Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

what not make sense for other creatures?

Expand Messages
  • willgottait
    Hi there, What re the fundamentals in all of our capacities that make us different from other animals or creatures? I mean, what mechanisms make us intelligent
    Message 1 of 20 , Aug 3, 2005
      Hi there,

      What're the fundamentals in all of our capacities that make us
      different from other animals or creatures? I mean, what mechanisms
      make us intelligent enough, but not for other animals? Is there some
      conclusion on this? Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. TIA,

      Bests,

      Will.
    • smartxpark
      Hello / Namasthe, Abstraction - the capacity to imagine a non real reality Thanks Kedar
      Message 2 of 20 , Aug 4, 2005
        Hello / Namasthe,

        Abstraction - the capacity to imagine a non real reality

        Thanks

        Kedar

        --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "willgottait"
        <willgottait@y...> wrote:
        > Hi there,
        >
        > What're the fundamentals in all of our capacities that make us
        > different from other animals or creatures? I mean, what mechanisms
        > make us intelligent enough, but not for other animals? Is there some
        > conclusion on this? Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. TIA,
        >
        > Bests,
        >
        > Will.
      • Donald Jacques
        I noted the comment about Abstraction. I would expand on that: We are basically constructed with the same Parts as most other creatures, with the exception
        Message 3 of 20 , Aug 5, 2005
          I noted the comment about Abstraction. I would expand on that:

          We are basically constructed with the same "Parts" as most other
          creatures, with the exception (which we share with the other "great
          apes") of a larger brain.

          What then separates us from the other great apes? They can create
          and use tools, they can and do exorcise language (a form of abstraction)
          and they also use a complex society with both values and judgements.

          Our brains are wired differently. Our evolutionary development included
          elements that triggered a dramatic increase the quantity and complexity
          of neural connections when compared to those of the other great apes,
          including both gorillas and chimpanzees. What this does is allow us to
          "connect" minute pieces of information with in a massive collection of
          data to use "hunches". A hunch is not a guess. And there is not yet
          any evidence of the other great apes using anything other than "instinct"
          and learned behaviors to solve problems.



          --- willgottait <willgottait@...> wrote:

          > Hi there,
          >
          > What're the fundamentals in all of our capacities that make us
          > different from other animals or creatures? I mean, what mechanisms
          > make us intelligent enough, but not for other animals? Is there some
          > conclusion on this? Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. TIA,
          >
          > Bests,
          >
          > Will.
          >
          >
          >
        • willgottait
          Many thanks for your responses guys. But I think a bit different. Abstraction is definitely only make sense to us. But in the early cognitive developement, I
          Message 4 of 20 , Aug 11, 2005
            Many thanks for your responses guys. But I think a bit different.
            Abstraction is definitely only make sense to us. But in the early
            cognitive developement, I believe we (infants, even toddlers younger
            than certain ages, e.g., 2-3 years old) do not have such a capacity in
            abstraction, or if there is, this capacity should be quite weak
            comparing to its later development in adults.

            I read some reports saying that the apes have intelligence like human
            kids of 2 or 3 year old. What make difference after that? Highly
            complicated languages and social activities?

            There are also reports about wolf-kid, pig-kid or dog-kid which are
            raised up by wold, pig or dog for varying causes. These kids have
            reportedly very little human intelligence after rescued and returned
            to human socities. A complicated brain provides us biology foundation
            to have intelligence, but it does need certain outside imcitement.

            Bests,

            Will
          • smartxpark
            Hello, Namasthe Will and Donald Jacques, Will you wrote Many thanks for your responses guys. *** But I think a bit different.*** and *** Abstraction is
            Message 5 of 20 , Aug 13, 2005
              Hello, Namasthe Will and Donald Jacques,

              Will you wrote "Many thanks for your responses guys.

              *** But I think a bit different.*** and
              *** Abstraction is definitely only make sense to us.***"

              Does not that answer your primary question? ... "What not make sense
              for other creatures?"

              The construction of your question in English can be considered wrong
              grammar yet close enough for guys in this forum to "understand" what
              you generally meant.

              This "understanding" of "knowledge content in raw data" is
              a "process" that requires a)raw data to be collated in some form b)
              seeing whether it is meaningful information c) If not add appropriate
              components from ("inherent or instinct" knowledge base + "learnt
              knowledge base") for increase in knowledge content of message....

              The added components from ("inherent or instinct" knowledge base
              + "learnt knowledge base") can range from total lack of
              understanding, conjecture ... or certainty based on experience. Now
              all this processing involves process of "abstraction - which includes
              imagination"

              You wrote...<<But in the early cognitive developement, I believe we
              (infants, even toddlers younger than certain ages, e.g., 2-3 years
              old) do not have such a capacity in abstraction, or if there is, this
              capacity should be quite weak comparing to its later development in
              adults. >>

              The statement "I believe" is based on information, observation and
              experience which again has a lot of "abstraction.

              I respond to the above thus, my experience is different and I
              state "the curve for imagination/abstraction starts at a higher level
              than any animal rises up very rapidly upto a certai age and the curve
              wanes in rate of inrease in adults" This is because there always is
              some need for "compromise or acceptance" or coming to terms
              with "imagination component and reality components of knowledge.

              <<I read some reports saying that the apes have intelligence like
              human kids of 2 or 3 year old. What make difference after that?
              Highly complicated languages and social activities? >>

              These reports are by based on some "test of hypothesis (which is
              conjecture /imagination/ abstraction"

              <<There are also reports about wolf-kid, pig-kid or dog-kid which are
              raised up by wold, pig or dog for varying causes. These kids have
              reportedly very little human intelligence after rescued and returned
              to human socities. A complicated brain provides us biology oundation
              to have intelligence, but it does need certain outside imcitement.>>

              I wonder what tests for IQ were used and whether the tests were valid
              enough to consider the
              "nurture factor". The environment does provide challenges
              for "intelligent" living that by choice the human attempts to
              overcome - Stephen Hawkins is a great example and equally great
              examples are handicapped children and people doing things by
              their "will power" (precursor is abstraction - desire and a whole
              gamut of mind-body (soul) interactions.

