From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:04:10 +0000, Raistlin wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >> a personality (consciousness, awareness, entity, whatever) is the result   
   >> of its expierence *and* the hardware it runs on.  i, for example, am not   
   >> just a product of the New Jersey waste.. i am a product of the New Jersey   
   >> waste as expierenced by some of gods finest monkey-meat ; )  there are   
   >> others here that have lived similar lives and come away with different   
   >> perspectives.. a certian amount of that could be put down to expierence..   
   >> but certianly, and to a large degree, it must be a side effect of the   
   >> hardware my consciousness runs on.   
   >   
   > True, but one may take a cue from Sun Microsystem's tagline... "The   
   > network is the computer". In other works, an AI needn't be tied to a   
   > particular machine. Tip of the hat to Mr Gibson for touching on that   
   > topic many years ago.   
   >   
      
   immaterial.  the machine is what the machine is, the consciousness is (at   
   least in large part) a consequence of that.  wether the machine is a   
   single physical device or a network of linked devices or anything else   
   under the sun does not matter.   
      
      
      
   >> alterations to that hardware may possibly result in a functioning (perhaps   
   >> even superior) "entity" but i do not believe that entity would be me.   
   >>   
   >> or to put it more concisely.. if such an AI achieved consciousness, and   
   >> then realized it had the capability to alter that consciousness.. don't u   
   >> think it would seek to destroy that capability?  self-preservation is the   
   >> 1st priority of (most) self-aware beings.   
   >   
   > A change in consciousness or an alteration is not necesarily anathema to   
   > self preservation. Actually, that is a lot to do with the path of the   
   > mystic or shaman. Heck, if beer didn't alter consciousness, no one would   
   > drink it.   
   >>   
      
   a few points:   
      
   1. drugs may alter consciousness but they do so in a temporary manner.   
   when u ingest one u do so knowing (ok, hoping) that u will eventually   
   return to what u call a "normal" state.  drugs that do not return u to a   
   normal state are more appropriately called poisons.   
      
   2. mystics or shamans may seek to achieve an altered consciousness but   
   they do so without altering thier hardware.   
      
   a pre-frontal lobotomy is the simplest and easiest means to permanantly   
   alter ur mental state .. but i'm guessing u'll pass ; )   
      
   (note: there is an argument to be made for psych meds and the like as a   
   "desirable" state of altered consciousness achieved through drugs and   
   maintained indefinately.  its a personal bias of mine that i consider this   
   an undesirable state. .. the argument could be made either way.)   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>   
   >> i do not believe we would even be able to recognize, much less communicate   
   >> with an AI .. until it sought to communicate with us.   
   >   
   > So on what level do you imagine we might interact with it? Could we   
   > communicate with such an entity via natural language or merely observe   
   > its effects on other systems   
      
   i'm honestly not sure.. however i think its a major obstacle that all of   
   its input would be translated 1st into a digital format.   
      
   think on it.. to a human sound is sound.  a pattern of energy carried   
   across a fluid (air) strikes a specially designed membrane in the ear..   
   its all analog.  there is no decoding process.   
      
   to a machine sound is a stream of data functionally similar to an image.   
   i think the means of percieving such a stream of human-centric data would   
   be beyond a machine intellegences capability.   
      
   so how do u communicate.. not sure.  u presume a desire for communication   
   which i'm not sure would exist.  humans desire communication because it is   
   hardwired into our skulls.. we are designed for it.. would an AI?  it   
   would not require communication for its existance so why would it be   
   concerned with it?  humans need to speak .. its integral to our survival..   
      
   more questions than awnsers.. ; )   
      
   -a   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)