Slashdot Mirror
The Onion on Robots
PigAlien writes "Move over, Jon Katz, Helen Virginia Leidenmeyer's here with a stunning and inspirational essay, courtesy of The Onion about our children's future... the future of robots. " I think it's the Whitney Houston (?) song that's quoted throughout that really gladdens my heart.
Just thought I'd take the opportunity to recommend the movie "Short Circuit" and its sequel. I couldn't help but think of that robot while reading the article.
Synopsis
When a Department of Defense experimental robot named Number Five gets zapped by a lightening bolt, he "malfunctions" and starts spouting peace slogans. Naturally, the newly pacifist machine wants out of the military, so he escapes. As a frantic search for the creature begins, Number 5 settles down in his new home... with a gentle young woman who has every intention of holding on to her find.
What's to disagree with? It's satire!
Casey
The Dolly Parton song Whitney remade was "I Will Always Love You" for the soundtrack of "The Bodyguard." There was a mix floating of the two songs at the time, very funny, haha, laughs a plenty.
You are making the assumption, by the way, that consciousness is NOT a biological process. It may be that silicon is the wrong "stuff" for consciousness (you wouldnt expect something made of silicon to produce blood, as an example)
Cognitive science is a fairly knew field, we dont know enough yet to say whether we can create a conscious chunk of silicon.
If you want to read a good book on AI, get Artificial Intelligence -- The Very Idea by John Haugeland. It may be too deep into the subject for some. Also you can get an interview (VHS) with Minsky on amazon.com, its really good.
--
Zach Garner
zach@uab.edu
OOPS!
Maybe I should have said Fantasyland.
I do remember seeing something about the working conditions at Disney on the Discovery channel.
Cheers
p.s. *love* the subject header. :^>
Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
I think we have built a culture of perpetual busyness. My father worked 9-5 m-f for thirty five years. when he was home he was home.
my peers and I work in an environment where a 50 hour week is slacking off, technology allows me to be contacted 24-7. and even on vacation I'm expected to respond to Vmail and Email. Of the reems of data I recieve in my in-box every morning 30% is used to respond to some b***s*** that has nothing to do with my job, but "policy" required that I respond.
My point is:when its all said and done are we really any more productive than our parents? or are we just running faster on the old hamster wheel?
I think that in some positions, we are encumbered by the amount of data that we process on a daily basis. Kind of like bloatware on the job! In five years I will probibly require a laptop with a terabyte of memory to do my job. The same job I did ten years ago with a pen a phone and a franklin planner. dont get me wrong, I love technology, I just think that we are making shit up just to keep up with/justify Moore's law.
The biggest sin in my mind is that we feel guilty when we do skip out for three hours to watch starwars... remember the thread about the loss of productivity from the release of the movie! fuck em'
I hope the Y2k crisis does hit hard, so I can start a new career as a blacksmith and work a 40 hour week
Yup. We could teach the teeming robots masses of :)
the future phrases like that. Cause we're just sooo good at raising our own offspring. Heh
Can you imagine it?
Merle and Frieda have just adopted a lovely bouncing baby KILL MECH and taken him back to the
caring bosom of the trailer park.
Frieda: So Daddy, what should we call him?
Merle: I think 'the Jethro Spunkmeyer 3000' sounds
catchy! Hyuk! Oh look he met the neighbors. . . Now Son, put our neighbor's trailer down and go out to route 1 and find us some grub.
Cantcha imagine!
Teaching the robots to have self esteem so they can usurp their human masters.
I fondly remember Futurama
Bender: Hey there baby! Want to come with me and kill all the humans? >:->
But seriously folks, if any AI was actually intelligent enough for the average Joe to teach it something, it would probably:
1. Tell the average Joe to SMEG OFF!
2. Pommel said average Joe
Not necessarily in that order. Of course, giving it the Asimov rules would hinder step 2.
I wonder if a robot had an M$ OS running on it what the robot might say to its user?
Giving my $.02 that was stolen by another person's sig
Actually, wether or not strong AI is possible or not is rather besides the point. It is not necessary for robots to *really* be self aware to enslave/exterminate humanity. They need only emulate self awareness well enough that we can't tell the difference by observing them.
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
and the mute woman, Nova.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
I am NINJABOT, invisible mechanical warrior, bringer of death to you and your comrades. Prepare to become sushi!
