On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:11:09 GMT, the renowned jeff
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

What they need is a programmed motivation to acquire, grow, or procreate.
With that, and the ability to learn on their own, we'll have a potential new
species of life.

By bet is that the threshhold will be passed when we teach how to have
sex -- maybe through a Firewire port. Once the computers learn about that,
we're all in trouble.

Yep, we won't be able to get them to do a damned thing then.

For one thing, they've got all the porn.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
For one thing, they've got all the porn.

Yep, and a good bit right he
http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/t..._Circuits.html

(This message brought to you by Futurama...)

Tim

--
"California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes."
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

In misc.survivalism Cliff wrote:

Why hasn't Timmy chimed in yet? I expected to see:

"Gordon and I go way back. In fact, jsut the other day he was over for
tea and we were talking about that day I gave him the idea for his paper,
later known as the origin of Moore's Law. We also discussed the killing
of innocent people and how much we enjoy watching it."

I'm so disappointed.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

Scott Moore wrote:
"Computers can not be made to do anything the programmer does not
him/herself understand how to do, no matter how much money is thrown at
the problem."


That statement is demonstrably false. See, for instance, "Genetic
Programming III: Automatic Programming and Automatic Circuit
Synthesis", by Koza et al.


-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:11:09 GMT, jeff
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

What they need is a programmed motivation to acquire, grow, or procreate.
With that, and the ability to learn on their own, we'll have a potential new
species of life.

By bet is that the threshhold will be passed when we teach how to have
sex -- maybe through a Firewire port. Once the computers learn about that,
we're all in trouble.

Yep, we won't be able to get them to do a damned thing then.

They were "invented" long ago & have "evolved" a bit since.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:16:36 -0500, "Tim Williams"
wrote:

(This message brought to you by Futurama...)

"KNOWLEDGE BRINGS FEAR" --Slogan of Mars University
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:49:12 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


and it will be sentinent in very short order.


IE a "liberal".

Interestingly enough, I once tried to engage Cliff in a dialogue outside the
newsgroup and discovered he could not pass the Turing test. I was obviously
exchanging messages with software optimized for insertion of certain key words
with no apparent relevance to the discussion.

David

In article .com,
(Willcox) wrote:

Kirk Gordon wrote:

they still won't have anything like human consciousness.

They don't need too, they just need something impressive enough that it
fools people, probably get it to talk, sound like the person and recall
old memories to family members. Everything else could be faked. They'd
just make the cyber people say how wonderful it was.


And that future would only be, what?, twenty-two minutes into the
future?


Charleson Mambo

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To confuse, inveigle, and obfuscate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spam www.accanthology.com Buy "The Alt.Cyberpunk.Chatsubo Anthology" /spam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:55:30 GMT, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:49:12 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


and it will be sentinent in very short order.


IE a "liberal".

Interestingly enough, I once tried to engage Cliff in a dialogue outside the
newsgroup and discovered he could not pass the Turing test. I was obviously
exchanging messages with software optimized for insertion of certain key words
with no apparent relevance to the discussion.

David

A poorly coded Liza program that had never been debugged.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists? How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"? How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?
-

-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com

news wrote:
'Probably not:

"the long-sought goal is direct and intimite coupling between man and
the computer."
-ARPA report to congress, 1972 '
-

"Intimite"?

Gunner wrote in
news
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:37:18 -0700, Scott Moore
wrote:


thats the central fallacy of AI or Artificial Intellegence. Computers
can not be made to do anything the programmer does not him/herself
understand how to do, no matter how much money is thrown at the
problem.

Until...until...it becomes self learning


Thats already going on Gunner. I have a "friend" involved in robotics and
nanotech and they are developing a robot that can program itself, so to
speak based off the nano bots input.

Imagine a robot with nano technology. No built in programming whatsoever.
Put it inna square room with one door by itself and turn the beast on.
Within 20 minutes the robot can recognise its surroundings, learn to walk,
jump and run.

Now, carry that over to robotic cats or dogs loaded with 10 pounds of C4.
Drop em outta a C-130 over some idiot, third world country that are ****ing
us off and sit back and watch the fun as the robot dogs/cats run around
blowin **** up!

