HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Nature of AIs
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:29:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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.

I'll bet you got a kick out of "The Terminator". I don't see where the
H-bomb is out of human control. Humans drop the bombs. Humans make ALL
the relevant decisions. The only thing out of control is human
behavior. 
:
:| 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!

How about both?
:
:| The machines will evolve in a very different environment...
:
:Machines do not evolve. If they ever do, we've had it!

Machines are evolving right now, presently under human influence. And
there may come a time that under artifical intelligence, machines
themselves will make the further designs. Self-evolving: pretty neat
idea. Something people ought to try sometime.
:
:| 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

We're pretty certain about where God wants to hang out, aren't we. You
seem pretty alarmed by the prospect of machine intelligence. This only
seems valid to me under the logic that machines will exhibit all the
worst human traits. 

It is not clear to me that machines will have any instinct for self
preservation, will exhibit territoriality and pack behavior, will have
poor self-esteem that drives it to hurtful behavior.

If a machine could exhibit such traits, why not love and compassion as
well? 

If one believes in a soul, who knows that once a sufficient level of
complexity is developed, a machine might not have a soul.

If you insist on attributing negative human behavior to machine
intelligence, at least give it the benefit of a doubt that it might
have positive human attributes as well.
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 03:50:15 PST
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

> 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.

 As have I -- met many skeptical people however who think they were 
dreams, illusions, or hallucinations.  However at the age most of this 
happened:
 
 A. I was not old enough to really get to know anyone, even close family 
    members, well enough to predict what they were thinking
 B. I got verification from them
 C. I could not conceive lieing
 D. They never lied to me
 E. We were miles away

So this basically (like you) proves to ME that this happened.

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

Yes, all of the times the first has happened to me it has NOT been 
on command.  In fact I did not know what it WAS when it happened.


 Speaking of telepathy and such, this is to anyone who has received a 
very clear thought from someone else in auditory form --

Was it kind of like they do it on television (echoey)?  
 
Explanation for asking:
 For me it was, but I had not been exposed to much television.

 For anyone who has experienced ANY form of telepathy -- is it more 
common or if it only happened a couple times WAS it in a very natural-ish 
place (i.e. mountains, meadow, forest, etc.)?

Again, for me it was most common in such places.  Maybe my mind is just 
more relaxed in such places.

-Nightsong
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:27:39 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:02:09 GMT
>FROM:   Robert McGrath <mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu>
>
>In article <aquilanm.725694316@helium>, aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano ) writes in part:
>[...]
>|> But so far, no one on this discussion
>|> groups has questioned whether our brains have certain biological limits.
>[...]
>|> Mark Aquilano
>|> 
>|> gas.uug.arizona.edu
>
>Much of normal human cognition and perception consists of filtering,
>combining, and synthesizing incoming sensory data (and internally 
>generated data from memories).  Thus, a substantial portion of 
>the brain is already dealing with the problem of sensory overload.
>This does not bode well for adding lots of new sources of input.
>(You don't increase the speed of a CPU bound system by adding
>IO capacity.)
>
>A "direct connection" would have to either come in through the 
>sensory channels or connect directly to some part of the brain 
>that already deals with data processed from sensory channels.  
>The first possibility would result in the data appearing as sensory 
>experiences, and would probably have limited bandwidth (and interfere 
>with other senses).  It could, however, bypass the limitations of
>the sensor organs, and could directly present "virtual reality"
>without all the silly goggles, gloves, and so on.
>
>The second would require "teaching" some part(s) of the brain how 
>to use a "new sense".  This is a pretty cool idea, although I'm not 
>sure if there are large idle chunks of brain waiting around to handle 
>a new sense. :-)  As a wild guess, I'd suspect that the interface
>between the brain and the outside database would be relatively
>simple, and might well be the limiting factor in the whole system.
>(I envision a tiny "hole" in my head with immense amounts of data 
>trying to move in an out through it....)
>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

Precisely.  System throughput is limited to the speed of the slowest
device.  You'd have to grab some pretty impressive bandwidth to make up 
for the REALLY slow ionic transfer nerve pulse.  Looks like time for a
cybernetic implant to replace the old-fashioned wetware.  Archive the 
original wetware software and data on paper tape (this can take an absolute 
lifetime!), deinstall, install firmware, restore, reconfigure, tap into 
secrets of the universe.  

