ekrodomos.net> bc12e983   
   From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:41:20 +0000, joss wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   i'd hope u don't feel a need to .. wasn't intended as an "attack" .. i'm   
   far from an expert here either.. and i'm guessing no one else involved is.   
      
   just throwing out some ideas, and likely malformed incomplete ones at that.   
      
   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.   
   >   
      
   ok.. this has been tickling my brain for the last few months now and i'm   
   still not sure i have my head wrapped entierly around it..   
      
   but..   
      
   if we define 'senses' as 'a means of inputting data into the system' we   
   have to look closely at the quality of that data and how it impacts the   
   reciever.. that is.. if we actually want to attempt to understand the   
   potential behavior of such an intellegence we do.   
      
   first lets deal with human senses.  they are immediate, transparent, and   
   have no learning curve.  a human infant needs to learn how to *interpret*   
   its senses.. but not how to use them.  they are all on and running   
   pre-birth.  by 'transparent' i mean there is no decoding process.. take   
   sight, for example, u have no means of turning it off.. ur capability for   
   editing ur vision is limited and not well understood by the conscious   
   mind.. there is no conscious thought involved in *seeing* anything.   
      
   u open ur eyes and u are afflicted with the world.  no choices there.   
      
   an AI would not have the same situation.. for it sight would *not* be an   
   unconscious automatic decision.. it would be a data stream, like any   
   other.  (note: a data stream outside itself, not something   
   directly impacting its "sensorium") functionally no different from audio   
   input. 1's and 0's arranged in a way designed to be intellegable to   
   *another species* .. not a thing it would ever truly *see* .. possibly it   
   wold learn to interpret visual input.. but there is a difference between   
   deciphering a thing and sensing it..   
      
   i think that all input from the world outside the box would arrive   
   in this manner.  it would have to be translated into information that the   
   AI could use.   
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
      
      
      
      
   > 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)