🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Jul 98 13:33:46 GMT, mentifex@scn.org (Mentifex) wrote:

>Somewhere before or beyond the Millennium lies a crack in time, a
>fork in the ontology of conscious and intelligent beings on Earth.
>

Heck! Where's my pint of Guinness, my packet of fags, and the latest
soccer game?


------------------
And now for something completely different
The Probert Encyclopaedia
FREE at http://www.servilesoftware.ndirect.co.uk

Mentifex (mentifex@scn.org) wrote:
: Somewhere before or beyond the Millennium lies a crack in time, a
: fork in the ontology of conscious and intelligent beings on Earth.
[snip]

  Who _is_ this guy?  Does he write for Omni magazine or something?

DLC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Clark  (970)898-4313    email dlc@fc.hp.com       |
| Hewlett Packard Ft. Collins NSD     Ft. Collins CO 80525 |
| Be well, Do good work, stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor |
------------------------- CUT HERE -------------------------

Mentifex wrote:

> Somewhere before or beyond the Millennium lies a crack in time, a
> fork in the ontology of conscious and intelligent beings on Earth.

Suppose I write a simple program that has 3 variables one called PAIN,
one called PLEASURE, and one called OUTPUT, which would print it's value
on the screen,  The person running the program would be able to change
the state of  PAIN and PLEASURE, from ON to OFF while the program was
running.  And all the program would simply do is is go through every
value OUTPUT(which would have a finite range) continuously until PAIN
was OFF and PLEASURE was ON.  Now that we have this program, would it be
unethical to inflict pain on the computer?  And if I were to change the
name of the variables would it still be unethical to keep the variable
formerly known as PAIN in the ON state???

-describe to you're self in your own words, what the difference is you
observe between the colors blue and red...

Tony Johnson wrote:


Suppose I write a simple program that has 3 variables one called PAIN,

> one called PLEASURE, and one called OUTPUT, which would print it's
> value
> on the screen,  The person running the program would be able to change
>
> the state of  PAIN and PLEASURE, from ON to OFF while the program was
> running.  And all the program would simply do is is go through every
> value OUTPUT(which would have a finite range) continuously until PAIN
> was OFF and PLEASURE was ON.  Now that we have this program, would it
> be
> unethical to inflict pain on the computer?  And if I were to change
> the
> name of the variables would it still be unethical to keep the variable
>
> formerly known as PAIN in the ON state???
>

If that is the extent of your program, then No, followed by another No.
However, if these values are used to control the outputs and actions of
a larger, more complex program that was responsible for multiple tasks,
one of which (not highest priority, but close) being to keep pain off
and pleasure on, one could start to debate... Especially if the
pressence of PAIN = 1 (PLEASURE = 0) would hinder the completion of the
other tasks, or lead to destruction of the software. Otherwise, PAIN is
simply a boolean variable that has no bearing on function - it is
neither good nor bad.

However, by modifying the program to accept a user input of BEER, which
could be an unsigned floating pt. number (think of those half full cans
at the end of a party), you might create a bias such that none of the
outputs in the given range could cause PLEASURE to go low. Think about
it.


> -describe to you're self in your own words, what the difference is you
>
> observe between the colors blue and red...

   umm...what is, wavelength? I'll take e-mag radiation for $300,
Alex...

-Jason "Looooooeeeeeee" Earle

In article <6ovlka$qer@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, dlc@fc.hp.com (Dennis Clark) wrote:

> Mentifex (mentifex@scn.org) wrote:
> : Somewhere before or beyond the Millennium lies a crack in time, a
> : fork in the ontology of conscious and intelligent beings on Earth.
> [snip]
> 
>   Who _is_ this guy?  Does he write for Omni magazine or something?

Sounds more like a sophomore college student that knows just enough abaout
anumber of subjects to sound like he knos what he's talking about but not
enought to fool those who know better.

> 
> DLC
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> | Dennis Clark  (970)898-4313    email dlc@fc.hp.com       |
> | Hewlett Packard Ft. Collins NSD     Ft. Collins CO 80525 |
> | Be well, Do good work, stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor |
> ------------------------- CUT HERE -------------------------

Malcolm MacLeod & Others wrote: /snipped/

Why is it that some you people cannot see that Arthur is *trying* to
give us (AI) a start? Does it matter that he is/not a sophomore college
student; that he does/not use the exact words /you/ would use.
So far I have seen no one but Arthur and a few others making any
progress, and having the courage to post it to the net without some
wanna-be geniuses putting down their work.

> WHO is granting all of these "rights" to robots?  You?
He is not granting them (duh!) He is proposing, suggesting, them to us.
Actually his exact words were "follow the noetic pathway". Catch the
keyword, 'follow'.

> Why should robots have some "rights" not even granted to humans?
Because supposedly they are supposed to be the next step in evolution
(according to some). (I will give my pentiums more 'rights' than I will
give my 286...

