since we are only beginning to understand the mechanisms
of self-awareness I can't prove thiss

However, after being close to dogs for several years there
does seem to be some sentience. Even my senegal parrot seems
to show self-awareness. And no, I don't believe either are up
to human standards.

I'll admit that there are some who believe that animals are
their equals. Perhaps they are right.

 

[Joseph Dionne]

Very few people believe that animals are human's intellectual
equals. You keep putting words in other's mouths and then calling
them liars.

I do believe that self-awareness (sentience) is a continuous
function and that many species of animals are self-aware. Of
course, since we are only beginning to understand the mechanisms
of self-awareness I can't prove thiss

I disagree, I don't believe lower mammals are self aware, as it is
commonly defined;

self-a·ware (slf-wâr)
adj.

Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors.

I have never seen my dogs exhibit their being aware that they are dogs.
Yes, there is life, and a rudimentary intelligence mostly learned via
experience due to use of rewards and punishment. But, I know of no
animal that is aware of it's position in phylum, simply because it
requires intelligence to grasp the concept of phylums.

As far as machine "intelligence" I am unaware of any AI or expert system
arriving at the conclusion that "it" is a computer software system --
more a requirement of being self-aware then a sign of intelligence.

 

[Roedy Green]

Aware of oneself, including one's traits, feelings, and behaviors.

What's so special about that? First you can't measure it. It sounds
to me like an artificial distinction rigged to make man win, sort of
like a racist defining intelligence as lightness of skin.

There are obviously many kinds of intelligence. We completely devalue
any sort of intelligence we are weak in.

When I asked Dr. John Lilly what he thought dolphins did with their
huge brains he said "Something else". I asked if there was anyway to
get a glimpse of what that was. He said "Yes, swim with them.".

Until someone has performed at least that tiny experiment, I look on
people who pontificate on animal stupidity as like children who
pontificate on sex.

 

[David Postill]

<snip />

| Now try to figure out why Neanderthal didn't make art or improve
| their weapons over a million and ahalf years. My surmise is that
| they WEREN'T TRULY SELF-AWARE!!! And if THEY were not, then NO
| animals are either!

I'm surprised you could not be bothered to even perform a google search before
making such a blanket statement.

Neanderthals have created art.

See <http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=+neanderthal++art>
for lots of references...

<davidp />

 

[Guillaume]

Please stop wasting your time.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

One thing I know is that something even a tiny bit dumber than you are
seems very dumb and something only a tiny bit smarter seems very
smart.

----------------------
Speaking of me, you, or the generic "you"? ;->

I noticed this developing a program to design transmission lines.

We thus tend to overvalue our own intelligence. We ignore all the
hard problems that animals can solve we cannot using our computers.

-----------------------
Point being that it is impossible to conceive of an awareness less
aware than ours beyond a small fraction. And there's a structural
reason for that other than simple hubris. Awareness is an entirely
separated meta-level of complexity. You are totally and completely
unable to even imagine being non-conscious, it is impossible.

In fact, I assert it that this Awareness is, in fact, the One and
ONLY EXISTENCE! I believe that the material world is produced and
evoked as a representational structure within our awareness only,
and does not exist by itself. Whatever is non-conscious does not
truly even exist EXCEPT as a part of OUR awareness. In this I am
in good company, as this grows directly out of the Many Worlds
Interpretation of QM. When we believe we are in this Life, we ARE!
And when we believe we are in another Life, AGAIN, HERE WE ARE!

Only the Information exists, for which matter and energy are naught
but representational. The world isn't made of matter, because the
Only World that can be Experienced is Life, and Life is made only
of Stories. That the World is made of atoms is just ONE KIND of
Story among the Infinity of All Stories.
(Paraphrasing Neils Bohr.)

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Talking to a doll in order to get it to do things is no more stupid
than it would be to push buttons on it in order to make it do things.
It's simply a different user interface.

You might want to look up the fighter aircraft industry and their use
of voice control in the cockpit

Cheers
Bent Dalager - (e-mail address removed) - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Very few people believe that animals are human's intellectual
equals. You keep putting words in other's mouths and then calling
them liars.

-------------------------------
No, this isn't a straw man. This is a more subtle point. People have
this pathetic fallacy that if it has a face and functions, that it
is Self-Aware, not realizing the recent nature of that development.

