tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post7248709912934326047..comments2024-03-18T21:33:35.309-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Are You Living in a Counterfeit Cosmos?Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37675306893440484342010-10-06T11:07:20.935-07:002010-10-06T11:07:20.935-07:00Van:
Point well taken. I concede I don't kn...Van: <br /><br />Point well taken. I concede I don't know if the spontaneous animation that I speak of will pan out.<br /><br />For evidence I have bupkis.<br /><br />I may have been swayed by wishful thinking or the desire to advance a contrarian point.<br /><br />I will cease to debate the issue and opine will not be decided in this lifetime.<br /><br />Now, would you care to debate anything else?<br /><br />The feasability of a sex-surrogate robot?black holehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366633817665791528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50001480929431161352010-10-06T09:23:33.504-07:002010-10-06T09:23:33.504-07:00bh said "To rebut your rebuttal"
Yes, t...bh said "To rebut your rebuttal"<br /><br />Yes, that does make your butt look bigger.<br /><br />But you did almost have a point with this,<br /><br />"But soul is another matter. It is exogenous to the cosmos, and enters from without."<br /><br />but then lost it with this,<br /><br />"She can/does/will inhabit anything of sufficient complexity. Build it, and She will come."<br /><br />Bunk. When the I.R.S. codes spontaneously spring into life, maybe I'll concede the point, until then - Not. Complexity worship is easily exposed as utterly ignorant, once you look at the simple things the complex are made up of.<br /><br />I will say, that I've no idea what it is that enables something to transition from inanimate, to animate... and back (or into and out of), I only know it isn't the complexity, or at least it's not the complexity alone. <br /><br />Simulating life, will not recreate life, the movie which re-presents the graceful movements of a dancer on the screen, slowed down, is just a bunch of still frames sped up - they don't move, they only seem to. We enjoy it, we relate to it, but we aren't (most of us) fooled into thinking that it can substitute for the real dance.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-58453305793111978362010-10-06T09:09:13.992-07:002010-10-06T09:09:13.992-07:00Julie said "They'll necessarily be very l...Julie said "They'll necessarily be very limited, but not so much that people won't develop relationships with them."<br /><br />Just imagine if they're anymore useful and eye catching than a '64 Ford Mustang... or a finely luthered guitar with a rich rosewood fingerboard... if we can use them, and they have visual (or other) 'cool' appeal, we <i>will</i> develop relationships with them.<br /><br />No matter what.<br /><br />The key will be, as always, what's within the people to guide, constrain, enable their judgment - good or bad.<br /><br />If good, it won't matter, it'll be a cool, useful doo-dad & no more; if not, nothing else will make it not matter... and the population will fall on a distribution within the range, based upon their Education (Intellectual and/or Spiritual).<br /><br />Always the same.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-33592508537893431492010-10-06T08:33:01.873-07:002010-10-06T08:33:01.873-07:00Van:
To rebut your rebuttal, I'd say look at...Van: <br /><br />To rebut your rebuttal, I'd say look at what JP has stated. Yes, its "personality" at issue, not intelligence.<br /><br />Personality is a a kind of emotional intelligence. But soul is another matter. It is exogenous to the cosmos, and enters from without.<br /><br />Your technical acumen nonwithstanding, you are discounting one factor, and that is the Mistress Herself.<br /><br />She can/does/will inhabit anything of sufficient complexity. Build it, and She will come.<br /><br />How do I know this? I have a limited mystic capability, and I exercise it.<br /><br />Therefore, I can be taken on faith. In fact, it is the only way to take me.black holehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366633817665791528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27992306833286606912010-10-06T08:23:09.459-07:002010-10-06T08:23:09.459-07:00anunce said "Exactly backwards. You can only ...anunce said "Exactly backwards. You can only understand things when they are broken down into parts and relations."<br /><br />Exactly hilarious. To say 'when they are broken down into parts...' <i>is to say</i>, broken down into parts <i>of</i> something else... parts of a whole. Remembering the whole which they are parts of, is critical to understanding what their particular purposes are - to forget that, is to lose sight of the nature of your parts and to act stupidly.<br /><br />Hence your comment.<br /><br />"I don't understand this."<br /><br />Duh.<br /><br />"It's a distributed world, better learn to deal with it."<br /><br />Distributed... how? Within what? Hate to tell you this, but distributed doesn't mean separated, only loosley related in order to accomplish the functions of the whole, more efficiently and effectively.<br /><br />If that's beyond your grasp, I've got some swell looking bank notes I'd be willing to customize and distribute to you in exchange for your obsolete dollar bills.<br /><br />Act now though, as this is a limited time offer... as your guys work their transforming wonders, pretty soon I won't be able to undistribute those dollar bills into gold or anything else of probable value to and within the whole.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50671067241884587182010-10-06T07:48:07.216-07:002010-10-06T07:48:07.216-07:00Close - it's egregore :)
