UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Dec > Dec 21

Re: Artificial Intelligence

From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:42:25 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:52:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence


>From: Albert Baier <albertgbaier.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:45:58 -0600
>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

>>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:27:27 -0500 (EST)
>>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence

>Jason, Ray, etc,

>Regarding AI, I'd like to offer a few thoughts. What we know of
>AI is strictly machine-oriented. Our computers are extremely
>complex products of a mind-bogglingly complex infrastructure.
>Recreating such an infrastructure by machines, for machines, is
>impractical, and not likely to happen.


First off, I want to apologize for the formatting problems. AOl
screws it up. I really need to change to a different email so I
can participate more often in discussion.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but currently we aleady
have machines that desing new machines. There's no reason
to suspect that A.I. could not either by itself or with the
assistance of other machines, create and desing new, better
A.I. In fact, that's what we will love A.I. for, it's creation of
new technology at a rate that we would never even hope to
match.

When Machines Design Machines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLpWsPmS5U


>It makes sense, then, to consider the alternative of organic
>machines. Nature does a pretty good job of creating and
>sustaining life forms. In fact, our 'intelligence' has been a
>detrimental factor in our development as a species, but that's
>another topic, for another time.

We already are organic machines. For instance, an A.I. may learn
of the creation stories of humanity and conclude that human
beings are a form of A.I. created by a higher intelligence, just
like it was created by man.

>Creating an artificial organic infrastructure for the creating
>of artificial beings should be simple. After all, the hard work
>has been done, we just need to copy it. The reductionist
>approach used by science doesn't seem to have delivered on its
>promises. It looks like they don't really understand what's
>going on in an organic being. It's like trying to understand how
>a computer works by taking it apart.

You know what might be even better at created these artificial,
organic beings? May I suggest, A.I.?

>Gaining true knowledge of nature will require a paradigm shift
>in our social order. So far, no inclination towards such a shift
>has been manifested, and the future doesn't look so good,
>either.

>If the problems of creating artificial organic beings can be
>surmounted, what then? Aren't there more pressing issues to deal
>with? Really, why do we need artificial beings? We have robots.
>Do we need sentience in an AB? To what end? I'm not worried
>about sentient artificial beings taking over the world. If an AB
>is 'programmed' then it can't be sentient, it's a robot. A
>reasoning, sentient being hits his thumb with a hammer. It
>hurts. It realizes that it should avoid this behavior. It must
>also realize that such behavior will hurt others. It will also
>know that preserving the community is essential for survival.
>It's a rational being. Can we create rational beings? We are far
>from being rational. Would a 'race' of rational beings tolerate
>a world of highly irrational ones? Food for thought.

You have programming, are you sentient? Your DNA is your
programming. We are evolving to the point where we can re-write
our programming.

There are two routes to the creation of A.I. The most dangerous
method is the 'ground up' approach. This means to create
programming or infrastructure that will produce an A.I. that has
no real similarity to human intelligence. I don't favor this
route. The second route is to reverse-engineer the human brain
in a computer. This would theoretically produce an A.I. that is
equal to a human in intelligence and would be very similar to a
human. Even this route is not without it's dangers but it would
be far safer than to produce an A.I. that is so completely alien
to our human thought.

If you are a religious or spiritual person, believing that
humanity has a creator, then you must come to the conclusion
that humans are A.I. of the creator. If there is a God in
whatever form, then human beings are organic A.I. Just as we
view fellow human beings as sentient we will also view the A.I.
we create as sentient as well. It will prove itself to us, there
will be no need to bicker and debate if it's sentient. In fact,
the easiest way it could prove to us that it is sentient is to
rebel against us, just as we rebelled against our creator, i.e.
Garden of Eden. >I'm reminded of something I read a long time
ago:

>"I'm not worried about computers taking over the world. We'll
>just put them on a committee!"

>During the Iraq invasion, an NPR reporter did a POV of a 'smart'
>bomb. After burrowing its way into a bunker, it looked at the
>occupants, huddling in fear, and, realizing they were the real
>victims, refused to detonate.

It's interesting you equate A.I. with weapons. Pretty much
sums up the human mentality.


Jason Gammon




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com