From: Raistlin@askme.net   
      
   alias wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Not immaterial. for example, an intelligence might be "born" and spend   
   some formative time on one piece of hardware, then migrate to be a   
   distributed process of the entire internet, thereby freeing itself from   
   the limitations of its original medium.   
      
   Granted intelligence is not independant of the medium it exists in, but   
   that is pretty much universally true, nacht? Unless you want to explore   
   metaphysics... :o)   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>>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.   
      
   But to sustain this analogy they are re-writing their software. Hrence   
   the example.   
      
   > a pre-frontal lobotomy is the simplest and easiest means to permanantly   
   > alter ur mental state .. but i'm guessing u'll pass ; )   
      
   I will. But if it was a modification that gave me superior cognitive   
   abilities and a sharper memory I might consider it.   
      
   > (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.)   
      
   Altered states aren't necesarrily bad, but I agree that sustained use of   
   psych meds is undesireable in any but the most troubled individuals.   
      
   > [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.   
      
   Oooh, I disagree strongly. What you *percieve* as sound is a decoding of   
   the nerve impulses from the auditory canal. There is a lot of filtering   
   that goes on too.   
      
   Ever not 'heard' a sound untill it stops? Ever realised that you drifted   
   off and can't remember the last few minutes of a boring lecture, even   
   though it is clearly audible.   
      
   Same goes for any of our senses. sight, smell, touch... all are just   
   nerve impulses that the brain has to interpret. It is this interpreting   
   function that LSD scrambles, IIRC.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   We have speach recognition tech already. Computers can transcribe score   
   from a monophonic instrument.   
      
   > 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.. ; )   
      
   That last one is a good point.   
      
   R.   
      
   > -a   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)