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

[Pall Thayer]

OK, don't be disappointed when you do run it. Keep in mind that it's an
"introspective" exercise on the part of the software.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:12 PM, james jwm-art net <james at jwm-art.net>
wrote:

> I was not so much thinking in terms of networks involving other
> computers, more splitting the parts of the program up (or potential
> parts) so they can comunicate with each other and respawn dead
> processes, I suppose roughly analogous to sensing processes and a brain
> process, perhaps allowing the senses to respawn a dead brain. But that
> almost suggests a brain is redundant as the senses... hmmm
>
> as a daemon is what I was thinking of, with ports and that, networking
> would be a step after.
>
> Not had the chance to actually try the script yet... in just a moment.
>
>
> On 25/7/2008, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >james jwm-art net wrote:
> >> Just a quick thought:
> >>
> >> how about a client/server model? so there could be several components
> >> communicating with each other?
> >>
> >Actually, I see that as a later step. The program will eventually want
> >to explore outer space and that's where networking can come into the
> >picture.
> >
> >Pall
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NetBehaviour mailing list
> >> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >NetBehaviour mailing list
> >NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>



-- 
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20080725/d8218848/attachment.htm>