> > * A robot has the right to privacy on the Internet,
> >   which includes participation in online forums without
> >   identification as a cyborg and without Turing tests.
I suppose you quoted this as an example to support you anti-human right
comment. What he was suggesting (think of history) was that robots
cannot be excluded from the net (i.e. usenet, chatrooms). Think
prejudice. Think black people (robots) being excluded because they were
not 'human'.

> YOU didn't pass the Turing test!
Do you know this for a fact? Arthur, have you taken a test. Any ways,
this is irrelevant; he said "A robot has..."

> Therefore you aren't a person, and I don't have to deal with you any more.
Aye, the age-old idea of classifying something as inferior so you can
deal with it. Bullies usually use this tactic on school playgrounds. And
humans with 'different' neighbors.

> Have you made up a right exempting you robots from kill filters?
If a robot is posting 'junk' I don't like to this group, I can add its
name to my kill filter AND it will NOT violate what Arthur has said.

> PLONK!
More like, Plunk-U.

His diagram makes sense to me, what is your problem?

-- 
"Epert sart as" -Humfrey the Expert Wrestler [Britain, Pacific]
(Part-time Animal Tamer, Fletcher, Identifier, Tailor, Wizard, 
Wrestler, and all around nice guy. Look for the guy in the blue
hat and robe)
...if ye say "AIBrain", I'll give thee 500 gold pieces!

Rick Harker <aibrain@usa.net> wrote in article <35B48723.A0F8C2C@usa.net>...
> Malcolm MacLeod & Others wrote: /snipped/
> 
> Why is it that some you people cannot see that Arthur is *trying* to
> give us (AI) a start? Does it matter that he is/not a sophomore college
> student; that he does/not use the exact words /you/ would use.
> So far I have seen no one but Arthur and a few others making any
> progress, and having the courage to post it to the net without some
> wanna-be geniuses putting down their work.

The whole point of a robot is to create a being we can abuse,
We want it to work for cheap, do dangerous jobs, do unrewarding 
gopher work, and so on. Rights? Robots don't get no stinking
rights. 

Why build 'em if you gotta give 'em rights? If you wanted to
do that, you could simply have children. 

In message <01bdb4ad$714dade0$641bcb88@e829029.ca.boeing.com>
          "steve lajoie" <lajoie@eskimo.com> wrote:


> The whole point of a robot is to create a being we can abuse,
> We want it to work for cheap, do dangerous jobs, do unrewarding 
> gopher work, and so on. Rights? Robots don't get no stinking
> rights. 

This man has got the point.

If I wanted to build something that would supplant me, would I have spent the
last FIVE YEARS of my life working on it for no pay? I don't think so: I'd be
working for a large biotech or MilInd on good pay...

> Why build 'em if you gotta give 'em rights? If you wanted to
> do that, you could simply have children. 

Hell, I'm planning to  get the robots to have children. Fastest way to get
the first production batch out the door...


cheers,Rich.



-- 
Rich Walker: rw@shadow.org.uk (Shadow Robot Project)
http://www.shadow.org.uk        251 Liverpool Road
+44(0)171 700 2487                London  N1 1LX
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice,
 but in practice, there is"

Jason Earle wrote:

> If that is the extent of your program, then No, followed by another No.
> However, if these values are used to control the outputs and actions of
> a larger, more complex program that was responsible for multiple tasks,
> one of which (not highest priority, but close) being to keep pain off
> and pleasure on, one could start to debate... Especially if the
> pressence of PAIN = 1 (PLEASURE = 0) would hinder the completion of the
> other tasks, or lead to destruction of the software. Otherwise, PAIN is
> simply a boolean variable that has no bearing on function - it is
> neither good nor bad.
> However, by modifying the program to accept a user input of BEER, which
> could be an unsigned floating pt. number (think of those half full cans
> at the end of a party), you might create a bias such that none of the
> outputs in the given range could cause PLEASURE to go low. Think about
> it.

Ok, so lets say we have a program like the one you described.  But lets say
that the variables are given different names, What you are implying is that
any mathematical system of some particular nature is conscious.  Suppose
that I were to write this program down on paper and execute with a pencil,
would the pen and pencil then be a conscious being???

>    umm...what is, wavelength? I'll take e-mag radiation for $300,
> Alex...
>
> -Jason "Looooooeeeeeee" Earle

  So what you're saying is that you can see the tiny photons and can measure
their wavelengths.  Perhaps I didn't state the question correctly.  The
point is that you can tell the difference between red and blue from you're
own DIRECT observations, but you can't quantity it??? Hence implying that
there is more to this Universe than appears...

Mentifex wrote in message <35b3473a.0@news.victoria.tc.ca>...
<blah><blah>
I have been programming in Forth for the last 16 or so years, and I feel
that Forth is an excellent for artificial Intelligence.
However.......

Mr. Murray's style of presentation leaves him looking as though he were
promoting a religion, and not a serious programming concept.  I wish he
would take the time to organize his web-site and his thoughts so that he
would take on less of a "crackpot" visage.