Now, thats better than kickin back watching a bug zapper fer sure. And it
is not purely speculation either. This is real stuff.

ciao
Bing

--
Yer so ****in insane yer not even worth talkin to.
But since you brought it up and I dont mind talkin to idiots from time to
time...

"David R. Birch" wrote in
:

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:49:12 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


and it will be sentinent in very short order.


IE a "liberal".

Interestingly enough, I once tried to engage Cliff in a dialogue
outside the newsgroup and discovered he could not pass the Turing
test. I was obviously exchanging messages with software optimized for
insertion of certain key words with no apparent relevance to the
discussion.


Hehehe.

BTW David, I dabble a bit with J-Alice.
She aint too bright either.
She is interesting when I put her on the IRC channel.
I got logs to prove it too!


Bing

--
Yer so ****in insane yer not even worth talkin to.
But since you brought it up and I dont mind talkin to idiots from time to
time...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:55:30 GMT, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:49:12 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


and it will be sentinent in very short order.


IE a "liberal".

Interestingly enough, I once tried to engage Cliff in a dialogue outside the
newsgroup and discovered he could not pass the Turing test. I was obviously
exchanging messages with software optimized for insertion of certain key words
with no apparent relevance to the discussion.

You wanted "optimized" G.
--
Cliff

"Scott Moore" wrote in message
...
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Willcox" wrote: Scientists are saying the processing power to
simulate a
human consciousness on a computer is almost there. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No matter how much processing power becomes available, simulation of
human
consciousness cannot begin until it is understood at least a little bit.
That ain't happened yet.



thats the central fallacy of AI or Artificial Intellegence. Computers can
not
be made to do anything the programmer does not him/herself understand how
to
do, no matter how much money is thrown at the problem.

That does not seem to stop tons of money being wasted on AI projects,
including
US taxpayer money. Its the snake oil of the computer industry: able to
soak
up infinite amounts of money, with very nebulous goals and results.

That is a fine assertion. Got any facts to back it up?

Dan


--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
ink.net...

No matter how much processing power becomes available, simulation of
human consciousness cannot begin until it is understood at least a
little bit. That ain't happened yet.

One current thought is that since you don't
build a 60 ton bumblebee to make a 747, you
needn't emulate a human brain to get thought.

I'll leave it to others to decide the validity
of this argument...

This is the exact point I was about to bring up.
Does it take the entire set of human abilities to equal
"intelligence" ?
I personally, don't believe that is required.
For example: Are blind people intelligent? :-)
Or any of a lot of other shortcommings.

...lew...

Now, if they could just emulate the "frog / club" level of intelligence,
they might be really starting to address the problem...

Dan


--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:33:37 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:37:18 -0700, Scott Moore
wrote:


thats the central fallacy of AI or Artificial Intellegence. Computers
can
not
be made to do anything the programmer does not him/herself understand
how
to
do, no matter how much money is thrown at the problem.

Until...until...it becomes self learning

Gunner

What they need is a programmed motivation to acquire, grow, or procreate.
With that, and the ability to learn on their own, we'll have a potential
new
species of life.

By bet is that the threshhold will be passed when we teach how to have
sex -- maybe through a Firewire port. Once the computers learn about
that,
we're all in trouble.

The simple ability to learn..and that means learning on its own,
picking and chooseing its own priorities and subject matter...and it
will be sentinent in very short order.

which is a bit scary.

I believe they may have passed that threshold, with the insectoid robots
with evolving programming (electronic evolution).

Still a big step between that and jumping away from a club in
self-preservation.

Sex is not nearly so important - self-preservation and having a stake in the
success of progeny is far more important.

Dan

--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"

If PCs are any indication (and they have been for awhile), Moore's law
is no longer in effect. The 1Gig machine has been around at an
affordable price (~ $1000) for way more than 3 years...

