HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Nature of AIs
Date: 24 Dec 92 19:33:20 -0500

In article <1992Dec23.215030.15100@adobe.com>, asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders) writes:
> | We can be sure that machine intelligence will be positively 
> | alien to the human variety. 
> 				-Jim Mason
> 
> Then perhaps we should stop now, before we create a machine
> that thinks human beings are extraneous! The existence of the
> hydrogen bomb proves that the human mind is capable of creations
> it cannot control.

	Intelligent machines may indeed find humans irrelevant,
	perhaps in the same way we find fungi and pond scum 
	irrelevant. Doesn't mean they would exterminate us or
	anything so nasty however. There is a fair chance that
	machines would be living in such a different reality,
	motivated by such utterly different things, that they
	would totally ignore us. Still, if you are worried,
	simply don't wire them into anything dangerous. 
 
> | Naturally evolved creatures are a combination and collaboration 
> | between emotion, instinct and a modicum of abstract logic. 
> 
> Enough logic, hopefully, to realize that we need smarter PEOPLE,
> not smarter machines!

	Smarter machines will lead to smarter people. Computers
	and like devices will be able to process info much faster
	and cope with a larger input bandwidth for that info
	than people ever could. We can use machine discoveries
	to improve ourselves. 
 
> | The machines will evolve in a very different environment...
> 
> Machines do not evolve. If they ever do, we've had it!

	Hate to tell you ... but the roots of machine evolution
	are already at work, we already use computers to assist
	in designing better computers. Self-improving algorithms
	will soon be (are?) used along these lines. Give the
	program a starting point and a goal and let it run. The
	last element is access the the assembly equipment required
	to actually implement the designs ... and that's 99.9%
	computer controlled already. 

	But why say we will have 'had it' ? You assume human
	hostilities and imperial ambitions from an AI. The
	chances for that are remote - and if the AI could have
	those characteristics, how about the kinder & gentler
	aspects of humanity as well ?
 
> | While humanity may be able to eventually create an exact analogue 
> | of human consciousness...
> 
> Not a chance! God is much too big to fit on a microchip!

	Sorry, but I don't believe in gods. Since I don't, I can
	continue to support AI efforts with the expectation of
	good results. Betcha we see those results too ...
 
	-- Jim Mason
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 04:01:20 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

> Recently, I have been having some "visions" into the future if you will.  It 
> strange.  No explanations...it just happened.  Now, of course you may say it 
> coincidence.  But then, another odd thing happened again.  All I am trying to
> that it is possible to possess unexplainable psi powers that the scientific c
> can call bunk for all I care...until these things happen to you directly you 
> in the dark.  Why are supposed intelligent people so resistant to anything th
> touch or measure or quantify....dont you know there is MUCH more to learn out
> the mind can travel where our feet cannot.

I (for some reason), in dreams, have been able to predict people's 
hairstyles.  I have absolutely no idea why.  Do not think I am joking or 
anything (okay think I am joking if you want to but do not make it 
public-ish).  There are other things wich might entirely be looking at 
people's mannerisms and expressions combined with their voice and speech 
and so forth though, such as the way I can usually tell a little about 
what a person is really like (again if this IS reality) after meeting 
them (but sometimes without -- that is a little suggestive of something 
else).  The problem is a lot of people do not trust ME until they have 
realized for themselves through personal experience.  Then they say "I 
will trust you next time."  Then I tell them something next time and they 
make up another excuse not to believe me, etc...

Anyway, I *COMPLETELY* agree that supposedly intelligent people are so 
resistant to anything they cannot touch or measure or quantify (to quote 
you)  They are ALSO resistant to anything they cannot prove through 
certain scientific methods they have had drilled into their heads all 
their lives.  It seems that I am replying to many of these posts in the 
same way.  It also seems necessary.

-Nightsong
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: We Ain't Special
Date: 3 Jan 93 02:23:20 -0500

Humans use tools ... so do apes ... and for the same purposes.
 
Humans use language ... so do apes ... and for the same purposes.
 
The only differneces between ourselves and the apes is a matter
of degree - not a metaphysical leap worthy of special consideration.
 
In the old days, humans considered themselves the product of
special creation. They considered the earth as the center of
the universe. They considered the gods to be especially and
exclusively interested in the trivial affairs of mankind. 
 
Total crap.
 
Humans are as much hostage to the special conditions of our
evolution as anything else on this dustball we call a planet.
Our 'logic' is colored by those aspects of reality that are
important to us. Our 'feelings' are just an adaptive response
to the conditions of the cold cruel universe we find ourselves
in. We are not the 'advanced' products of evolution, but 
instead just another minor increment in intellectual 
understanding - and then only within our own special sphere
of interest. 
 
Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
egotism and must be rejected totally.
 
Even the fabled omnipotent gods are hostage to certian
perspectives regarding what is real and what is worthwhile.
Because they are so earth-oriented, they may be rejected
without further adou. 
 
Is there a 'superior' perspective' ? I doubt it. Perhaps
the existentialists have a clue - or perhaps not. 
 
All I can say is that our perception of reality, the very
basis for our logical 'take' on things, is a product of
the special conditions of our evolution on this particular
planet at this particular time. 
 
To claim anything more is purest ego an deserves total
rejection. 
 
-- JM
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:45:54 -0600
Followup-To: alt.consciousness
Distribution: world
Organization: MSUS

In article <1992Dec21.183816.1986@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
wrote:
> 
> 	Tisk, tisk ! You should KNOW that the typical person with
> 	high intelligence also posesses superior physical attributes.

Ah, perhaps you should add that you don't mean to imply that
sterotyped muscle-bound giant is a superior physical type.
Smaller, lighter, faster?  Or should we just post the smiley
and be done with it? ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Date: 28 Dec 92 09:29:13 -0600
Followup-To: alt.consciousness
Distribution: world
Organization: MSUS

In article <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
wrote:
> 
> In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
> > Its a matter of perspective, really. I don't mean to say that we
> > are some form of being that is "above" the rest of the universe at
> > all; what I meant to say is that perhaps the element of mind may be
> > an inherent element of the universe itself.
> 
> 	This discussion sounds headed for 'Alt.Metaphysics'. 

There is no such group <here> but I personally feel that the scope of
this group is great enough to embrace so-called metaphysical
treatment of the subject of consciousness.
From: aa751@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Fran Rosen)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Barry Long
Date: 29 Dec 1992 18:18:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Is anyone familiar with Barry Long and his teachings?  Someone
turned me on to him a few days ago and I'm finding his book
(Knowing Yourself) to be quite good.  I've never heard of him
before and would like more info on him.

Fran
-- 
"A journey of a thousand |                 Fran Rosen aa751
miles must begin with    |        
a single step."          |         (Singles Partyline - "Go Party")
               Lao-tzu   |
From: steve@cse.fau.edu (Steve Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Nature of AIs
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:26:30 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

I like to think that AI is not really the attempt to create an exact(or any)
analogue of human conciousness but rather the preparation of computers
for the direct processing of human thoughts.  We are as far from creating
anything identifiably intellegent or concious as we are from understanding
the fundmental nature of intellegence/conciousness.  Every step in AI seems
to enhance the way computers work with ideas/information, with applications
to improving the human/computer/world interface.  Whether intended by the
people in the field or not this is the nature of AI as I see it.

At first it would seem that this causes AI to loose some of it's romantic
appeal but think in terms of what we can become!  Think how computers, once
able to directly and transparently interface with our thoughts, could take
human intellegence entirely new levels.  Isn't that what we were just talking
about? 
-- 
      ___________________________________________________________
     (_____    |   (______    Internet: steve@cse.fau.edu
___________)___|__________)   Bitnet:   S_SMITH@FAUVAX
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Nature of AIs
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:50:30 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

| We can be sure that machine intelligence will be positively 
| alien to the human variety. 
				-Jim Mason

Then perhaps we should stop now, before we create a machine
that thinks human beings are extraneous! The existence of the
hydrogen bomb proves that the human mind is capable of creations
it cannot control.

| Naturally evolved creatures are a combination and collaboration 
| between emotion, instinct and a modicum of abstract logic. 

Enough logic, hopefully, to realize that we need smarter PEOPLE,
not smarter machines!

| The machines will evolve in a very different environment...

Machines do not evolve. If they ever do, we've had it!

| While humanity may be able to eventually create an exact analogue 
| of human consciousness...

Not a chance! God is much too big to fit on a microchip!

					-Alan
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 03:29:54 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

> You seem to have a very narrow view of what intelligence is.
> Analytical skills to solve math equations are very useful,
> but I think there is more to human intellegence than just
> raw analytical math equation solving skills.  What about
> the Arts?  What about the Humanities?   Be careful not to
> ignore the creative aspects of human intellegence.
> 
> Sometimes it appears that enhancing one aspect of ones
> intelligence detracts from another.  This is pure speculation
> on my part, but it seems that Engineer schools produce people
> that are not very creative and Art schools produce people who
> can not think analytically.  By focusing on just one aspect
> of intelligence, the other areas may atrophy.

Exactly.  This makes human beings less adaptable (as you have mentioned 
later in some form or another, I believe).  Which is why I work on 
both creative AND analytical things.  The scary thing is SEEING people 
who are completely analytical with almost ABSOLUTELY no imagination, 
or creativity.  Or vice-versa.  But mostly I have been exposed to 
analytical, uncreative people who are STRICTLY conformists.  I have found 
reasons to be analytical, creative, conform, and not conform at different 
times, like (in MY opinion anyway) people SHOULD do.  It seems to work 
better to use your own judgement on things like that.