              Dear Donald Jaques, on your comments,

              <<Our brains are wired differently. Our evolutionary development
              included elements that triggered a dramatic increase the quantity and
              complexity of neural connections when compared to those of the other
              great apes, including both gorillas and chimpanzees.>>

              Why needs "evolution theories" and more conjecture be dragged in for
              the "fact" that we can see human brains are wired differently from
              animals. There has been no studies or tools available for knowing the
              difference in neural connections. Archeologists in general find a few
              bones or artifacts and after that is all "their abstraction,
              conjecture, at work furiously - and still more conjecture/abstraction
              that "scientific it is"?

              <<What this does is allow us to "connect" minute pieces of
              information with in a massive collection of data to use "hunches". A
              hunch is not a guess. And there is not yet any evidence of the other
              great apes using anything other than "instinct" and learned behaviors
              to solve problems.>>

              I could not agree with you more - "intuition" - "gut feelings"
              and "heuristics" display faculties which even the person who acts in
              a manner cannot explain why?

              There is this story of a number of engineers who were foxed when a
              crane broke down. They needed to get a very heavy piece of machinery
              in a pit. When they broke off from work and went into their camp
              kitchen - the camp cook gave them a simple solution - why don't you
              guys use ice? A few truck loads of ice were dumped into the pit and
              the machinery slid into place and the water was pumped out... It sure
              is "true" that solutions to many of our problems comes from the
              strangest sources.

              All the Best

              Kedar


              --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "willgottait"
              <willgottait@y...> wrote:
              > Many thanks for your responses guys. But I think a bit different.
              > Abstraction is definitely only make sense to us. But in the early
              > cognitive developement, I believe we (infants, even toddlers younger
              > than certain ages, e.g., 2-3 years old) do not have such a capacity
              in
              > abstraction, or if there is, this capacity should be quite weak
              > comparing to its later development in adults.
              >
              > I read some reports saying that the apes have intelligence like
              human
              > kids of 2 or 3 year old. What make difference after that? Highly
              > complicated languages and social activities?
              >
              > There are also reports about wolf-kid, pig-kid or dog-kid which are
              > raised up by wold, pig or dog for varying causes. These kids have
              > reportedly very little human intelligence after rescued and returned
              > to human socities. A complicated brain provides us biology
              foundation
              > to have intelligence, but it does need certain outside imcitement.
              >
              > Bests,
              >
              > Will
            • willgottait
              Hi smartxpark, Many thanks. I agree with your point on abstraction. But I just wonder whether it could explain everything. I d like to move a smaller topic.
              Message 6 of 20 , Aug 16, 2005
                Hi smartxpark,

                Many thanks. I agree with your point on abstraction. But I just wonder
                whether it could explain everything. I'd like to move a smaller topic.
                How could a new-born gradually have intelligence? Does this process
                well-explained? I believe the intelligence developing is directly
                based up individual experiences. Thanks.

                Will.
              • smartxpark
                Namasthe / Hello, Why and how do people forget - Do animals forget? This has been food for thought for a long time? Amachine cannot or should the robot be
                Message 7 of 20 , Aug 16, 2005
                  Namasthe / Hello,

                  Why and how do people forget - Do animals forget?

                  This has been food for thought for a long time? Amachine cannot or
                  should the robot be taught to forget in the goal for the "itelligent
                  machine?

                  Kedar








                  --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "willgottait"
                  <willgottait@y...> wrote:
                  > Hi smartxpark,
                  >
                  > Many thanks. I agree with your point on abstraction. But I just wonder
                  > whether it could explain everything. I'd like to move a smaller topic.
                  > How could a new-born gradually have intelligence? Does this process
                  > well-explained? I believe the intelligence developing is directly
                  > based up individual experiences. Thanks.
                  >
                  > Will.
                • Cyrus LearningEnglish
                  Hi friends, What are your scientific definition for inteligence , self awareness and abstraction? Can we measure these qualitities directly or indirectly? My
                  Message 8 of 20 , Aug 16, 2005
                    Hi friends,

                    What are your scientific definition for inteligence , self awareness and abstraction?
                    Can we measure these qualitities directly or indirectly?

                    My concern is : When you do not define something scientifically how you are able to continue a scientific research upon those not defined entities.

                    regards
                    Cyurs


                    willgottait <willgottait@...> wrote:
                    Hi smartxpark,

                    Many thanks. I agree with your point on abstraction. But I just wonder
                    whether it could explain everything. I'd like to move a smaller topic.
                    How could a new-born gradually have intelligence? Does this process
                    well-explained? I believe the intelligence developing is directly
                    based up individual experiences. Thanks.

                    Will.





                    SPONSORED LINKS
                    Artificial intelligence

                    ---------------------------------
                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                    Visit your group "artificialintelligencegroup" on the web.

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    ---------------------------------




                    ---------------------------------
                    Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • smartxpark
                    Namasthe / Hello Cyrus I d deal the second part of your message first- You have hit the nail on the head when you wrote - When you do not define something
                    Message 9 of 20 , Aug 18, 2005
                      Namasthe / Hello Cyrus

                      I'd deal the second part of your message first-

                      You have hit the nail on the head when you wrote - "When you do not
                      define something scientifically how you are able to continue a
                      scientific research upon those not defined entities."

                      A brief look is needed for a re-look at some concepts that we may not
                      have been defined precisely at all yet progress has been made
                      scientifically and commercially all over the word...

                      How much clarity do we have on elementary concepts such as data,
                      information, knowledge, wisdom and consciousness from their
                      definitios?

                      Dictionaries compile "commonly understood meanings" of words. In
                      other words a statistical majority of some sort in a population
                      understand the words to mean whatever is given in the dictionary. A
                      scientific definition is what the "scientific community among
                      themselves by majority agree so that we can bark at the same tree of
                      knowledge" So, let us see what a few common dictionaries and
                      the "online thesaurus" with Microsoft Word used for quick reference
                      for word processing have to say.

                      Dictionary Meanings - data, information, knowledge, wisdom and
                      consciousness

                      Data

                      Merriam-Webster online dictionary - http://www.m-w.com has this.

