[NetBehaviour] New developments - On Being/"exist.pl"

[james jwm-art net]

Just a quick thought:

how about a client/server model? so there could be several components
communicating with each other?



On 25/7/2008, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> We do not create the structure of our own brains, we receive their
>> design via evolution (or from God, but either way we don't make them
>> ourselves). But we eventually take credit for using them.
>>
>> The structure of a neural net isn't determined by the program itself
>> either. *Legally* the program's conclusions would be yours, I think.
>> But *philosophically* is there a reason other than the simplicity of
>> the program that means credit for its discoveries should go to the
>> author instead?
>>
>> AI programs are texts, they are scores. They are more like the writing
>> games of the Oulipo or the Surrealists or the Beats than a simpler
>> static text. If they produce "strange loops"
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop) then this could be at
>> least an analogue to or metaphor for self-awareness.
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>Points taken and sure, they could justify taking such a step in this
>project, which is purely conceptual and must therefore adhere to the
>original concept of creating "a computer program that performs an
>introspective metaphysical and ontological examination of its own
>existence and being".
>
>I've always seen something wrong with the idea of "AI". It just sounds
>absurd to me that a machine can be made to become "intelligent" as we
>define it in regards to humans. Based on the limited reading I've done
>on the subject, some of the largest steps towards realizing AI have more
>or less involved redefining what "intelligence" is. So here's my
>proposal: The fundamental element of intelligence is an innate desire to
>be aware of one's existence and state of being. This is the basis of
>intelligence and without it nothing can emerge that can be called true
>intelligence.
>
>Obviously, my program has no desire to be aware of its existence and
>state of being. That's why I have to tell it to do so and how to go
>about it. A computer program can be made to know certain things and even
>to make logical deductions based on that knowledge but that's not
>synonymous with intelligence. It will never be able to make reasoned
>decisions based on an intelligent understanding of things. A child who
>can rattle of the product of any two numbers between 1 and 10 isn't
>showing signs of intelligence. They're simply repeating something they
>know. It's not until they start dealing with numbers that they haven't
>managed to memorize that they may display intelligence through
>understanding and this understanding is acquired through their desire to
>be aware of their existence and state of being. That's essentially why
>they went through the trouble of acquiring the understanding needed to
>multiply those numbers.
>
>So, that's where I'm at right now. I'm not extremely well read in these
>matters and it could very well be that I'm simply repeating something
>that philosophers have been saying for the last 100 years. But this is
>what I'm learning from my work on exist.pl
>
>Pall
>_______________________________________________
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>