Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job



So intelligence and the development of philosophy are completely unrelated?
Cheers     Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - snipped-for-privacy@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Developing philosophy was an appropriate action for scores of human beings. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes, and Daniel Dennett enjoyed their careers as philosophers. Perhaps I missed the meaning of your sentence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"George W. Cherry" wrote:

I agree that's an *attribute* of intelligence. I don't think it (alone) *defines* it.
I was struck, just this morning, reading an article about an archeological dig, how all human civilizations--ancient and modern--contain a specific kind of art: representations of both human and animal forms. Also representations of objects both real and imagined in the environment.
I believe that urge to re-represent perceptions is likely one of the "species-transcendent" properties of intelligence. Others might be:
* the drive to modify the environment to insure security * the drive to communicate * the drive to keep and manage information. * the drive to explore

Thanks! And she'd love it!!
--
|_ CJSonnack < snipped-for-privacy@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Programmer Dude wrote:

------------------------------- Well, we may NOT actually be conscious, we may only entertain the notion that we are, and poorly. There might be quite a lot of higher levels of awareness between where we are and actual consciousness, for which that state may be in sight at moments, but not truly possessed by us.

------------------------------- It is hard to see awareness as being other than total or absent. This is one of those things that is simply true. If we are not truly fully conscious yet, we can at least see it, sometimes.

--------------------------- You see, you're doing it too. But animals don't, and we know they don't, for in waking from sleep we pass through their level of existence, in which we are unconscious and reflexive, but we emerge from it, and they never visit ours.

---------------------------- We don't eat infants. Now before they become aware, at between 2-4 months, according to congitive researchers, we COULD eat them, but as I have said elsewhere, primitive attachment reflexes overwhelm reason by the least aware among us, Pro-Lifers, etc., and they go nuts.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
R. Steve Walz wrote:
My initial thoughts after reading your post was that you are unlikely to be a pet owner. Most -- if not all -- pets exhibit signs of thinking on a quite regular basis.

That statement in and of itself points out the flaw in your argument. If a cat is hungry, it eats. It knows it should satiate the urge to eat. If a cat knows that when it is hungry, the human it lives with will provide food, that makes a great case for self-awareness. The concept of a cat being able to identify a human as being capable of serving its needs means that it must have learned that the human provides for it. This also points to the cat examining its needs, and determining how they can be best satiated. Unless your definition of self-awareness and consciousness deals not with thought, in which case, humans don't fit the bill either.
I could also make the point that modern day humans rely on others to provide food in one form or other, and fewer and fewer people (thanks to industrialization) are needing to survive by their own skills at hunting and so forth. Reliance on others does not disprove consciousness.
--
Chris Shepherd


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote or quoted :

They do. See http://mindprod.com/intel.html But no matter what they do to someone locked in your mindset they will always remain inferior. It is a similar mechanism that convinces some people their race or nation make them superior to others.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dennis Clark wrote:

True, but one question I'm posing is: ARE these qualities that might be universal to (high) intelligence. Another way to put it is: do we do these things because we are human, or because we are intelligent?

You will find most of them in most cultures, though. I selected them *because* we find them so frequently. As others have pointed out, we even find some of these to some extent in animal "cultures".

I would call it plain stupid, rather than humanocentric.

I certainly agree with sliding scale, but based on species I donno. Are you saying that, for example, some dogs are smarter than other dogs?

EXACTLY!! That's why I suspect these are NOT uniquely human traits.

Even lemmings? (-:

I agree completely.

Agreed (sorta), but do you realize you've just made a binary cut? I see a continuum here, also. I think we're a *little* better off than the ancients (consider information theory), and I think we're not quite in a vacuum, and we HAVE communicated to some degree with our animal friends.
--
|_ CJSonnack < snipped-for-privacy@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
chris burns wrote:

They seem to be (for some definition of intelligent).

Indeed. I suspect an "other" intelligence might have some of the descriptors and not others (not to mention descriptors not on my list or not even previously known to humans).

Perhaps they trade in ideas or songs or....
--
|_ CJSonnack < snipped-for-privacy@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Programmer Dude wrote:

We probably wouldn't, because we'd use checklists, and life doesn't work like that.
<checklist snipped>
--
Richard Heathfield : snipped-for-privacy@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard Heathfield wrote:

Not just me by *any* means!

If you suggest that something that is incredibly duck-like is NOT in fact a duck, to be convincing you should provide *some* alternate idea to fill the gap. The repeated assertion of a personal belief I find highly unconvincing.