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<GOD is ready, Jim.  Password:? --<--<
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->>Shit. Anybody got rootprivs to the authorization files?
;;| >-  `.__),;;

Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.religion.misc
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Next?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:02:09 GMT

In article <aquilanm.725694316@helium>, aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano ) writes in part:
[...]
|> But so far, no one on this discussion
|> groups has questioned whether our brains have certain biological limits.
[...]
|> Mark Aquilano
|> 
|> gas.uug.arizona.edu

Much of normal human cognition and perception consists of filtering,
combining, and synthesizing incoming sensory data (and internally 
generated data from memories).  Thus, a substantial portion of 
the brain is already dealing with the problem of sensory overload.
This does not bode well for adding lots of new sources of input.
(You don't increase the speed of a CPU bound system by adding
IO capacity.)

A "direct connection" would have to either come in through the 
sensory channels or connect directly to some part of the brain 
that already deals with data processed from sensory channels.  
The first possibility would result in the data appearing as sensory 
experiences, and would probably have limited bandwidth (and interfere 
with other senses).  It could, however, bypass the limitations of
the sensor organs, and could directly present "virtual reality"
without all the silly goggles, gloves, and so on.

The second would require "teaching" some part(s) of the brain how 
to use a "new sense".  This is a pretty cool idea, although I'm not 
sure if there are large idle chunks of brain waiting around to handle 
a new sense. :-)  As a wild guess, I'd suspect that the interface
between the brain and the outside database would be relatively
simple, and might well be the limiting factor in the whole system.
(I envision a tiny "hole" in my head with immense amounts of data 
trying to move in an out through it....)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:07:27 GMT

In article <aquilanm.725694316@helium> aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano ) writes:
}
}I've been reading the discussion about linking the human brain directly
}with a database containing the sum of human knowledge.  This is an idea that
}is gaining in popularity among computer buffs, if what I read in Mondo 2000
}from time to time is any indication.  But so far, no one on this discussion
}groups has questioned whether our brains have certain biological limits.
}Are our brains designed (by nature, not some omnipotent being!) to handle 
}enormous quantities of factual information of the sort we fill encyclopedias
}with?  Can our organic "neural network" be overloaded?  What would happen if 
}it were?  If we were to make such a radical change in the way one part of
}our bodies functioned, how would the rest of our bodies compensate for this 
}change?  Finally - a question that might sound really stupid on the surface, but
}with CD-ROMS aleady able to store whole libraries for us at their early
}stage of development, why would a direct connection to a database through our
}brains really be an improvement in the quality of our lives?

Heck, if you can manage the direct database connection, one would think that
incorporating frontend/parallel processors would be easy.  If you can
connect to a database, why not connect to a processor?  Why should
organic limits be individual limits?


Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: apb.4819@nd.edu (voluptua love)
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Distribution: alt.consciousness
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:56:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>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


		Thoughts for JM,

do you think that your letter expresses an egoistic point of view?

do you think it flows from a superior perspective?

do you think it has a kind of validity greater than that of the
reasonings it opposes?

*just asking*

love,

 
------------------------------------------
Stephen H. Voss
University of Notre Dame
Xref: sparky alt.consciousness:798 talk.origins:15875 talk.religion.misc:24438
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:44:32 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec21.183816.1986@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <ljc0g8INNnps@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

I missed this one in my last response:

>> Another thing you should consider is that intelligence is only one
>> aspect of evolution. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that mind
>> is not simply a working of the brain, but an attribute of the universe
>> itself. Should this be the case, it is possible that we could evolve
>> towards greater mental powers without necessairly becoming more intelligent.

>	Hmmm ... I would call this attempt to frame human abilities
>	within a context of 'attributes of the universe' as egotism.
>	We can barely find our cars in crowded parking lots - I would
>	not try to link us to some sort of 'cosmic principals'. 

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.

>	There is no evidence whatsoever that we are anything more
>	than 'wetware', naturally evolved and indeed haphazardly
>	evolved. There is no shame in being wetware. Indeed, it means
>	that everything we are will ultimately be discoverable.

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.