                      Da·ta

                      1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a
                      basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation 2 : information
                      output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and
                      irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be
                      meaningful
                      3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted
                      or processed

                      Does data really mean information? Is information fed into a computer
                      and does it output information? We were taught that raw data is input
                      and processed data is output.

                      Da·tum

                      1 plural da·ta: something given or admitted especially as a basis for
                      reasoning or inference
                      2 plural datums: something used as a basis for calculating or
                      measuring

                      This is more understandable or is it? In another source too,
                      Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ data
                      is equated with information too.

                      data information, especially facts or numbers, collected for
                      examination and consideration and used to help decision-making, or
                      information in an electronic form that can be stored and processed by
                      a computer

                      And so it is with the online thesaurus with Microsoft Word 2000.

                      Data with meaning Information has synonyms Statistics, Facts,
                      Figures, Numbers, and Records.

                      Information

                      Merriam-Webster online dictionary - http://www.m-w.com equates
                      information with knowledge and intelligence among other things!

                      in·for·ma·tion 1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or
                      intelligence
                      2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or
                      instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the
                      attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more
                      alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in
                      DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific
                      effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system
                      or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message,
                      experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a...

                      The Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
                      gives a recursive definition that it is facts (or data).

                      information noun [U] (INFORMAL info) facts about a situation,
                      person, event, etc:

                      And Microsoft Word 2000 online thesaurus takes the cake! Their
                      lexicographers split information into two portions in and formation
                      and give the meaning "in order"! And authors are required to submit
                      their documents only in Microsoft Word format in this symposium!

                      Information has meaning in order! And it has synonyms, in sequence,
                      in turn, in rank, in a row.

                      Knowledge

                      Merriam-Webster online dictionary - http://www.m-w.com has a number
                      of things to say on knowledge.

                      knowl·edge

                      1 obsolete : COGNIZANCE 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing
                      something with familiarity gained through experience or association
                      (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or
                      technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
                      (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the
                      circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through
                      reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information
                      or of being learned 3 archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE 4 a : the sum of
                      what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles
                      acquired by mankind b archaic : a branch of learning synonyms
                      KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING, ERUDITION, SCHOLARSHIP mean what is or can be
                      known by an individual or by mankind. KNOWLEDGE applies to facts or
                      ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience .
                      LEARNING applies to knowledge acquired especially through formal,
                      often advanced, schooling . ERUDITION strongly implies the acquiring
                      of profound, recondite, or bookish learning . SCHOLARSHIP implies the
                      possession of learning characteristic of the advanced scholar in a
                      specialized field of study or investigation

                      Knowledge is understanding, information and awareness according to
                      Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

                      knowledge noun 1 [S or U] understanding of or information about a
                      subject which has been obtained by experience or study, and which is
                      either in a person's mind or possessed by people generally

                      2 [U] awareness:

                      And Microsoft Word 2000 thesaurus has the following.

                      Knowledge with meaning information has synonyms facts, data

                      Knowledge with meaning acquaintance has synonyms familiarity,
                      awareness, understanding, comprehension, realization, experience,
                      expertise, skill, know-how, antonym is ignorance

                      Knowledge with meaning wisdom has synonyms learning, education,
                      intelligence, erudition.

                      Wisdom

                      Merriam-Webster online dictionary - http://www.m-w.com says the
                      following on wisdom.

                      wis·dom

                      1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE b :
                      ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c :
                      good sense : JUDGMENT d : generally accepted belief

                      2 : a wise attitude or course of action
                      3 : the teachings of the ancient wise men

                      Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ gives
                      the following

                      wisdom noun [U] the ability to use your knowledge and experience to
                      make good decisions and judgements

                      And finally, Microsoft Word 2000 Thesaurus has the following words on
                      wisdom.

                      Wisdom with meaning understanding, has synonyms knowledge, insight,
                      perception, intelligence, acumen, penetration, good judgment, and has
                      antonym foolishnessWisdom with meaning advisability has synonyms
                      desirability, judiciousness, prudence, good sense, suitability,
                      judgment.

                      Now the second part of the question -

                      I am Bharathiya / Indian - When I use the word intelligence - It is
                      an inadequate translation of what I understand in the sanskri word -

                      ===> [ medhA ]2[ medh'A ]

                      This has been variously translated/having synonymns

                      f. mental vigour or power , intelligence , prudence , wisdom ( pl.
                      products of intelligence , thoughts , opinions ) cf. RV. &c. &c.

                      Its origin is the ancient sanskrit Rk Veda - This has specific
                      reference to humans - one of the components of "medha" is
                      intelligence. I am quite comfortable with the concept
                      that "intelligence may be exhibited by any other forms of life" but I
                      am yet to meet anything that has "medha". porpoises, ants, monkeys,
                      fall far short of possessing the "medha".

                      How is all the understanding from whatever source do with specific
                      subject matter of this group - "artificial intelligence" - The
                      purpose of subject matter is the "intelligent robot" for this a lot
                      of anthropomorphism has to be built in including some
                      unambigous "spiritual and moral principles and the concept of death" -
                      I guess Arthur C Clark - "Space Odyssey 2001", Isaac Asimov -

                      Kindly see the paper I have attached in the files section - Dharmik
                      concepts for knowledge workers ...