I'd say you do on several levels. Willful failure to protect them may incur severe legal and social penalties, for one thing.

Why do you love them? (BTW: "vested interest" != "economic benefit")

Not consciously. The drive, the love, *may* be based on genetics to one degree or other. How else to explain our protectiveness of our children considering the difficulties and expense of child rearing?

So,.. what,.. we just give up? We don't even try?

(Do you mean "universally *applicable*?)

Well, as is clear by now, I believe intelligence necessarily reveals itself in recognizable ways, and I'm willing to try to identify what some of those ways might be. For instance, math....

I disagree.

There are some problems I see with the assumption that the message has a natural source simply because we don't understand the constant.
The signal either is a modulated carrier of some form OR is a power signal with two states. If it's a modulated carrier, case closed, the sender is clearly not only intelligent, but highly techological.
A two-state power signal *might* come from a natural source (e.g. pulsars), but the signal in this case is *highly* structured. How likely is a signal that evaluates to a binary number?
In any event, let's consider the idea. With 32 bits, the closest I can come (if my math is right) to Feigenbaum's number is:
100.10101011010100001100101110111 = 4.66920160874724388120
Immediately we see several problems. First, how do we know where the bits start, and how do we know where the decimal point goes? This seems to indicate a need for clear marker bits--yet more structure. Even the binary pattern itself has a structure that would seem to defy the idea of a natural source. Most, if not all, natural sources emit either highly periodic signals or noise.

Obviously not in one go, but your own example demonstrates clearly the universality of math. First, the signal uses binary notation: a positional numbering system. Second, we *did* discover Feigenbaum's number as did they. IOW, once you discover chaos theory, the rest follows.
The example also has an interesting quirk: why would a civilization send a constant from advanced number theory? Perhaps as a test! (Kind of like waiting for a civilization to discover warp drive before welcoming them into the galactic community.)
A civilization more interested in establishing communication than in testing might well choose another path. If it were me, I'd start by sending a base 1 series, demonstrating positional notation, then addition and multiplication, then more and more advanced concepts.

Of course, but irrelevant to the point. Which is that math--once you get there--IS a universal language. Not in the least humanocentric.

Well, the mechanism and medium (internet, ASCII, TCP/IP) makes it pretty clear they are from an intelligence source. (-:
More to the point, solitary examples out of context mean nothing. They could be raindrops in the dust that appear ordered. They could be secret "RH" code designed to appear random. Without *context*, one can draw no conclusions.
RH> Sure, animals don't get drunk on a Saturday night or beat up old RH> ladies; they don't watch football much, if at all; they don't do RH> 65 in a 60; they don't even vote for politicians. |

Which is not to say *intelligent* behavior. Outside observers seeing our communications networks, cities, roads and buildings would draw the likely conclusion. Listening to our emitted RF is a clear clue!

See above.

No. See above.

No. See above.

Clearly not. The signs of our civilization (and the *required* intelligence to build that civilization) are *unmistakable*, even from orbit. There is no need whatesoever to get inside our heads.

Why "quite possibly". What rationale? More to the point, the question here is, ARE those sciences humanocentric or not?

Actually, it's exactly on target,..

...because that's not at all what's happening here. We are looking for signs of order, organization, structure and behavior that cannot be explained by instinct or rote. Those who study animals take pains to see them in their own context, not a human one.

It's more than empiricism. We theorize about WHY the models work. We've had a long time to test those theories.

Original quote: CS} Even my dog and I have done so...to a *very* limited degree.
I also cited--and re-referenced--several concrete examples. They were all ignored.

See original quote. Never claimed I did.
{{NOTE TO READERS: THE REST IS JUST SOAP OPERA STUFF...}}
RH> I think you just haven't thought it through. |

The operative phrase here: "I thought". I suggest it is unproductive to characterize another's thinking, particularly someone you've never even met.

Yes. Hence "try to eliminate". 'Tis a worthy goal.

Do I understand the situation fully? You consider it fine to use language you know can be considered insulting, because you didn't mean it that way, but you're bent out of shape because I did the same thing to you? (And, FWIW, I *still* don't consider "blowing smoke" to be a serious insult. I place it as similar to "bluffing" (or, at *worst*, "trolling").)

Are you willing to perform the experiment?
--
|_ CJSonnack < snipped-for-privacy@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

how do you know that ?

and your claim is shortsighted at best, stupid at worst.
goose,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. The point is that both the mean and the max tend to increase with such random fluctuation, which is the "direction" that people have been noting.
Dan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.