Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Robert C Monsen]

That may be your view. I'd asked how you concluded *I* said what
you ascribed to me. It certainly wasn't evident at the transmitter!



No, I doubt that. Animal consciousness--whatever it is--is surely
more complex than the "tween time".

For instance, my dog's image of the world is *vastly* different
from mine. Her sense of smell is on par with my sense of sight,
and she receives information about the world from it as I do from
sight (it's always funny to watch her "search" for something I
can see quite plainly). She also has better night vision.

Thus, her world picture is quite different from mine.

There is a cool essay by Nagle on this, called "What is it like to be a
bat?" http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

 

[Alan Balmer]

:

I was struck [...] 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.

That's apparently an old theory no longer held by many archaeologists
and art experts,

I'll borrow your response, below:
"Google, ten minutes, your time, not mine."

Except that it won't take ten minutes. A simple search on "neanderthal
art" will do it.
I said "less information." Are you disagreeing with that? BTW, don't
most authorities date the Neanderthals between 200,000 and 250,000
years ago? What is the million or million and a half years you're
talking about?How do you know? Do you actually know any cats? What would you expect
to see in their minds? How does thinking in "hieroglyphics" differ
from thinking in English? Does one have to think in a particular form
to be self-aware? What sort of symbols would you have seen in
Einstein's mind when he was thinking about things there was no
language to express? What would I see if I read your mind? Nothing but
fully-formed English sentences?

 

[Alan Balmer]

Would it matter? Think about it.
What others? Did you actually understand Roedy's (rather simple)
statement?

Look up "solipsism."

 

[Programmer Dude]

Paramecia are machines. They are no more aware than a
lightswitch.

[grin] Not an ideal example. Around here, the lightswitches
are "aware" of (warm) bodies in the room....

 

[Programmer Dude]

There is a cool essay by Nagle on this, called "What is it like to
be a bat?" http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

Interesting!

I was hoping he would answer the title question, but instead he
concludes, basically, 'we can never REALLY know'. (Which I would
have said is self-evident.)

Yet, his 8th footnote does say, "It may be easier than I suppose
to transcend inter-species barriers with the aid of the imagination."

Which is largely what I was thinking while reading the essay. (-:

I'd also question whether his idea of a language that transcends
subjective experience is possible. As he says, there are facts
humans simply can't access.

 

[Roedy Green]

Yet, his 8th footnote does say, "It may be easier than I suppose
to transcend inter-species barriers with the aid of the imagination."

I saw a movie that gave a bit of an idea what visually it was like to
be a migrating bird. The film was taken from the point of view of
various migrating species. It reminded me of an interminable exercise
class at the gym.

 

[David Postill]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Balmer

| On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:12:59 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >Alan Balmer wrote:
| >>
| >> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:44:00 -0600, Programmer Dude
| >>
| >> >"R. Steve Walz" wrote:
| >> >
| >> >>> I was struck [...] 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.
| >> >> ---------------------------------
| >> >> Now try to figure out why Neanderthal didn't make art...
| >>
| >> That's apparently an old theory no longer held by many archaeologists
| >> and art experts,
| >------------------
| >Cite.
| >
| I'll borrow your response, below:
| "Google, ten minutes, your time, not mine."
|
| Except that it won't take ten minutes. A simple search on "neanderthal
| art" will do it.

<snip />

Which I've already provided. However Mr Waltz appears to be very choosy about
which posts to respond to. Methinks he is unable to argue with facts and also
unable to admit to making mistakes (or is that being uneducated?).

<davidp />

- --
David Postill

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
Comment: Get key from pgpkeys.mit.edu:11370

iQA/AwUBP/xvjnxp7q1nhFwUEQLfwQCg61R3Oi2z9RPTWmAIMY1KTdT1awAAn2rY
8gp7Q7DfEsiohLQutMbpsVWU
=Wdwq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Programmer Dude]

I saw a movie that gave a bit of an idea what visually it was
like to be a migrating bird.

WINGED MIGRATION? Pretty film! Took years to film. They used
ultra-lights with the birds for a while before filming to get
the birds used to these Big Noisy Others flying around so close.

It reminded me of an interminable exercise class at the gym.

[grin] Amazing how those little birds can fly so far.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

What sort of experiment could you do to tell?
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

----------------
None needed, there are no structures with that complexity.
Without that you can't merely suppose something purely subjectively.
It's like saying you are in another city while you're standing
here, and asserting that there you are invisible and can't affect
it for anything.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:44:00 -0600, Programmer Dude

:

I was struck [...] 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.
---------------------------------
Now try to figure out why Neanderthal didn't make art...

That's apparently an old theory no longer held by many archaeologists
and art experts,

I'll borrow your response, below:
"Google, ten minutes, your time, not mine."

--------------------------
Mine is based on finding the pandemic presence ONLY of Neanderthal
tools and nothing else that is at all representational, whatsoever.

Except that it won't take ten minutes. A simple search on "neanderthal
art" will do it.

-------------------------------------
All I see in the fossil record is a sudden change in it at the time of
human incursion, and then the species vanished, an of those examples
it is consistently said that it looks as though they were attempting
to imitate homo sapiens poorly and without comprehension.

Other than that I see no appreciable set of development examples
that do extend simply to the change called the very beginning of
Neanderthal, not a progressed stage.

I said "less information." Are you disagreeing with that? BTW, don't
most authorities date the Neanderthals between 200,000 and 250,000
years ago? What is the million or million and a half years you're
talking about?

----------------------------------------
The Neandethal in this sense is all of the homo erectus type who
did share that same common tool set and sophistication for a million
plus year duration. Donald Johanson has stated this many times.

How do you know? Do you actually know any cats? What would you expect
to see in their minds?