Dan

--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"

wrote in message
...
In misc.survivalism Cliff wrote:

Why hasn't Timmy chimed in yet? I expected to see:

"Gordon and I go way back. In fact, jsut the other day he was over for
tea and we were talking about that day I gave him the idea for his paper,
later known as the origin of Moore's Law. We also discussed the killing
of innocent people and how much we enjoy watching it."

I'm so disappointed.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

Hardwired I/O direct to the brain.

Dan

--
"White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how
to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved
this - which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never - the Negro
problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed."

- James Baldwin -
"The Fire Next Time"

"Predictor" wrote in message
oups.com...
news wrote:
'Probably not:

"the long-sought goal is direct and intimite coupling between man and
the computer."
-ARPA report to congress, 1972 '
-

"Intimite"?

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:40:03 -0400, Charleson Mambo
wrote:

And that future would only be, what?

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=146
--
Cliff

On 16 Apr 2005 02:59:04 -0700, "Predictor"
wrote:

Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists? How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"? How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?

Why insist that it be "human"?
And, AFIK, not even "consciousness" has been well defined.
--
Cliff

Predictor wrote:

Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists? How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"? How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?
-

-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com





Consciousness could be defined as the knowledge of one's own existence.
With that comes the desire to remain in existence.
When a computer resents being turned off, I think they will have reached
their goal. Then we'll have to worry about what the computer's goals
will be.

Fred

Predictor wrote:

Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists?

There's been a few documentaries talking about it, a few professors
interviewed call it "migrating to cyber space" and "an electronic
immortality". They reported there is a British company working on it,
they didn't say who.

The show to check out is "Bio-perfection" that was broadcast on the
Sci-Fi channel a while back.

How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"?

I don't know. About 10 years ago they said a modern personal computer
had the processing power of an insect, and predicted that if processing
power continued to double it was only another 20 years away.

How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?

I don't know. That's what they're working on.

The only thing anyone has gotten to work so far is a very simple visual
interface between brain tissue and electronics for blind people, just
barely enough to see movement or shadows. Brain implants will be first.

-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:11:53 GMT, ff wrote:

Predictor wrote:

Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists? How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"? How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?
-

-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com





Consciousness could be defined as the knowledge of one's own existence.

This cannot be proven for you or me or any of us now.

"I think therefore I am" had a few flaws.

With that comes the desire to remain in existence.

Stimulus-response. In animals it (or things that look like it)
have evolved over time ..... or nothing would reproduce/replicsate
and we'd not be here to argue about it.
Pain is to be avoided and often leads to not-being alive.

Computers could also have programmed "goals".

Think on the "synthetic life" class of computer programs.
They reproduce and some may evolve ..... so, in general,
you could claim that they desire to remain in existance.

When a computer resents being turned off, I think they will have reached
their goal.

Or have a good UPS. Or a good crash. Or ....

Then we'll have to worry about what the computer's goals
will be.

Where are the advantages?
Why those?

BTW, Suggested reading: "The Schumann Computer" by Larry Niven G.
http://technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=146
--
Cliff

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:11:53 GMT, ff wrote:

Predictor wrote:

Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists? How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"? How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?
-

-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com





Consciousness could be defined as the knowledge of one's own existence.
With that comes the desire to remain in existence.

Then those whom commit suicide have no consiousness?
When a computer resents being turned off, I think they will have reached
their goal. Then we'll have to worry about what the computer's goals
will be.

Fred

"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies,
African Americans being the most prominent, who are
disproportionately invested in government jobs and
in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them."
-Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:11:53 GMT, ff wrote:



Predictor wrote:



Willcox wrote:
"Scientists are saying the processing power to simulate a human
consciousness on a computer is almost there. "
-

Which scientists? How much processing power is required to "simulate a
human consciousness"? How exactly does one "simulate a human
consciousness"?
-

-Will Dwinnell
http://will.dwinnell.com





Consciousness could be defined as the knowledge of one's own existence.
With that comes the desire to remain in existence.



Then those whom commit suicide have no consiousness?



No. I would venture to guess that those who make that choice either
have an altered state of consciousness or their existence has become
unbearable due to physical or emotional pain.