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
You are making the assumption that by "intelligence" the poster implied consciousness as well. I for one don't see any reason why some sort of 'computer' can't be as intelligent (or more so) than humans, and yet still not have consciousness, with the intelligence based merely on laws of physics of operation of such a computer. I also don't see any reason why an AI entity created by humans should need consciousness before it decides to assimilate its creators.
Consciousness in humans does not create our intelligence - the laws of physics regarding the operation of brain cells does. There is no "black magic" in operation in our heads that somehow causes the laws of physics to be broken.
Consciousness is a side issue. It has no *technical* bearing (only philosophical) on the technology of AI; and has no technical bearing on the dangers of creating AI.
I laughed so hard the first time I read it I couldn't breathe properly for five minutes, and I tried to read it out loud to a friend but couldn't get a sentance out without cracking up.
I brought in a printout to school the next day with the parts identifying the source removed, and showed it to several people. Most of them bought it! My comp sci teacher got really confused ("can they do that? No way... or could they? No, that's impossible.. could they do that?") She still hasn't forgiven me ;-)
Vidi, Vici, Veni
OK, it was cool at first because they started by killing all the spammers... but then they started getting rid of all the porn!
By the time all the porn was gone, most of humanity had little will to live left, and the end came swiftly. Only a few humans are left alive to be the playthings of their AIBO/Internet masters.
You've been warned. Stop before it is too late.
Thad >:)
The Bolachek Journals
The second post in this thread was about whether or not strong AI is possible, ie a conscious computer, that is what i assumed that the third person was refering two. I've never once, to my knowledge, equivicated intelligence with consciousness. Thats two different things. The difference is why the Turing test is useless for determinig consciousness but perfectly fine for determining intelligence.
I did, i guess assume that the third poster (Mr Slippery, i think) was still talking about strong AI... *shrug*
> don't see any reason why an AI entity created by humans should need
> consciousness before it decides to assimilate its creators.
Um... who's talking about assimilation? I dont disagree, never have...
> Consciousness is a side issue. It has no *technical* bearing (only
> philosophical) on the technology of AI; and has no technical bearing
> on the dangers of creating AI.
I always felt the converse. Technology is a side issue. It has no bearing on strong AI, which i think is more important than whether or not the human race can destroy themselves in new an perverse ways such as creating numerous machines to do it for them... -- Zach
You are unfortunately an idiot.
You have no training and experience in science and literacy.
You live in the medieval age.
You are a poor religious person.
You don't know what a "satire" is.
You know *nothing* about philosophy of mind, cognitive sciences, neurosciences, computer sciences. Please be wary of the skills of the people who write here.
.
--exa--
You'll be missed!
\//
I couldn't resist.
The dictionary entry indicates that Slashdot is a noun, yet definitions 3 and 4 are clearly verbs.
Main Entry: Slashdot
Pronunciation: 'slash dot
Function: noun
Etymology: Midwestern American English (Holland, MI)
Date: 1996?
1. News for nerds, stuff that matters
2. Microsoft bashing for enlightened folk
3. To criticize cuttingly
4. to reduce sharply
Oh Well(tm)
I really don't want to wake up some morning in forty years to read about some A.I./robot who...(snip)...tak[es] a high-powered mining laser to the top of the Washington Monument...
...and torch[es] a good section of D.C.
Unless you read it in The Onion, in which case you could have a good laugh along w/ the rest of us.
D.C. has a good section? Remember, this is the town where all our purchased^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H elected officials are. It might be kinda satisfying to see some of them get the business end of a high-powered laser.
Assuming that strong AI is possible, for the moment, then like any technology, it will be implemented eventually, so it's beside the point to say "oh, but we shouldn't."
So then the question is, how should we accentuate the positive while avoiding the negative possibilities?
And guess what, this article could be taken as a road map as to which issues are actually most important (teach AIs/robots the best points of humans, like love, while avoiding our worst, like murder/war). And certainly give much thought and effort to how best to integrate our creations with our society, or vice versa, or whatever works. (E.g. hiveminds may or may not be desirable, but it would be best to ponder why or why not.)
For some people all this is too much of a stretch; if so, try reading roboticist Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" (or probably his most recent book, which I haven't seen yet). Then try it again; little is a stretch after trying Moravec's ideas out. :-)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Quit using Microsoft, ya knucklehead.
I didn't think anything that was to happen this
morning was going to get a smile back on my face, this sure did.
AI is like a gun in that it can be handled safely; unlike a gun, idiots don't recognize that it is one.