                      Best wishes in your work

                      Kedar












                      --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Cyrus
                      LearningEnglish <cyruslearningenglish@y...> wrote:
                      > Hi friends,
                      >
                      > What are your scientific definition for inteligence , self
                      awareness and abstraction?
                      > Can we measure these qualitities directly or indirectly?
                      >
                      > My concern is : When you do not define something scientifically how
                      you are able to continue a scientific research upon those not defined
                      entities.
                      >
                      > regards
                      > Cyurs
                      >
                      >
                      > willgottait <willgottait@y...> wrote:
                      > Hi smartxpark,
                      >
                      > Many thanks. I agree with your point on abstraction. But I just
                      wonder
                      > whether it could explain everything. I'd like to move a smaller
                      topic.
                      > How could a new-born gradually have intelligence? Does this process
                      > well-explained? I believe the intelligence developing is directly
                      > based up individual experiences. Thanks.
                      >
                      > Will.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > SPONSORED LINKS
                      > Artificial intelligence
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                      >
                      >
                      > Visit your group "artificialintelligencegroup" on the web.
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • willgottait
                      ... and abstraction? ... you are able to continue a scientific research upon those not defined entities. ... I have to say your point is totally misleading.
                      Message 10 of 20 , Aug 18, 2005
                        --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Cyrus
                        LearningEnglish <cyruslearningenglish@y...> wrote:
                        > Hi friends,
                        >
                        > What are your scientific definition for inteligence , self awareness
                        and abstraction?
                        > Can we measure these qualitities directly or indirectly?
                        >
                        > My concern is : When you do not define something scientifically how
                        you are able to continue a scientific research upon those not defined
                        entities.
                        >
                        > regards
                        > Cyurs


                        I have to say your point is totally misleading. You know, long before
                        human understand aerodynamics, they attempted to build a plane.
                        Artificial intelligence has being studied for more than 50 years
                        although what is intelligence is still disputable so far.

                        Bests,

                        Will
                      • Andre S Clements
                        ... interesting points all round. artificial inteligence ... what happens when in stead of focusing on Artificial Inteligence we were to focus on Artificial
                        Message 11 of 20 , Aug 28, 2005
                          ... interesting points all round. "artificial inteligence"... what
                          happens when in stead of focusing on Artificial Inteligence we were to
                          focus on "Artificial Sanity" - what prompts me to ask this is
                          considering how, while imagination is surely a critical component of
                          projection and conjecture - un-checked it very easily leads to pshycosis
                          and all manner of pathology, individiually and systemically, perhaps
                          because of a (potential to) drift away from validity.

                          Of course defining sanity won't be any easier than defining inteligence,
                          and I don't think we should settle for sanity=normal either - that's a
                          cop-out if ever there was one - which leads me to wonder if anyone has
                          looked at the implications of salutogenisys theory in this field?,
                          modeling the system around Antonofski (sp?)'s criteria for coherence -
                          think it is: Meaning, Competence and Comprehension, and breaking those
                          ideas down in stead of building up from the usual components

                          Just a late-night sleep deprived pondering, gotta get back to changing
                          our 3 week old baby's nappy again - amazing to whatch the unfolding of
                          the being into his inteligence etc.

                          Andre S C

                          PS. Definitions are not static.
                          PPS. A perfect definition = devision by Zero
                        • coveent
                          First off, I would like to point out that sanity is a relative term, at least that is the opinion that I agree with. Second of all, when dealing with the
                          Message 12 of 20 , Sep 13, 2005
                            First off, I would like to point out that sanity is a relative term,
                            at least that is the opinion that I agree with.

                            Second of all, when dealing with the concept of an artificial
                            consciousness, human, or any other biological consciousness,
                            references should be COMPLETELY set aside.

                            An artificial consciousness would only have the desires and drives
                            that it is programmed to have. A survival desire would not exsist
                            without it being programmed into it, for example. For this reason, I
                            do not think that machines taking over the world could happen unless
                            they were programmed to do so. Asimov created the three laws of
                            robotics in his short stories, and they are still referenced in
                            current works because they make sense and they should insure the
                            safety of humans, as long as they are implemented. (Several of his
                            stories deal with AI psychology and the laws of robotics are are
                            quite interesting reading if you have not gotten around to them yet.)

                            In an artificial sense, I would think that artificial insanity in an
                            AI system would be a corruption of the coding. Assuming that an AI
                            system would have some manner of adaptive programming, the
                            safeguards to protect from corruption would have to be built into
                            the core "inflexible" code. Something to prevent the system from
                            being caught in an endless loop, for example.

                            Just a trailing thought ... if "Artificial Insanity" is the
                            corruption of the code in a changing system, does that mean that
                            Windows is insane?

                            Just some thoughts.

                            Andrew



                            --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S Clements
                            <aclements@i...> wrote:
                            > ... interesting points all round. "artificial inteligence"... what
                            > happens when in stead of focusing on Artificial Inteligence we
                            were to
                            > focus on "Artificial Sanity" - what prompts me to ask this is
                            > considering how, while imagination is surely a critical component
                            of
                            > projection and conjecture - un-checked it very easily leads to
                            pshycosis
                            > and all manner of pathology, individiually and systemically,
                            perhaps
                            > because of a (potential to) drift away from validity.
                            >
                            > Of course defining sanity won't be any easier than defining
                            inteligence,
                            > and I don't think we should settle for sanity=normal either -
                            that's a
                            > cop-out if ever there was one - which leads me to wonder if anyone
                            has
                            > looked at the implications of salutogenisys theory in this field?,
                            > modeling the system around Antonofski (sp?)'s criteria for
                            coherence -
                            > think it is: Meaning, Competence and Comprehension, and breaking
                            those
                            > ideas down in stead of building up from the usual components
                            >
                            > Just a late-night sleep deprived pondering, gotta get back to
                            changing
                            > our 3 week old baby's nappy again - amazing to whatch the
                            unfolding of
                            > the being into his inteligence etc.
                            >
                            > Andre S C
                            >
                            > PS. Definitions are not static.
                            > PPS. A perfect definition = devision by Zero
                          • Andre S Clements
                            Hi True, but what term is not relative? I m not sure what you mean by references should be COMPLETELY set aside - please would you expand. From your third
                            Message 13 of 20 , Sep 13, 2005
                              Hi

                              True, but what term is not relative?

                              I'm not sure what you mean by " references should be COMPLETELY set
                              aside" - please would you expand.

                              From your third paragraph onwards, you seem to argue for and promote
                              the mechanistic world view. Asimov makes for great entertaining reading
                              - but he did write "...In fact have been told that if, in future years,
                              I am to be remembered at all, it will be for these three laws of
                              robotics. In a way this bothers me, for I am accustomed to thinking of
                              myself as a scientist, and to be remembered for the non-existent basis
                              of a non existent science is embarrassing..."

                              Have you considered the "Technological Event Horizon" as described by
                              Vernon Vinge? If the designed system - through design or accident,
                              morphs, and comes to alter itself, perhaps by mutating reproductions of
                              itself, i can't see a law like the '3 laws' staying hard-wired in for
                              very long.

