From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 22:12:42 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/23/2002 10:17:05 PM Central Standard Time,
> lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: Yes, agreed. But *are* you agreeing that Spike has
> >postulated a very plausible *mechanism*, or not?
>
>
> Basically I am agreeing. I'm just trying to say that as we look out into the
> real world all we see is H&M's statements in action...
Wow, that is a powerful statement.
Friends, we have seen a dogpile on Lee and an
explanation that I find compelling: that Lee is
one who goes meta. (Love that: goes meta.)
I am another one who has been totally baffled
most of my life by the human emotional operating
system. A very complicated thing is this, but
let me propose an idea. One can clearly state
without being condescending, that one is going
meta, which is to say, one wishes to have the
readers of an idea temporarily turn off their
emotions, and look at an idea the way a human
level AI would see it.
We have seen posters clearly become upset by one
idea or another, but as an exercise, let us try
(I dont even know if it is possible) to switch off
the emotions. Let us try to view a human level
social problem the way a mathematician would view
a number theory problem. An AI would not know or
care what pain is, for instance, other than to
observe that sentients avoid it, like a mathematical
function appears to avoid an asymptote.
We know TBC is a touchy subject. It gets all
tangled up with racism and we already know racism
is a hell of a problem for humanity. I am amazed
we are able to handle it for any length of time.
Let us try to go meta and view it the way an
intelligent machine would.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:15 MST