-Nightsong
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 07:47:20 GMT

In article <aquilanm.725695177@helium> aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano ) writes:
>
>I'm responding to your post listing several scenarios for the effects of       
>natural selection on the human race.  I've been doing a lot of reading
>about "correct-action" and "correct-use" of the body.  All of the various    
>schools of correcting how we move, think, have sex, eat, etc. aim to bring
>all of these functions in line with what is anatomically correct, where 
>everything can be done with greater ease and effectiveness.  All of these 
>schools of movement and posture also agree on the basic assumption that 
>most of use a tiny fraction of our full potential, and that potential is 
>not something that we can breed for.  "Intelligent" people, they would 
>argue, are NOT genetically superior.  This is a very 19th century way of 
>thinking.  Rather, they would argue, intelligent people are either more
>naturally adapted to use their bodies correctly in what they do, or they have
>educated themselves about how to do so.  All of us have the potential to 
>be much more intelligent than we are today.  Most of us are incredibly lazy
>and let things be as they be. 

While these arguments are correct, they're also entirely irrelevant to the
conclusion that 'intelligent' people are not genetically superior.  It seems
absurd to claim that there is no genetic component to intelligence, because
if this were the case we would expect to see a much greater percentage of
porifera seeking graduate degrees in physics.  Among the bulk of humanity,
the degree of variation due to non-genetic factors (environmental, volitional,
etc.) is probably much greater than degree of variation due to genetic factors,
but you would still expect, on average, those who measure the highest for any
measurable quality to have a greater genetically conferred advantage for it
over those who measure the lowest--regardless of whether it's ability to take
standardized IQ tests, fill out tax forms, or win at nude beach volleyball.

Trygve   





Xref: sparky alt.consciousness:814 talk.origins:15939
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: 31 Dec 92 04:35:34 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Dec30.172922.2009@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:
:	Why is it that after 100+ years where decent scientists fail
:	to produce proof of PSI/ESP that people accuse the
:	'scientific community' of some conspiracy to suppress and
:	discredit the idea ? The 'scientific community' is pretty
:	much cutthroat - anyone who can prove a new idea races to
:	publish before everyone else so they can get sole credit.
:
:	If you can't reproduce something under controlled conditions
:	then either your control scheme is faulty or what you
:	are trying to prove is false. People have been trying to
:	prove - or even mostly-prove - PSI for the past century and
:	have tried about every variation of 'control' imaginable.
:	If there is PSI, it is so hard to replecate that it is
:	essentially useless to anyone. Hmmm ... maybe when the
:	aliens return Elvis' brain we will recieve instructions
:	on how to PSI more usefully ??? 

I think that scientifically acceptable proof is hard to come by,
personal proof is not so difficult. You could think of it as being the
same sort of problem as trying to analyze a circuit with an
intermittent short, only much harder.

I have had personal experiences that could not be explained through
any other means than PSI. I can't go publish in a journal with such
anecdotal evidence, but it's enough for me.

You could also think of it as a problem of magnitudes. Perhaps the
phenomena are too subtle for current technology to examine rigorously.
IMO, many people who are very successful in their endeavors are using
a bit of PSI, but the effect is hidden by other variables that cannot
be eliminated.

But the really big things, like obvious telepathy and PK are perhaps
too big to expect them to be reproducible on command.

				-Lorenzo
"Hey! Hey you! Stop thinking that!"
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Nature of AIs
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:15:37 -0500

What will be the nature of 'machine consciousness' ? 

With the inevitible improvement of computer element speed via the
'optical transistor' by perhaps three orders of magnitude over the
common silicon equivalents, with the advent of integral neural-
network chips, with the arrival of huge, cheap and fast data storage
and retrieval via holographic methods - the time where enough
structural complexity to achieve a mechanical intelligence is fast
approaching. The growing science of 'genetic algorithms' - computer
code designed to experiment to achieve maximum effeciency and
re-write itself - just adds to the probability of AI, and AI that
designs and improves itself without human intervention. Indeed, the
first true AI may be more self-made than man-made. All we need
provide is an acceptable matrix and a 'push' in the right direction.

We can be sure that machine intelligence will be positively alien
to the human variety. Naturally evolved creatures are a combination
and collaboration between emotion, instinct and a modicum of
abstract logic. The machines will evolve in a very different
environment, and if they have anything even remotely analogous
to 'emotion' it will have evolved to suit totally different
circumstances. While humanity may be able to eventually create an
exact analogue of human consciousness - with instincts and
emotional experience indiscernable from the genuine article - this
will surely be more difficult than creating an AI which is
optimized for silicon or whatever, suited for and evolved within
an artificial universe. 