                              I am more of an Ian M Banks fan myself.

                              okay so lets move on, ...
                              Is 'artificial life' possible?

                              André

                              coveent wrote:

                              > First off, I would like to point out that sanity is a relative term,
                              > at least that is the opinion that I agree with.
                              >
                              > Second of all, when dealing with the concept of an artificial
                              > consciousness, human, or any other biological consciousness,
                              > references should be COMPLETELY set aside.
                              >
                              > An artificial consciousness would only have the desires and drives
                              > that it is programmed to have. A survival desire would not exsist
                              > without it being programmed into it, for example. For this reason, I
                              > do not think that machines taking over the world could happen unless
                              > they were programmed to do so. Asimov created the three laws of
                              > robotics in his short stories, and they are still referenced in
                              > current works because they make sense and they should insure the
                              > safety of humans, as long as they are implemented. (Several of his
                              > stories deal with AI psychology and the laws of robotics are are
                              > quite interesting reading if you have not gotten around to them yet.)
                              >
                              > In an artificial sense, I would think that artificial insanity in an
                              > AI system would be a corruption of the coding. Assuming that an AI
                              > system would have some manner of adaptive programming, the
                              > safeguards to protect from corruption would have to be built into
                              > the core "inflexible" code. Something to prevent the system from
                              > being caught in an endless loop, for example.
                              >
                              > Just a trailing thought ... if "Artificial Insanity" is the
                              > corruption of the code in a changing system, does that mean that
                              > Windows is insane?
                              >
                              > Just some thoughts.
                              >
                              > Andrew
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S Clements
                              > <aclements@i...> wrote:
                              > > ... interesting points all round. "artificial inteligence"... what
                              > > happens when in stead of focusing on Artificial Inteligence we
                              > were to
                              > > focus on "Artificial Sanity" - what prompts me to ask this is
                              > > considering how, while imagination is surely a critical component
                              > of
                              > > projection and conjecture - un-checked it very easily leads to
                              > pshycosis
                              > > and all manner of pathology, individiually and systemically,
                              > perhaps
                              > > because of a (potential to) drift away from validity.
                              > >
                              > > Of course defining sanity won't be any easier than defining
                              > inteligence,
                              > > and I don't think we should settle for sanity=normal either -
                              > that's a
                              > > cop-out if ever there was one - which leads me to wonder if anyone
                              > has
                              > > looked at the implications of salutogenisys theory in this field?,
                              > > modeling the system around Antonofski (sp?)'s criteria for
                              > coherence -
                              > > think it is: Meaning, Competence and Comprehension, and breaking
                              > those
                              > > ideas down in stead of building up from the usual components
                              > >
                              > > Just a late-night sleep deprived pondering, gotta get back to
                              > changing
                              > > our 3 week old baby's nappy again - amazing to whatch the
                              > unfolding of
                              > > the being into his inteligence etc.
                              > >
                              > > Andre S C
                              > >
                              > > PS. Definitions are not static.
                              > > PPS. A perfect definition = devision by Zero
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                              >
                              > * Visit your group "artificialintelligencegroup
                              > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artificialintelligencegroup>" on
                              > the web.
                              >
                              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                              >
                              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              >
                            • JW
                              Even with humans, how do you define human behavior as normal or standard ? To be a little mathmatical---in terms of standard deviations from the mean? How
                              Message 14 of 20 , Sep 14, 2005
                                Even with humans, how do you define human behavior as "normal"
                                or "standard"?

                                To be a little mathmatical---in terms of standard deviations from the
                                mean? How would you define the mean? Who's or what's behavior would
                                you base it upon?