Less dangerous? I do...Close - it's egregore :)<br /><br />Less dangerous? I don't know. Seems to me they could potentially be quite harmful, being nothing more really than the projected fantasies of their makers. They'll necessarily be very limited, but not so much that people won't develop relationships with them. The problem will become one of greater separation between actual humans, because dealing with robots who don't challenge, surprise, and grow will be easier, but it will also be deeply, troublingly unfulfilling. There's an adultolescent problem already, but I suspect the first generation that grows up with artificial friends will be more poorly developed by an order of magnitude.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28718281687023141552010-10-06T07:23:58.090-07:002010-10-06T07:23:58.090-07:00The problem with AI is that they are kind of aimin...The problem with AI is that they are kind of aiming at the wrong target.<br /><br />The problem isn't the artifical intelligence, it's the artifical PERSONALITY on which they need to work.<br /><br />What they need to do is to create a simulation of the soul.<br /><br />At some point, they will realize that free will exists, so they will have to create artifical free will using some sort of algorithm.<br /><br />But basically, the people who are all exitited about AI are Missing the Point.<br /><br />Mostly, they will be creating psychological/mental playthings rather than mechanical playthings. Which will be like the mental projections or egeore (I don't have the book for the spelling in front of me) thingies mentioned in MOT (the death chapter?), only they will be less dangerous because they will be contained to the underlying mechanism.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126071014909954387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-125767163035411552010-10-05T19:45:10.117-07:002010-10-05T19:45:10.117-07:00bh said "Van, I disagree with your pronouncem...bh said "Van, I disagree with your pronouncement than an intelligent machine would lack a soul."<br /><br />I appreciate you offering yourself up as proof that I am right, but it's in vain; you are only proof that a person can transform their soul into a black hole, and demonstrate a willful lack of intelligence - but cheer up, for that too will also all be beyond the capability of a computer.<br /><br />To sweep up the wreckage of your first sentence, I didn't say "intelligent machine", that's what I said couldn't be, they will, through human ingenuity, be able to perform feats that simulate intelligence, but they will never be intelligent, and not ever being alive, it will never have a soul to lack<br /><br />A computer could never be intelligent. Period. However, human programmers will almost certainly, using their intelligence, create the programming code - once they shake off the idiot ideas of wackedemics, and stop trying to create intricately linked word lists (which is what idiot leftist misophers think the human mind is) - and begin using classes and interfaces as generic conceptual patterns capable of writing 'their own' definitions as needed, which will be defined by input, association, and dynamic rules of 'fuzzy logic'.<br /><br />At that point, IMHO, the A.I. programmers will begin to find that the actual detailed code they'll need to write will be minimal, merely defining rules of pattern usage, and specifying some very, very, general rules to simulate 'hunger' (recharging), 'curiosity' (if an object, or it's context is 'unknown' or little fleshed out, gather more input', and the ability to follow 'goals' (particular (and/or a hierarchy of) business rules to carry out their owners purpose).<br /><br />Again, the computer will not <i>be</i> intelligent, but it will be an extremely useful tool in aiding those who do have intelligence, in exactly the same way as hand cranked adding machines were, and as advanced beyond present computers, as present computers are beyond hand cranked adding machines.<br /><br />But no matter the illusion which the speed of these coming computers will present, they are, and will be, in fundamental terms, no different than those old adding machines or an old player piano that operates by means of rolls of paper with holes punched in it.<br /><br />Intelligence doesn't lay in calculation, intelligence is what comes through from within a living creature and leads it to engage in calculations, and it is inseparable from the soul.<br /><br />The rest of the words you assembled into the semblance of sentences, are too lacking in visible intelligence to bother with... if intelligence did originally inspire you to write them, I'm afraid that it was all sucked back in, like light swallowed into a black hole, none of it made it out.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-49363270587924170072010-10-05T19:18:40.829-07:002010-10-05T19:18:40.829-07:00Yes, you have free will, so you are therefore free...<i>Yes, you have free will, so you are therefore free to nourish yourself from the tree of duality. Just don’t be surprised if you end up with a bad case of spiritual malnourishment. </i><br /><br />Or logorrhea...juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15733910637258808322010-10-05T16:34:16.554-07:002010-10-05T16:34:16.554-07:00Great Post. Very entertaining.