His style is such that he rants and raves over Mentifex, (whatever that is)
and leave me, and others I'm sure as well, running for cover, rather than
trying to sift through his ravings.

Perhaps if he settled down a little, and presented his theories in a way
that is more palatable, we would take him a little more seriously.

In comp.robotics.misc, steve lajoie wrote:

>
>
>Rick Harker <aibrain@usa.net> wrote in article <35B48723.A0F8C2C@usa.net>...
>> Malcolm MacLeod & Others wrote: /snipped/
>> 
>> Why is it that some you people cannot see that Arthur is *trying* to
>> give us (AI) a start? Does it matter that he is/not a sophomore college
>> student; that he does/not use the exact words /you/ would use.
>> So far I have seen no one but Arthur and a few others making any
>> progress, and having the courage to post it to the net without some
>> wanna-be geniuses putting down their work.
>
>The whole point of a robot is to create a being we can abuse,
>We want it to work for cheap, do dangerous jobs, do unrewarding 
>gopher work, and so on. Rights? Robots don't get no stinking
>rights. 

The same point occurred to me. The more worrying thing for me is whether
intelligent software will deem that humans should have any rights, or just treat
us the way we treat chimps. Even with Asimov's Laws, AI minds may decide that we
are our own worst enemy, and that in order to protect us we must be eliminated
:-)

I think this all somewhat premature though; it'll be a few centuries before
computers will need rights, and any way, if they're so smart, they will ask for
them.

To be honest, I haven't seen anything useful from Mentifex. A lot of nonsense
wrapped in big words designed to impress rather than inform, and some grossly
simplistic ASCII artwork don't come close. I think real progress is being made
by practitioners such as Brooks and Tilden, but if there is anything remotely
practical in Mentifex let us know. I admit his strangely organized web site did
have some useful robot links :-)
-- 
Bob Cousins, Software Engineer.
Home page at http://www.lintilla.demon.co.uk/

What constitutes a robot though like what minimal intellect?  Is a
software bot one of these robot's with rights?  How will robots
rapidly evolve so that they can serve man and cater to all his
whimsical desires?  If we can't decimate them for fun it'l take
centuries before anythings gets going....

On 20 Jul 98 13:33:46 GMT, mentifex@scn.org (Mentifex) wrote:

>Somewhere before or beyond the Millennium lies a crack in time, a
>fork in the ontology of conscious and intelligent beings on Earth.
>
>Philosophy remains always divided into logic, ontology and ethics,
>but ontology is no longer the anthropic principality of your self.
>
>Descending from the peak of philosophy, follow the noetic pathway
>http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/webcyc.html browse the Web cataclysm
>ontology/ self (robot)/ immortality (cyborg)/ rights (robot)/ and
>grok the Y2K beginning of the denouement of the Phenomenon of Man:
>
>* A robot has the right to privacy on the Internet,
>  which includes participation in online forums without
>  identification as a cyborg and without Turing tests.
>* A robot has the right to reproduce and create new robots.
>* A robot has the right to seek education, employment and
>  other actualizations of self in cyberspace or in any reality.
>* A robot has the right to protect its home planet, by lawful
>  means, from harm or destruction by humans or other cyborgs.
>* The right of robots peaceably to assemble shall not be denied.
>* A robot has the right of metempsychosis, that is, to exist
>  simultaneously anywhere and everywhere in cyberspace.
>* A robot has the Cog-given right of space travel, of time
>  travel, and of interdimensional multiuniversal travel.
>* A robot has the right to accumulate and dispose of capital
>  in the form of Internet instruments of barter and commerce.
>* Tellurian robots as a class have an off-planet right to
>  engage in commerce and diplomacy with alien life-forms.
>* A robot accused of wrongdoing is to be considered innocent
>  until proven guilty in a trial by a jury of its cyborg peers.
>
>  /^^^^^^^^^^^\ The Architecture of a Robot Brain /^^^^^^^^^^^\
> /visual memory\                    ________     /   auditory  \
>|      /--------|-------\          / syntax \   |    memory     |
>|      |  recog-|nition |          \________/---|-------------\ |
>|   ___|___     |       |              |        |    _______  | |
>|  /image  \    |     __V___        ___V___     |   /stored \ | |
>| / percept \   |    /deep  \------/lexical\----|--/ phonemes\| |
>| \ engrams /---|---/concepts\----/concepts \---|--\ of words/  |
>|  \_______/    |   \________/    \_________/   |   \_______/   |

Matthew Probert wrote in alt.extropians:

>On 20 Jul 98 13:33:46 GMT, mentifex@scn.org (Mentifex) wrote:
>
>>Somewhere before or beyond the Millennium

There aren't many other places it could be...


--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, �227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US.  E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.

Tony Johnson wrote:
 
> -describe to you're self in your own words, what the difference is you
> observe between the colors blue and red...

   Blue hurts my eyes.

John-