In misc.survivalism Dan wrote:
If PCs are any indication (and they have been for awhile), Moore's law
is no longer in effect. The 1Gig machine has been around at an
affordable price (~ $1000) for way more than 3 years...


But price and clock speed ain't got nothing to do with it. The number of
transistors on a single chip (IIRC) is all he spoke about.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:26:59 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
wrote:

In misc.survivalism Dan wrote:
If PCs are any indication (and they have been for awhile), Moore's law
is no longer in effect. The 1Gig machine has been around at an
affordable price (~ $1000) for way more than 3 years...


But price and clock speed ain't got nothing to do with it. The number of
transistors on a single chip (IIRC) is all he spoke about.


ftp://download.intel.com/research/si...oorespaper.pdf


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

PC's are an indication and Moores Law is still working fine. A 1 gig
pentium does not have the computing power of an AMD 64. And the Cell
is on its way. IBM figures an array of Cells will make a super
computer that ranks in the top 10. Of course you will not be buying
the Cell super computer, but Sony is going to use it in their
Playstation.


Dan

Cliff wrote:
[
Moore's Law, the 40-year-old prediction that computer chip
performance
would double every year or two, may have found a place in history as
an accurate forecast. Original copies of the declaration, however,
are
lost. And a hunt on eBay has begun. INTEL CORP. has posted a $10,000
reward for an original copy, in mint condition, of the April 19,
1965,
issue of Electronics, the technical publication in which Intel's
founder, Gordon Moore, made his famous forecast. Electronics magazine
is now defunct, and Intel, the world's largest chip maker, has no
copy. Moore, now Intel's chairman emeritus, lent out his copy and
lost
track of it, said Howard High, an Intel spokesman.
]

By Daniel Sorid

http://q1.schwab.com/content/rb/2005/04/22/1080629.html
[
SAN FRANCISCO, April 22 (Reuters) - A British engineer collected a
$10,000 bounty for turning in his near-mint copy of a famous
forty-year-old electronics magazine, but not before irking university
librarians who rushed to secure their copies from thieves.

............
]

(See link for more.)
--
Cliff

That fella should have waited a year or two and gotten $20,000....

wrote in message
ups.com...

Cliff wrote:
[
Moore's Law, the 40-year-old prediction that computer chip
performance
would double every year or two, may have found a place in history as
an accurate forecast. Original copies of the declaration, however,
are
lost. And a hunt on eBay has begun. INTEL CORP. has posted a $10,000
reward for an original copy, in mint condition, of the April 19,
1965,
issue of Electronics, the technical publication in which Intel's
founder, Gordon Moore, made his famous forecast. Electronics magazine
is now defunct, and Intel, the world's largest chip maker, has no
copy. Moore, now Intel's chairman emeritus, lent out his copy and
lost
track of it, said Howard High, an Intel spokesman.
]

By Daniel Sorid

http://q1.schwab.com/content/rb/2005/04/22/1080629.html
[
SAN FRANCISCO, April 22 (Reuters) - A British engineer collected a
$10,000 bounty for turning in his near-mint copy of a famous
forty-year-old electronics magazine, but not before irking university
librarians who rushed to secure their copies from thieves.

...........
]

(See link for more.)
--
Cliff

Which makes you wonder if anyone at Intel has a library card.

On 24 Apr 2005 13:01:23 -0700, the inscrutable "TOP"
spake:

Which makes you wonder if anyone at Intel has a library card.

No doubt they're all Amazon.com card carriers.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do. Or do not. * Stylin' Web Design Services
There is no try. --Yoda * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

TOP wrote:
Which makes you wonder if anyone at Intel has a library card.

Or why the INTEL Library didn't have a copy itself.

(once a 'Two in a box' Technologist withing with Intel on joint projects.)

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:11:47 -0500, "lionslair at consolidated dot
net" "lionslair at consolidated dot net" wrote:

TOP wrote:
Which makes you wonder if anyone at Intel has a library card.

Or why the INTEL Library didn't have a copy itself.

Probably for the same reason they closed Gunner's local
library.
Someone stole the book.
--
Cliff