ekrodomos.net> bc12e983   
   From: joss@nospampleasewerebritish.nekrodomos.net   
      
   On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:09:25 +0000, Omixochitl wrote:   
      
   > alias  wrote in   
   > news:pan.2003.10.29.05.22.01.547818@removenetserver.org:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:51:41 +0000, joss wright wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [snip]   
   >>   
   >>> i'm replying here because this ties in to my use of the "human"   
   >>> metaphor for an AI.   
   >>>   
   >>> the metaphor which i used was, i admit, based around humans. this   
   >>> doesn't, i feel, invalidate its use. the common terminology used to   
   >>> refer to intelligent agent systems uses the terms "effector" for agent   
   >>> routines which manipulate the agent's environment, and "sensor" for...   
   >>> well, it's obvious. it's easy to extend a metaphor to an AI in this   
   >>> way. it must _have_ (at least in an abstract sense) a processing   
   >>> center which correlates to the brain. similarly it must have sensors   
   >>> of some form (see below) which correlate to our own five senses.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >> i agree that for an intellegence (of any kind) to exist it must have   
   >> sensors of some kind.  however i do not believe that these senses must   
   >> correlate to our own.   
   >>   
   >> human senses are innapropriate for a entity existing in an environment   
   >> completely unlike our own.   
   >   
   > Hmm...some other animals have senses unlike our own for existing in more   
   > or less the same environment (the ability to see ultraviolet light, the   
   > ability to hear higher pitches than we can, use of sonar, whatever   
   > electrical thing that line down the side of lots of fish does, etc.).   
      
   i'd just like to defend myself slightly. my original post in this   
   subthread did say "the type/style of these sensors is not really the   
   issue". reading over that post again, I did say "which correlate to our   
   five senses" which may have been misleading. what i meant was that an AI   
   must have sensors which serve the same purpose as our own five senses, as   
   in -> inputting data into the system.   
      
   i agree that there is no reason why an AI should be limited to or extended   
   to our own five senses, but I believe that there is nothing which would   
   prevent an AI from having a camera/microphone/pressure/particle detection   
   system. the data from these systems will still enter the AI, and   
   presumably it would have methods whereby this data could be processed   
   effectively. this could be preprogrammed (as it appears to be to a large   
   extent in humans), or the AI could learn to accept new input types.   
      
   and AI wouldn't necessarily live in an environment completely unlike our   
   own. . admittedly it would be "in" a computer, but there is nothing to   
   stop the computer hardware perceiving the outside world. my computer has a   
   webcam and a microphone, for example. a gibson-esque AI "living" in my   
   computer would almost certainly gain access to these. i don't see how the   
   existence of the real world would or should be hidden from the AI.   
      
   still.... i think that this has mainly come from my use of the word   
   "correlate" when i should have said "serve the same pupose". i was just   
   trying to be a cool guy. forgive me.   
      
   j   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)