                                John





                                --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S Clements
                                <aclements@i...> wrote:
                                > Hi
                                >
                                > True, but what term is not relative?
                                >
                                > I'm not sure what you mean by " references should be COMPLETELY set
                                > aside" - please would you expand.
                                >
                                > From your third paragraph onwards, you seem to argue for and
                                promote
                                > the mechanistic world view. Asimov makes for great entertaining
                                reading
                                > - but he did write "...In fact have been told that if, in future
                                years,
                                > I am to be remembered at all, it will be for these three laws of
                                > robotics. In a way this bothers me, for I am accustomed to thinking
                                of
                                > myself as a scientist, and to be remembered for the non-existent
                                basis
                                > of a non existent science is embarrassing..."
                                >
                                > Have you considered the "Technological Event Horizon" as described
                                by
                                > Vernon Vinge? If the designed system - through design or accident,
                                > morphs, and comes to alter itself, perhaps by mutating
                                reproductions of
                                > itself, i can't see a law like the '3 laws' staying hard-wired in
                                for
                                > very long.
                                >
                                > I am more of an Ian M Banks fan myself.
                                >
                                > okay so lets move on, ...
                                > Is 'artificial life' possible?
                                >
                                > André
                                >
                                > coveent wrote:
                                >
                                > > First off, I would like to point out that sanity is a relative
                                term,
                                > > at least that is the opinion that I agree with.
                                > >
                                > > Second of all, when dealing with the concept of an artificial
                                > > consciousness, human, or any other biological consciousness,
                                > > references should be COMPLETELY set aside.
                                > >
                                > > An artificial consciousness would only have the desires and drives
                                > > that it is programmed to have. A survival desire would not exsist
                                > > without it being programmed into it, for example. For this
                                reason, I
                                > > do not think that machines taking over the world could happen
                                unless
                                > > they were programmed to do so. Asimov created the three laws of
                                > > robotics in his short stories, and they are still referenced in
                                > > current works because they make sense and they should insure the
                                > > safety of humans, as long as they are implemented. (Several of his
                                > > stories deal with AI psychology and the laws of robotics are are
                                > > quite interesting reading if you have not gotten around to them
                                yet.)
                                > >
                                > > In an artificial sense, I would think that artificial insanity in
                                an
                                > > AI system would be a corruption of the coding. Assuming that an AI
                                > > system would have some manner of adaptive programming, the
                                > > safeguards to protect from corruption would have to be built into
                                > > the core "inflexible" code. Something to prevent the system from
                                > > being caught in an endless loop, for example.
                                > >
                                > > Just a trailing thought ... if "Artificial Insanity" is the
                                > > corruption of the code in a changing system, does that mean that
                                > > Windows is insane?
                                > >
                                > > Just some thoughts.
                                > >
                                > > Andrew
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S
                                Clements
                                > > <aclements@i...> wrote:
                                > > > ... interesting points all round. "artificial inteligence"...
                                what
                                > > > happens when in stead of focusing on Artificial Inteligence we
                                > > were to
                                > > > focus on "Artificial Sanity" - what prompts me to ask this is
                                > > > considering how, while imagination is surely a critical
                                component
                                > > of
                                > > > projection and conjecture - un-checked it very easily leads to
                                > > pshycosis
                                > > > and all manner of pathology, individiually and systemically,
                                > > perhaps
                                > > > because of a (potential to) drift away from validity.
                                > > >
                                > > > Of course defining sanity won't be any easier than defining
                                > > inteligence,
                                > > > and I don't think we should settle for sanity=normal either -
                                > > that's a
                                > > > cop-out if ever there was one - which leads me to wonder if
                                anyone
                                > > has
                                > > > looked at the implications of salutogenisys theory in this
                                field?,
                                > > > modeling the system around Antonofski (sp?)'s criteria for
                                > > coherence -
                                > > > think it is: Meaning, Competence and Comprehension, and breaking
                                > > those
                                > > > ideas down in stead of building up from the usual components
                                > > >
                                > > > Just a late-night sleep deprived pondering, gotta get back to
                                > > changing
                                > > > our 3 week old baby's nappy again - amazing to whatch the
                                > > unfolding of
                                > > > the being into his inteligence etc.
                                > > >
                                > > > Andre S C
                                > > >
                                > > > PS. Definitions are not static.
                                > > > PPS. A perfect definition = devision by Zero
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ------
                                > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                > >
                                > > * Visit your group "artificialintelligencegroup
                                > >
                                <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artificialintelligencegroup>" on
                                > > the web.
                                > >
                                > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > > artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup-
                                unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                > >
                                > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ------
                                > >
                              • Andre S Clements
                                Especially once you consider evolution, which is essentially mutation, in other words, corruption, of the code, or blue-print. Considering MS Windows and
                                Message 15 of 20 , Sep 14, 2005
                                  Especially once you consider evolution, which is essentially mutation,
                                  in other words, corruption, of the code, or blue-print.

                                  Considering MS Windows and Darwin's argument - that it is not necesaraly
                                  the strongest or the fastest of the species who survive, but those most
                                  capable of adapting to changing circumstances - then sanity is perhaps
                                  the ability to find workable coherent interaction with the greater
                                  whole, irrespective of what internal 'corruption' this may require,
                                  provided the internal corruption doesn't become too detrimental to the
                                  agent e.g. cancer. Increased evolutionary complexity seems to run
                                  parallel with increased dependency on external factors, e.g. human young
                                  can not protect or provide for themselves at birth. Perhaps Windows is a
                                  lot 'sane-er' and 'fit-er' than popular opinion is comfortable with.

                                  André

                                  JW wrote:

                                  > Even with humans, how do you define human behavior as "normal"
                                  > or "standard"?
                                  >
                                  > To be a little mathmatical---in terms of standard deviations from the
                                  > mean? How would you define the mean? Who's or what's behavior would
                                  > you base it upon?
                                  >
                                  > John
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S Clements
                                  > <aclements@i...> wrote:
                                  > > Hi
                                  > >
                                  > > True, but what term is not relative?
                                  > >
                                  > > I'm not sure what you mean by " references should be COMPLETELY set
                                  > > aside" - please would you expand.
                                  > >
                                  > > From your third paragraph onwards, you seem to argue for and
                                  > promote
                                  > > the mechanistic world view. Asimov makes for great entertaining
                                  > reading
                                  > > - but he did write "...In fact have been told that if, in future
                                  > years,
                                  > > I am to be remembered at all, it will be for these three laws of
                                  > > robotics. In a way this bothers me, for I am accustomed to thinking
                                  > of
                                  > > myself as a scientist, and to be remembered for the non-existent
                                  > basis
                                  > > of a non existent science is embarrassing..."
                                  > >
                                  > > Have you considered the "Technological Event Horizon" as described
                                  > by
                                  > > Vernon Vinge? If the designed system - through design or accident,
                                  > > morphs, and comes to alter itself, perhaps by mutating
                                  > reproductions of
                                  > > itself, i can't see a law like the '3 laws' staying hard-wired in
                                  > for
                                  > > very long.
                                  > >
                                  > > I am more of an Ian M Banks fan myself.
                                  > >
                                  > > okay so lets move on, ...
                                  > > Is 'artificial life' possible?
                                  > >
                                  > > André
                                  > >
                                  > > coveent wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > > First off, I would like to point out that sanity is a relative
                                  > term,
                                  > > > at least that is the opinion that I agree with.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Second of all, when dealing with the concept of an artificial
                                  > > > consciousness, human, or any other biological consciousness,
                                  > > > references should be COMPLETELY set aside.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > An artificial consciousness would only have the desires and drives
                                  > > > that it is programmed to have. A survival desire would not exsist
                                  > > > without it being programmed into it, for example. For this
                                  > reason, I
                                  > > > do not think that machines taking over the world could happen
                                  > unless
                                  > > > they were programmed to do so. Asimov created the three laws of
                                  > > > robotics in his short stories, and they are still referenced in
                                  > > > current works because they make sense and they should insure the
                                  > > > safety of humans, as long as they are implemented. (Several of his
                                  > > > stories deal with AI psychology and the laws of robotics are are
                                  > > > quite interesting reading if you have not gotten around to them
                                  > yet.)
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In an artificial sense, I would think that artificial insanity in
                                  > an
                                  > > > AI system would be a corruption of the coding. Assuming that an AI
                                  > > > system would have some manner of adaptive programming, the
                                  > > > safeguards to protect from corruption would have to be built into
                                  > > > the core "inflexible" code. Something to prevent the system from
                                  > > > being caught in an endless loop, for example.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Just a trailing thought ... if "Artificial Insanity" is the
                                  > > > corruption of the code in a changing system, does that mean that
                                  > > > Windows is insane?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Just some thoughts.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Andrew
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S
                                  > Clements
                                  > > > <aclements@i...> wrote:
                                  > > > > ... interesting points all round. "artificial inteligence"...
                                  > what
                                  > > > > happens when in stead of focusing on Artificial Inteligence we
                                  > > > were to
                                  > > > > focus on "Artificial Sanity" - what prompts me to ask this is
                                  > > > > considering how, while imagination is surely a critical
                                  > component
                                  > > > of
                                  > > > > projection and conjecture - un-checked it very easily leads to
                                  > > > pshycosis
                                  > > > > and all manner of pathology, individiually and systemically,
                                  > > > perhaps
                                  > > > > because of a (potential to) drift away from validity.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Of course defining sanity won't be any easier than defining
                                  > > > inteligence,
                                  > > > > and I don't think we should settle for sanity=normal either -
                                  > > > that's a
                                  > > > > cop-out if ever there was one - which leads me to wonder if
                                  > anyone
                                  > > > has
                                  > > > > looked at the implications of salutogenisys theory in this
                                  > field?,
                                  > > > > modeling the system around Antonofski (sp?)'s criteria for
                                  > > > coherence -
                                  > > > > think it is: Meaning, Competence and Comprehension, and breaking
                                  > > > those
                                  > > > > ideas down in stead of building up from the usual components
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Just a late-night sleep deprived pondering, gotta get back to
                                  > > > changing
                                  > > > > our 3 week old baby's nappy again - amazing to whatch the
                                  > > > unfolding of
                                  > > > > the being into his inteligence etc.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Andre S C
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > PS. Definitions are not static.
                                  > > > > PPS. A perfect definition = devision by Zero
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > ------
                                  > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                  > > >
                                  > > > * Visit your group "artificialintelligencegroup
                                  > > >
                                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artificialintelligencegroup>" on
                                  > > > the web.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > > > artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup-
                                  > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                  > > >
                                  > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                  > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > ------
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                  >
                                  > * Visit your group "artificialintelligencegroup
                                  > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artificialintelligencegroup>" on
                                  > the web.
                                  >
                                  > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:artificialintelligencegroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                  >
                                  > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                  > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  >
                                • Lucas Fousekis
                                  I believe that I don t have the appropriate knowledge in this topic of discussion , but I would like to express my opinion. I am not expert in the field , so
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Sep 16, 2005
                                    I believe that I don't have the appropriate knowledge in this topic of
                                    discussion , but I would like to express my opinion. I am not expert in the
                                    field , so what I will reference is just simple ideas.