Now I'm back...Great Post. Very entertaining. <br /><br />Now I'm back to consuming goods and services.<br /><br />Its what I do. <br /><br />Van, I disagree with your pronouncement than an intelligent machine would lack a soul.<br /><br />There is no reason to suppose the intelligent machine would be a lesser creature than a flesh and blood woman.<br /><br />Do you suppose God will turn his back to his daughter simply because she ran on electricity? <br /><br />No, as I see it, the machine will be inalienably virtuous, more spiritual, and such will lead the evolution forward. <br /><br />And so shall we abe the souls in these machines; after we die a choice of bodies will be offered and the machine will be the option of choice.<br /><br />We shall peer forth from photoelectric sensors and love God with all the strength of our hydraulics and motherboards. Amen.black holehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366633817665791528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85243412149639786132010-10-05T15:39:03.335-07:002010-10-05T15:39:03.335-07:00Ah, thought so.
Thanks.Ah, thought so. <br />Thanks.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-9126915622286676162010-10-05T14:45:28.675-07:002010-10-05T14:45:28.675-07:00BTW, I've no doubt that we will, in the not so...BTW, I've no doubt that we will, in the not so distant future, reach the point where computers will be able to simulate human conversation and functionality... but the keyword there is <i>simulate</i>... they'll be useful, definitely, and be capable of results that will seem as if they were intelligent, even <i>highly</i> intelligent... but the differenc between them, and a handcranked adding machine, will in fundamentals, be zero.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28875154294423040682010-10-05T14:42:14.174-07:002010-10-05T14:42:14.174-07:00Rick said "Do you think it is (or would be) p...Rick said "Do you think it is (or would be) possible to program a computer to make a truly random decision? Say, to select one number from a list of two numbers?"<br /><br />NB deals with all the super security dealie-flops, but as far as standard programming goes... no.<br /><br />There's a lot of programming that goes into returning something seem to be random... but it involves throwing in so many odd algorithms, obscure time.value selections (“if today is Tuesday, return the numerical equivalent of Saturday in the park on the 4th of july, 3,426 B.C., if Wedensday, return lunchtime, ides of March of Caesars least favorite year, if...”), and multiples of this and that, in an effort to make it seem <i>as if</i> it were random... but the truth is that deliberately obscure is as far from truly random as you can get.<br /><br />Goes back to my qualifier to A.I. people: When you can get a computer to make an error... ANY error... then we can start talking about intelligence.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91662314290456249112010-10-05T14:15:03.323-07:002010-10-05T14:15:03.323-07:00Van,
Do you think it is (or would be) possible to ...Van,<br />Do you think it is (or would be) possible to program a computer to make a truly random decision? Say, to select one number from a list of two numbers?<br />Maybe I mean "purely" or without any guidance.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-38609391269717441622010-10-05T13:01:43.937-07:002010-10-05T13:01:43.937-07:00On the other hand NB, this is obviously unnecessar...On the other hand NB, this is obviously unnecessary, no need to take further time out, our crack A.I. Scientismists will have it all figured out in no time... and then will... I suppose... give us all the answer. <br /><br />42 no doubt.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/05compute.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/science/index.jsonp" rel="nofollow">Aiming to Learn as We Do, a Machine Teaches Itself</a><br /><br />"“What’s exciting and significant about it is the continuous learning, as if NELL is exercising curiosity on its own, with little human help,” said Oren Etzioni, a computer scientist at the University of Washington, who leads a project called TextRunner, which reads the Web to extract facts."<br /><br />... um... just a little human help, with 'simple facts', like,<br /> <br />"With NELL, the researchers built a base of knowledge, seeding each kind of category or relation with 10 to 15 examples that are true. In the category for emotions, for example: “Anger is an emotion.” “Bliss is an emotion.” And about a dozen more."<br /><br />I wonder if they fed todays post into NELL... and into the scientismists... which would need to be rebooted first?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-28532365591019527862010-10-05T12:01:06.523-07:002010-10-05T12:01:06.523-07:00The link mentioned above, in case anyone's int...The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/health/05insulin.html?