a02fa426   
   From: this@are.email   
      
   In article , ghostGARBAGE@bitstreamnetMOREGARBAGE.com   
   says...   
      
   > >   
   > > we don't.  i think its sheer arrogance to assume its not possible.. not   
   > > refuting that.. but there's a fundamental flaw in how people have always   
   > > approached the concept of AI.  thing is.. when it happens.. we won't   
   > > know.. it will likely be so far removed from our realm of experience it   
   > > will not notice our existence.. nor will we notice its.   
   >   
   > that was the point of my whole arguement through this entire discussion   
   > really.   
      
   yeah.. its an interesting thing to think about.. though it does give me   
   pounding headaches occasionally.. IIRC i had this one out with alienthe   
   and someone else not too long ago.. was fun ; )   
      
   IMO one of the most important bits.. and one that is generally   
   overlooked.. is that the "counsciousness" of any given entity is going   
   to be .. formed? shaped? by the sensory input it recieves as it comes   
   into being.  so.. humans are these tremoundously visual creatures..   
   because we're plains predators and our eyes are the dominant sense..   
      
   but cameras are *NOT* eyes.  machine counsciousness would be recieving   
   input as *data* .. wether that data was a "visual image" a "sound" etc   
   .. its all the same on the recieving end.. a stream of 1's and 0's which   
   have impact it will nevver truly understand but may be able to   
   interpret..   
      
   and i think it would have other senses that *we* would be unable to   
   fathom.  just the way we're wired ; )   
      
      
   >   
   > > but hey.. i could be crazy.   
   >   
   > you are, but that's irrelevent to the discussion.   
      
   crazy is as crazy does.   
      
   ..   
   jx   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)