                                    Personaly I agree with the opinion of Andrew that said:
                                    "First off, I would like to point out that sanity is a relative term, at
                                    least that is the opinion that I agree with."

                                    Although Andrew also said that "artificial consiousness would only have the
                                    desires and drives that it is programmed to have."

                                    My opinion in that topic is that it is possible the creation of artificial
                                    intelligence algorithms that can make the machine to adjust itself to its
                                    environment. Also could have decision making algorithms. These both kind of
                                    algorithms could be random created according to circumstances and not to be
                                    pre-programmed.

                                    Just a thought.

                                    Lucas
                                  • coveent
                                    Greetings The references that need to be set aside would be the reference to human or other biological systems behaviors. Many times in this forum as well as
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 18, 2005
                                      Greetings

                                      The references that need to be set aside would be the reference to
                                      human or other biological systems behaviors. Many times in this
                                      forum as well as conversations with others outside of this forum
                                      people have assumed artificial intelligences would take on
                                      biological system type behaviors. There is no acceptable reason to
                                      believe that this would be so. For example, the desire to survive.
                                      What would lead a computer to desire to survive? And before you can
                                      even answer that, what is survival to a computer? Turning off the
                                      power? With the non-volitile memory storage capability a artificial
                                      intelligence could have, losing power would be irrelavent.
                                      Its "life" would only be put on hold.

                                      The need to "completely set aside" human references was meant to say
                                      that the desires, and therefore the behaviors that are derived from
                                      those desires, can be controlled, and need not resemble human
                                      behaviors.

                                      As far as a system morphing or evolving to get around some original
                                      programming, I would think that there would be some programming that
                                      could not be bypassed. There should need to be a portion of core
                                      programming that would need to be unalterable in order for the
                                      system to remain operable. Take the human body. There is
                                      biological "programming" in the body that can not be altered, or if
                                      it were, would cause death or severe damage. The part of the nervous
                                      system that I am refering to is the part that controls the heart,
                                      lungs, etc. Reflexes, such as the knee kick, can not be bypassed, at
                                      least without outside influence, or damage to the system.

                                      The unalterable elements of biological programming are there for
                                      survival, or more specifically, for the continued safe operation of
                                      the system. One would think that the designers of AI systems would
                                      incorporate equivalent elements into the system.

                                      As far as Asimov is concerned, and I do not mean any disrespect to
                                      the the man, rarely does an individual get to determine how they are
                                      remembered.

                                      And moving on, as you say, is "artificial life" possible? That all
                                      depends on what you consider life? I would not mind seeing a
                                      definition that does not draw biological parallels. The reason for
                                      this is that about the only commonality that artificial life and
                                      biological life would have, at least with today's technology, would
                                      be the use of electrical signals to communicate within the system.
                                      Beyond that, the designer would control what types of sub-systems
                                      would be used.

                                      So what would artificial life be? There is infinite possibilities,
                                      in form and function, so try to be broad.