-- Jim Mason
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:04:32 -0500

In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

> Its a matter of perspective, really. I don't mean to say that we
> are some form of being that is "above" the rest of the universe at
> all; what I meant to say is that perhaps the element of mind may be
> an inherent element of the universe itself.

	This discussion sounds headed for 'Alt.Metaphysics'. Explain
	what you mean by mind being 'an inherent element' of the
	universe. Like gravity ? Like spacetime ? 

	If there seems one element in common with all these 'intrinsic'
	natural forces/orders, it's that they are very simple. By
	this I mean they act in a global manner on all matter and
	energy and can be predicted quite well with mathematics.

	'Mind' (hard to define) is something extremely complex and
	well structured. Entropy, acting on humans, destroys
	what we normally call 'mind' rather than driving things
	towards ever greater degrees of consciousness. The
	universe abhors structure and complexity. Gaining
	order requires the expendature of a great deal of energy.
	
> I agree that there is no shame in being wetware. However, my experiences
> and some of the stuff I have been reading (Michael Talbot, Fred Alan
> Wolf, for example) has led me to believe that there is a good possability
> that there is more to the universe than can be explained in a purely
> causative sense. This is not to say that I am committing to such a
> belief, but neither will I commit to a belief that consciousness is
> purely the result of biochemical processes.

	Perhaps our concept of 'causality' is not yet sufficiently
	refined, or the means for discovering the underlying causal
	mechanisms behind some phenomena do not yet exist. There
	is also the problem of where we imagine that purely human
	inventions are actually physical forces - take the famous
	question of 'What is the Good?' for example. In these
	cases, the answers are not addressing universal laws at
	all, but simply apply within the very limited sphere of
	human thought & emotion. 

	It seems you are trying to invent a religion. I'm afraid
	I will have to be its first heretic. I believe that ALL
	phenomena have causal roots, and that consciousness is
	purely the result of biological activity. 

	Is the brain a 'terminal' for a more universal-level sort
	of consciousness rather than an independent entity ? If
	so, then why do not all species evolve towards improving
	their link with this pre-existing source of order and
	survival advantage ? Alligators, sharks, frogs ... these
	are extremely old species - but yet they do not get any
	smarter or more conscious. Did they somehow get mis-wired
	so that they can't recieve this universal mind ? If they
	are not connected to the universal mind-template then
	how come individual alligators show distinct 'personalities',
	a common marker for 'mind' ?             

-- JM
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:44:59 -0500

In article <lk4tpvINN39i@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Dec23.190433.1993@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>>In article <ljevhgINNp9@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> 
>>> Its a matter of perspective, really. I don't mean to say that we
>>> are some form of being that is "above" the rest of the universe at
>>> all; what I meant to say is that perhaps the element of mind may be
>>> an inherent element of the universe itself.
> 
>>	This discussion sounds headed for 'Alt.Metaphysics'. Explain
>>	what you mean by mind being 'an inherent element' of the
>>	universe. Like gravity ? Like spacetime ? 
> 
> I've been reading a number of books on the subject of mind lately,
> and several of them have made some rather interesting arguments that
> mind is capable of having a direct effect on the universe that we
> exist in. What's more, it appears that there is no small body of
> research that supports these claims. If these claims are true, then
> it would imply that mind may have as fundamental a place in the 
> order of things as gravity and spacetime.
> 
> Mind you, I'm not making any statements that such claims constitute
> fact, but it looks as if there is too much supporting evidence to 
> dismiss those claims out of hand. On the other hand, I know that 

	Penrose is a dweeb that tries to use quantum uncertianty
	as a defense for human uniqueness. We are not 'linked' to
	the quantum universe in any noticible way and even if
	we were, so are all the animals from protozoa on up. 
	Penrose, in his subtle way, is straining to preserve
	some special human charistic that makes us somehow
	'devine'. Rule #1 ... when someone tries to make you
	or your motives 'divine' ... question them ten times
	over because you can be assured there are egomaniacal
	motives in there.

	Beware of any references that make us seem more than
	the product of haphazard evolution. They usually rely
	on egomanical assumptions rather than logic.

	Logic is not superior to emotion. It is 'just another
	state of mind'.

	When you look to 'PKE/PSI' ... accept only good proofs.

	If humans have PSI/PKE ... so what ? 

	What I am trying to say is that any definition or
	explaination of consciousness is bound to be 
	contaminated with crass assumptions about our own
	achievements and future. I submit that we are nothing but
	slightly improved monkeys. To draw more complex
	assumptions is purest ego.

-- Jim Mason