>-- Jim Mason 

Eric
Xref: sparky alt.consciousness:807 talk.origins:15925 talk.religion.misc:24608
From: steve@sunrise.cse.fau.edu (Steve Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 26 Dec 92 19:32:12 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

In article <1992Dec18.133633.18565@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> In article <BzFEwI.CLC@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|> }In article <1992Dec17.133858.6071@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|> }|> 
|> }|> I have basically the same question, but it can be expressed three
|> }|> different ways slanted to each of the newsgroups this is
|> }|> cross-posted to:
|> }|> 
|> }|> What is next?
|> }|> 
|> }|> talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, homo sapiens is seen as
|> }|> merely the most recent step in a series of rungs in a ladder.
|> }|> What do you see as the "next rung"?

|> }|> alt.consciousness:  A corpse is less conscious than a sleeping
|> }|> person is less conscious than an infant is less conscious than
|> }|> an adult.  Whatever "conscious" is, this seems to be a reasonable
|> }|> comparison.  What do you see as the step after "adult" along the
|> }|> same progression?
 
|> }|> talk.religion.misc: many religions appear to aspire towards some
|> }|> form of "elevation to godhood", "enlightenment", "dietification",...
|> }|> What are the characteristics of these advanced (by whatever means)
|> }|> entities?

This is an interesting and mutli-faceted question.

I think we are evloving toward a sort of group-conciousness.  Whether
it be through some internal mechanism or faculty not yet developed 
(evolved) or existant but rarely exercised, though some external
mechanism of our own invention, or through some combination of both,
we are quickly "linking up" and tapping into a group or global 
conciousness.  We can get a glimse of what is to come by participating
in phenomena like the Net or through psychadelic experience.

Thoughts, anyone?

      ___________________________________________________________
     (_____    |   (______    Internet: steve@cse.fau.edu
___________)___|__________)   Bitnet:   S_SMITH@FAUVAX
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: gbloom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gregory Bloom)
Subject: Re: Nature of AIs
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 16:14:28 GMT

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.

Oh puh-leease!  Machine intelligence IS human intelligence.  To view
machine intelligence as something apart from human intelligence is
to ignore the synergistic effect each has upon the other.  With
advancements in machine interface design (sounds better than 'human
interface' don't you think?), the perceived barrier between human
and machine intelligence will shrink until, ideally, one cannot
tell whether a thought came from the wetware or the hardware.
>
>| 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!

Ay-yi-yiiii....   Everything evolves.  Intelligence has, so far as
we've seen, always expanded, taking on different physical characteristics
as it goes.  The big break that we are lucky enough to see in this
small slice of time is that intelligence is now becoming self-directing.
Intelligence is now gaining control of its own structure.  We can
now expect an exponential explosion of the conversion of matter into
intelligent material.  Where the thermodynamic limitations of how
far this precipitation of matter into intelligent forms extends is
an interesting question.  Humans are an interesting stage in the
expression of intelligence simply because it is at this stage that
intelligence crosses the inflection point of the curve.  
>
>| 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!

Actually, I have a hunch that intelligence will seek to express itself
in the smallest, coolest, most energy (entropy) efficient manner possible,
as this is more conducive to information storage and manipulation.  It
would be really hard to imagine the hot plasma of a star used for any
sort of information storage.  Thus, if we envision an organsim with
the putative intelligence of your god, I expect such an organism would
find many advantages to being small, cool, and efficient. Not unlike
a microchip.


Gregory Bloom
gbloom@nyx.cs.du.edu



Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: jjozwiak@shearson.com (Jenny Jozwiak)
Subject: NEXT
Reply-To: jjozwiak@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:48:51 GMT

Eric Marsh wrote:

>Parallel Universes, by Fred Alan Wolfe, Ph.D.
>The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbot
>The Improbable Machine, by Campbell
>Syncronicity "The bridge between mind & Matter", by F. David Peat, Ph.D.
>Quantum Reality "beyond the new physics", by Nick Herbert
>Beyond the Quantum, by Michael Talbot
>The Dreams of Reason, by Heinz R. Pagels, Ph.D.
>Apprentices of Wonder, by Allman




I also have a suggesstion of an interesting book
by a scientist:  "The Science of the Paranormal"   By: Lawrence Leshan
if any of you who possess an open mind are interested.

It is about how you can test psi and some of the probable reasons why the usual 
scientific methods have failed in the past to "prove" the existence of certain
phenomena.  

IMO, it is possible that it psi ability does exist in some or all of us, but to such
a slight degree that it IS in fact almost impossible to "prove" or test in the 
usual manner.  I believe that in the future, these abilities may begin to come forth
more often and with more intensity and "evolve".  At that time our scientific community may not only take it more seriously, but be able to finally prove psi existence once and
for all.  I hope I live to see this.....

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

Jenny