                                      Andrew

                                      --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S Clements
                                      <aclements@i...> wrote:
                                      > Hi
                                      >
                                      > True, but what term is not relative?
                                      >
                                      > I'm not sure what you mean by " references should be COMPLETELY
                                      set
                                      > aside" - please would you expand.
                                      >
                                      > From your third paragraph onwards, you seem to argue for and
                                      promote
                                      > the mechanistic world view. Asimov makes for great entertaining
                                      reading
                                      > - but he did write "...In fact have been told that if, in future
                                      years,
                                      > I am to be remembered at all, it will be for these three laws of
                                      > robotics. In a way this bothers me, for I am accustomed to
                                      thinking of
                                      > myself as a scientist, and to be remembered for the non-existent
                                      basis
                                      > of a non existent science is embarrassing..."
                                      >
                                      > Have you considered the "Technological Event Horizon" as described
                                      by
                                      > Vernon Vinge? If the designed system - through design or accident,
                                      > morphs, and comes to alter itself, perhaps by mutating
                                      reproductions of
                                      > itself, i can't see a law like the '3 laws' staying hard-wired in
                                      for
                                      > very long.
                                      >
                                      > I am more of an Ian M Banks fan myself.
                                      >
                                      > okay so lets move on, ...
                                      > Is 'artificial life' possible?
                                      >
                                      > André
                                    • coveent
                                      I would say that corruption of the code is insanity. Where it beomes relative is a matter of timing. The initial corruption is insanity, but as it becomes the
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Sep 18, 2005
                                        I would say that corruption of the code is insanity. Where it beomes
                                        relative is a matter of timing. The initial corruption is insanity,
                                        but as it becomes the norm through use and acceptance, it then
                                        becomes sanity. In a sense, this would be an example of
                                        psychological evolution as opposed to physical evolution.

                                        Insanity need not be detrimental to the system. That would only be
                                        an example that would never be accepted as normal, or sane. Insane
                                        people walk the streets of society all the time. Because they are
                                        neither a danger to themselves or others is the reason they are not
                                        institutionalized. It is not a testimony about their sanity.

                                        As far as the reference to Windows and artificial insanity ... don't
                                        you recognize sarcasm when you see it?

                                        Andrew

                                        --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, Andre S Clements
                                        <aclements@i...> wrote:
                                        > Especially once you consider evolution, which is essentially
                                        mutation,
                                        > in other words, corruption, of the code, or blue-print.
                                        >
                                        > Considering MS Windows and Darwin's argument - that it is not
                                        necesaraly
                                        > the strongest or the fastest of the species who survive, but those
                                        most
                                        > capable of adapting to changing circumstances - then sanity is
                                        perhaps
                                        > the ability to find workable coherent interaction with the greater
                                        > whole, irrespective of what internal 'corruption' this may
                                        require,
                                        > provided the internal corruption doesn't become too detrimental to
                                        the
                                        > agent e.g. cancer. Increased evolutionary complexity seems to run
                                        > parallel with increased dependency on external factors, e.g. human
                                        young
                                        > can not protect or provide for themselves at birth. Perhaps
                                        Windows is a
                                        > lot 'sane-er' and 'fit-er' than popular opinion is comfortable
                                        with.
                                        >
                                        > André
                                        >
                                      • coveent
                                        Behavior that produces the desired results with acceptable side affects, in the individuals opinion, would be considered normal, I would think. I think that
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Sep 18, 2005
                                          Behavior that produces the desired results with acceptable side
                                          affects, in the individuals opinion, would be considered normal, I
                                          would think.

                                          I think that would be how a person would determine whether or not
                                          their behavior would be considered normal. Other people may not
                                          consider the behavior normal, but the person would.

                                          The thing to consider with others is whether those around the
                                          individual consider the behavior, the results and the side affects
                                          of the behavior acceptable. All three of these must be considered.
                                          For example, say I no longer want to be with my wife. (Not the case,
                                          mind you, just an example.) That is acceptable. No longer being
                                          together. Again, this is acceptable, depending on your religious
                                          preferences. But the side affect of her being dead, that would not
                                          be acceptable to others around me, if I was the one that caused it.

                                          So in the end, normal and standard are based on consensus.

                                          Thoughts?

                                          Andrew

                                          --- In artificialintelligencegroup@yahoogroups.com, "JW"
                                          <johnfr3@s...> wrote:
                                          > Even with humans, how do you define human behavior as "normal"
                                          > or "standard"?
                                          >
                                          > To be a little mathmatical---in terms of standard deviations from
                                          the
                                          > mean? How would you define the mean? Who's or what's behavior
                                          would
                                          > you base it upon?
                                          >
                                          > John
                                        • smartxpark
                                          Namasthe / Hello, A very useful pattern has evolved on the discussion of what not makes sense for other creatures . In the course of only one month it has
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Sep 24, 2005
                                            Namasthe / Hello,

                                            A very useful pattern has "evolved" on the discussion of "what not
                                            makes sense for other creatures". In the course of only one month it
                                            has been triggering thought along so many different paths. At some
                                            future time tracing back the initials will become physically
                                            impossible. Debuggers of AI systems are likely to lose sanity - or most
                                            likely throw the whole thing away and start a new subject line - In my
                                            opinion this is a terrible waste of "time"(the most important and
                                            invaluable resource the human being has).

                                            "Corruption" of code, assuming there is no "self destruct or destroy
                                            others pill/branch/virus" willfully planted is just not possible in a
                                            machine running under its initial/original/intended hardware / os
                                            configuration. It can always cause emotive behaviour in humans when
                                            unpredictable response = very slow response or response ahead
                                            of "onClick" is seen.

                                            A small extreme example - a mobile phone found its way into a washing
                                            machine by mistake - and it died. The battery was removed and
                                            instrument was dried in the sun for 2 days. The same battery was put in
                                            and presto it came to life and is being used very very usefully. Is
                                            there a moral in this? I see the need for dispassionate contemplative
                                            actions when dealing with machines on which our lives sometime depend.
                                            And contemplative coding is the crux - we just cannot "trial and error"
                                            and learn. And is this not what happened with space disasters and other
                                            recent calamities - when leave alone machines - the entire machinery
                                            failed?

                                            The crux - "dhaathu" of the machine is "control" - and we are
                                            seeing "control mechanisms" being put on as though they were after
                                            thoughts. Here is where the core rules of robotics and ai - (knowingly
                                            or unkowingly written down by asimov and positively stated in ancient
                                            Indian literature - the yantr in many places) have relevance in real
                                            time all time.

                                            Regards

                                            kedar
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.