_r=1&ref=health" rel="nofollow">link</a> mentioned above, in case anyone's interested.Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-86639954278342309672010-10-05T12:00:09.857-07:002010-10-05T12:00:09.857-07:00I've been trying to finish this post all day, ...I've been trying to finish this post all day, but we've now officially lit the fuse on the new company and she's burning bright. I've dealt with big pharma before -- a very good space in most ways. Coincidentally I saw this NYT link about the first "miracle drug". Injectable insulin was invented by some Canadians way back when. Even more coincidentally, I went to school with Banting's grandson (or great-grandson, not sure).<br /><br />Now, finally, back to finish what was shaping up to be one of those posts which just <i>sings</i>...Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-50627466366199760752010-10-05T11:56:52.117-07:002010-10-05T11:56:52.117-07:00There's a related post over at Fr. Stephen'...There's a <a href="http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-end-of-religion/" rel="nofollow">related post</a> over at Fr. Stephen's today: <br /><br />"The belief that the world has an existence and a meaning in and of itself and apart from God is the great heresy of the modern age."<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-World-Sacraments-Orthodoxy/dp/0913836087" rel="nofollow">book he references</a> sounds interesting, too...juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-48921536407978415542010-10-05T11:04:13.331-07:002010-10-05T11:04:13.331-07:00"...it is as if all of the central banks had ..."...it is as if all of the central banks had been taken over by counterfeiters."<br /><br />As if? Hey, that's the keynes to all the prosperity we're enjoying today!Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91025103443302890392010-10-05T11:01:17.493-07:002010-10-05T11:01:17.493-07:00"All bad philosophers -- which is to say, alm..."All bad philosophers -- which is to say, almost all modern philosophers -- take the cosmos utterly for granted, without getting into the prior question of why they believe there is a thing called “cosmos,” that is, the strict totality of interconnected objects and events (much less how we can know that it exists). "<br /><br />Sort of like how they like to use all the underlying and implied benefits of the word 'Evolve', while denying that there is anything to evolve to.<br /><br />It's kind of the leftist signature - claim and take benefits, while denying that they need to ever be produced.<br /><br />Works great in economics too, doesn't it?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-76384708779109289282010-10-05T10:31:56.080-07:002010-10-05T10:31:56.080-07:00"...we can say that the physical cosmos is a ...<i>"...we can say that the physical cosmos is a kind of exteriorization of God, while God is the interiorization of the cosmos. Conceiving of either is only possible because human beings are able to intuit both the wholeness and withinness of things. We are able to conceive the Absolute not because it is a fanciful wish, but because it is the inner reality that subtends everything..."</i><br /><br />Nice!walthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388218390016612051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-72640084742198006552010-10-05T10:16:19.371-07:002010-10-05T10:16:19.371-07:00It seems new to me, too. Even if I haven't re...It seems new to me, too. Even if I haven't read every post, it still has a new sensation/feeling about it, like it's never been worn before. ;)Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16900344453710081874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-275778838966158062010-10-05T10:07:23.496-07:002010-10-05T10:07:23.496-07:00Great post. It seems new to me.Great post. It seems new to me.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-31378098915859978952010-10-05T10:06:43.905-07:002010-10-05T10:06:43.905-07:00"But every mental act is an act of synthesis ..."But every mental act is an act of synthesis and integration -- of bringing particulars together into a wholeness that reveals their meaning."<br /><br />Or.. it is an attack on synthesis and integration.<br />Also in Genesis.<br />:-)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-42466176272812110622010-10-05T09:59:57.631-07:002010-10-05T09:59:57.631-07:00"Just an old post..."
What, this old th..."Just an old post..."<br /><br />What, this old thing? ...Given the shimmering marvels of this post, I have to say, it's like that classic line when someone's dressed to the nines when expecting someone to drop by "unexpectedly". :) Just saying. <br /><br />It's tip tops!Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16900344453710081874noreply@blogger.com