I do believe that self-awareness (sentience) is a continuous
function and that many species of animals are self-aware.

--------------------------------
If you have researched animal behavior you will know that can't
be so, if you are honest/not deluded. When we even TRY to imagine
being so much less aware, so as to rationalize how the animals
experience their own animal behaviors, we suddenly come to the
conclusion that we would have to give up far too much of what we
call being aware, to actually persist in the belief that they are.

We know that we cannot imagine not being Aware, and yet that IS
what we are called upon to do regarding even most higher mammals
if we are to imagine being one of them. We literally have to give
up the kernel of our Awareness so as not to be merely a human in
a lion suit pretending. We cannot mentally emulate them, without
losing the very Awareness that is trying to do so.

Of
course, since we are only beginning to understand the mechanisms
of self-awareness I can't prove thiss

--------------------------
A few of these thought experiments is all I require.

However, after being close to dogs for several years there
does seem to be some sentience. Even my senegal parrot seems
to show self-awareness. And no, I don't believe either are up
to human standards.

-------------------------------
And I also know that they cogitate, but the subtle point here is
that they don't KNOW that they do so!! That knowing, this watching
of onesself iswhat Awareness is, and THEY DON'T!! If they did, for
instance if those parrots did, then they could talk ABOUT themselves
doing things, and their experience of that!! Gorillas sure, maybe,
apes, cetceans,well maybe, but not the other so-called higher mammals
or anything lower.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

What's so special about that? First you can't measure it. It sounds
to me like an artificial distinction rigged to make man win, sort of
like a racist defining intelligence as lightness of skin.

There are obviously many kinds of intelligence. We completely devalue
any sort of intelligence we are weak in.

When I asked Dr. John Lilly what he thought dolphins did with their
huge brains he said "Something else". I asked if there was anyway to
get a glimpse of what that was. He said "Yes, swim with them.".

Until someone has performed at least that tiny experiment, I look on
people who pontificate on animal stupidity as like children who
pontificate on sex.

----------------------------
It's fine, we all like John Lilly, but that's not the point. He has
a religion based on LSD and Dolphins, and I join him in the LSD part
at least, but I have to be true to what I see. I see that no lower
animals talk about themselves lower than apes and cetaceans, maybe.

That means they aren't Aware they Exist!
And without that, you're JUST NOT HOME!
-Steve

 

[D. Jay Newman]

Point being that it is impossible to conceive of an awareness less
aware than ours beyond a small fraction. And there's a structural
reason for that other than simple hubris. Awareness is an entirely
separated meta-level of complexity. You are totally and completely
unable to even imagine being non-conscious, it is impossible.

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't mean that
some of the rest of us can.

You spout a lot of jargon that sounds like it should mean something,
but in fact, is gibberish.

Back up what you say with facts rather than words and maybe you'll
say something worth paying attention to.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Those things are all fine, but merely mechanical, not Aware.

I was responding to a statement which was designed to establish that
talking to objects is somehow an inherently idiotic thing to do. I
have demonstrated why this is not the case.

What "Aware" has to do with it, I do not know and I do not care.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Peter F.]

In fact, I assert it that this Awareness is, in fact, the One and
ONLY EXISTENCE! I believe that the material world is produced and
evoked as a representational structure within our awareness only,
and does not exist by itself. Whatever is non-conscious does not
truly even exist EXCEPT as a part of OUR awareness. In this I am
in good company, as this grows directly out of the Many Worlds
Interpretation of QM. When we believe we are in this Life, we ARE!
And when we believe we are in another Life, AGAIN, HERE WE ARE!

Only the Information exists, for which matter and energy are naught
but representational. The world isn't made of matter, because the
Only World that can be Experienced is Life, and Life is made only
of Stories. That the World is made of atoms is just ONE KIND of
Story among the Infinity of All Stories.
(Paraphrasing Neils Bohr.)

It appears that you believe that the animals that preceded us, during the
"non cognitively (self-)aware era" of animal evolution on this planet, never
existed!

You should take good care of yourself, because, judging by the irrationality
of what you wrote, it could be a signature of a border-line (or soon to be
'over-the-line') psychosis!

P