From: Scott Badger (wbadger@psyberlink.net)
Date: Tue Feb 23 1999 - 20:30:50 MST
>Scott Badger said (of the original poster)
>
>>you seem to be seeking to understand yourself
>>more completely. Though laudable, this is not a good
>>reason to become a psychiatrist or cognitive scientist.
>
>works for most psychiatrists ;-)
>
>t
Does it?
My personal experience is that most of the "functional"
psychologists I've encountered did not enter the
profession with a mission to "analyze" themselves into
psychological well-being. There is a common (and
unfortunate) perception that we go into this field to
"deal with" our own devils. While I understand why a
client may prefer to have a therapist with a broad
array of life experiences, I do not feel crippled because
I have failed to suffer some psychopathology.
More to the point, I would advise someone interested in
Psychology to pursue a position as an academician/
researcher rather than that of a practitioner. This branch
of science is so immature. Actually, I suspect that it's
more likely that a strong AI will figure us out before we do.
But by that time, we'll transcend our psychological
limitations and the point will be moot.
Of course I could be wrong. :-)
BTW Tim, Demon Seed also struck me as a memorable film.
Caution!!! . . . . . . Demon Seed Spoiler Follows . . . . . . Caution!!!
This was my first true exposure to the inevitability of computer-
generated consciousness. There were so many great themes:
the merging of machine and human, rebirth through the fathering
of one's own self, and I thought it was particularly interesting that
while many transhumanists look forward to become more machine-
like, this AI sought to be more human-like . . . to be "alive". Of
course that theme is a very vain and human-like theme. Why would
an AI want to be "alive"? It's such a high-maintenance state to exist
in.
I also loved it because I was crazy about Julie Christie back then.
Cheers,
SB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:07 MST