------------------
Actually I was being facetious based on a cartoon I once saw, I don't
actually believe a cat HAS a "mind", which is defined as an awareness.

How does thinking in "hieroglyphics" differ
from thinking in English? Does one have to think in a particular form
to be self-aware? What sort of symbols would you have seen in
Einstein's mind when he was thinking about things there was no
language to express? What would I see if I read your mind? Nothing but
fully-formed English sentences?
Al Balmer

------------------
You've become carrried away with my reading a cat's mind/hieroglyphics
statement, which was jest, and innaccurate about what I know, so I
withdraw it altogether.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Would it matter? Think about it.

------------------------
If you died, in some sense it would cease to, but that's NOT
the sense in which I meant it.

What others? Did you actually understand Roedy's (rather simple)
statement?

Look up "solipsism."
Al Balmer

--------------------------
I know what solipsism is, and have for many decades.

Don't you merely smirk and posture at us instead of think.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Paramecia are machines. They are no more aware than a
lightswitch.

[grin] Not an ideal example. Around here, the lightswitches
are "aware" of (warm) bodies in the room....

-------------------
Only in the loose, erroneous lay usage of the word "aware".

And that's NOT the one under discussion, however a blithering
idiot might persist in pretending it is.

-Steve

 

[Programmer Dude]

Paramecia are machines. They are no more aware than a
lightswitch.

[grin] Not an ideal example. Around here, the lightswitches
are "aware" of (warm) bodies in the room....

-------------------
Only in the loose, erroneous lay usage of the word "aware".

And that's NOT the one under discussion, however a blithering
idiot might persist in pretending it is.

It was a JOKE, son. A JOKE, I say!

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I saw a movie that gave a bit of an idea what visually it was like to
be a migrating bird. The film was taken from the point of view of
various migrating species. It reminded me of an interminable exercise
class at the gym.
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

----------------------
That's because you only succeeded in placing a witness "inside"
something which actually has NO such witness, NO such "inside".

One of the reasons humans act SO differently from other animals
is PRECISELY that we have strong objection to settling for what
other NON-conscious animals do by reflex, without inner obervation
with any kind of awareness such as would be that bored to tears.

-Steve

 

[Alan Balmer]

Alan Balmer wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:44:00 -0600, Programmer Dude

:

I was struck [...] 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.
---------------------------------
Now try to figure out why Neanderthal didn't make art...

That's apparently an old theory no longer held by many archaeologists
and art experts,

I'll borrow your response, below:
"Google, ten minutes, your time, not mine."

--------------------------
Mine is based on finding the pandemic presence ONLY of Neanderthal
tools and nothing else that is at all representational, whatsoever.

Except that it won't take ten minutes. A simple search on "neanderthal
art" will do it.

-------------------------------------
All I see in the fossil record is a sudden change in it at the time of
human incursion, and then the species vanished, an of those examples
it is consistently said that it looks as though they were attempting
to imitate homo sapiens poorly and without comprehension.

Other than that I see no appreciable set of development examples
that do extend simply to the change called the very beginning of
Neanderthal, not a progressed stage.

In other words, you didn't do the search, and don't intend to, since
it might provide evidence counter to your statements. Enough said -
bye, now.

 

[Alan Balmer]

One of the reasons humans act SO differently from other animals

An assumed premise. Have you read the works of Desmond Morris?

is PRECISELY that we have strong objection to settling for what
other NON-conscious animals do by reflex, without inner obervation
with any kind of awareness such as would be that bored to tears.

That sentence doesn't parse for me. Could you rephrase?

 

[Alan Balmer]

Then it should be obvious that if Roedy Green is the only conscious
being on earth, there *are* no "others" to regard him as obtuse.

If you mean that others might think him obtuse for making the
argument, you must regard as obtuse a number of well-known and
respected thinkers which you have undoubtedly encountered in your
decades of philosophical study.

 

[Joseph Dionne]

Then it should be obvious that if Roedy Green is the only conscious
being on earth, there *are* no "others" to regard him as obtuse.

If you mean that others might think him obtuse for making the
argument, you must regard as obtuse a number of well-known and
respected thinkers which you have undoubtedly encountered in your
decades of philosophical study.

Solipsism is the theory or view that the self is the only reality. Self
is the consciousness of one's own being or identity, i.e.
self-awareness. It does not preclude the "self" of others, however a
sociopath might view themselves as the only conscious being on the
earth, at least the only being that matters. No offense intended to
anyone, just making the point that an awareness of Self is a critical
part of intelligence.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

An assumed premise. Have you read the works of Desmond Morris?

------------------
Of course, and it's unrelated.

That sentence doesn't parse for me. Could you rephrase?
Al Balmer

-----------------------------------
Ewww, sorry, I see:

One of the reasons humans act SO differently from other animals
is PRECISELY that we have strong objection to settling for what
other NON-conscious animals do by reflex, without inner obervation
with any kind of awareness, such as would bore us to tears.

For example, *I* believe that homo sapiens has such huge genitals
because we literally "went on strike to get them" against Nature,
by our penchant for suicidal action when we don't get our way and
have an easy time of it. Those with larger genitals and greater
genital pleasure simply didn't give up and die as much.

Unconscious Unaware animals operate by instinct and reflex and don't
give up and die. We DO!
-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Solipsism is the theory or view that the self is the only reality. Self
is the consciousness of one's own being or identity, i.e.
self-awareness. It does not preclude the "self" of others, however a
sociopath might view themselves as the only conscious being on the
earth, at least the only being that matters. No offense intended to
anyone, just making the point that an awareness of Self is a critical
part of intelligence.

----------------
Solipsism is classically defined as precisely the sociopathic view.

I prefer a Multipsism or Omnipsism.

-Steve