Regardless of what all these humanitarian morons say, robots will replace humans for a good cause. No longer will we have to hear people complain about work - no longer will wehave to hear about poverty and starvation in the world - no longer will we have to live under the oppression of the our pathetic government(The idiotic United States).
Everything will be FREE - just like it should be.
Hopefully when this comes to fruition, people will also lose that other side of stupidity they inherited from their pathetic ancestors, and stop believing in the non-existant God everyone likes to blame and point fingers at.
There exists an Asimov short story entitled "Reason," it's a quick read and I would recommend it.
-dixon
Following a thread of thought from this piece, have a look at how animal behaviour is being used in, among other things, satellite attitude control systems.
(Aside: I met Mark Tilden back in first year at a talk he gave about his analog approach to robot design. He talks klicks-a-minute, but it's worth every second.)
--The more you know, the less you know.
If you are so disatisfied, and make no effort to change it... it's all your fault. Not society's.
Sure, if you let yourself get treated like a cog, then your life will remain exactly as you have described. You've got to decide to do something else with your life if you feel unfulfilled. You gotta make an effort to be happy.
Good luck to you. Seriously. I hope ya figure it out.
[This uncharacteristicly inspirational moment has been brought to you by a cynical bastard. So, with that in mind... you should realize it's not just drivel from some happy-go-lucky who's head is in the clouds all the time.]
\//
The robots piece could easily be re-written in stuffy academic style with a title like "On Post-Industrial Technological Fatalism" and they'd have like 10 readers, 9 of whom wouldn't get it. The Onion's biting satire gets to the heart of things much more effectively than all the editorial/news pieces in the world combined. What makes it so funny is the core truth of it all. You can write a long tedious piece on the breakdown of family and moral values and their relationship to child abuse, or you can write the same piece as a single headline: "New York to Institute Baby-Only Dumpsters".
This isn't to say that the normal news is completely worthless (although, admittedly, it is massively distorted and thinly veiled corporate propaganda), but The Onion is just so much better.
At present, I'd have to say the three best publications on the planet are: The Onion, AdBusters and Z Magazine . If you like The Onion's irreverent Left flavor, you might want to check out the other two.
Yes. Everything will be free.
Until the robots decide humans aren't worth the effort it takes to support us. They they stop making stuff WE need and we have to figure out how to farm and hunt and make tools again.
Actually, once you've created a robot that can truly think creatively, then you're no longer in the domain of logic. Think about it --- your brain is a physical object, ruled by the laws of physics, which are highly strict and deterministic (quantum mechanics adds some spice to this, but 1) it's not clear whether it has effects on a scale that could affect your thinking and 2) that would just be throwing in a random number generator). By the time a robot brain is complex enough to think and learn and otherwise be indistinguishable from a human in what they can understand, then there's no reason that they couldn't display emotions as well.
I only hope we can figure out an interface between hardware and wetware before we humans are staring up at their mechanoid masters like my cats do now: with wide-eyed bewilderment. At least their cunning enough to feign nonchalance when pressed.
If you post it, they will read.
I think rather that the question is: what are said AI's moral obligations to us?
If you post it, they will read.
I think this is what you meant to put in for the Adbusters link.
Otherwise, couldn't agree more. There ARE good magazines out there, you just have to know where to look.
-------
"Plus, tag-team robot wrestling! It's the mighty robots of
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
WE ARE OUR FUTURE!
---my apologies for the length of this post, but i hope its length
---will be compensated for by a few interesting observations.
---i sent this reply to: editorial@theonion.com
http://www.theonion.com/onion3522/robots_are_th
| Let us offer tenderness and show the robots all the beauty they
| possess inside. We must write a subroutine that gives them a sense
| of pride, programming their supercooled silicon CPUs with
| understanding, compassion and patience, to make it easier and
| enable them to hold their sensory-input clusters high as they
| claim their destiny as overlords of the solar system...
i would like to make a response to your article, "I Believe The
Robots Are Our Future" by Helen Virginia Leidermeyer.
firstly, i must appluad your desire to imbue the future with a caring
and feeling that is all too much absent in much of life today. this
is commendable, and it shows a goodness in you. i hope you will not
take this letter the wrong way, because i have a couple comments that
may sound somewhat harsh, but please consider this in view of what
is actual, rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
i believe it is somewhat of a fantastical vision to think of creating
robots with feelings and compassion--it is based on a serious
misunderstanding of the nature of machine logic.
first, to assume that sentience can arise from machines is a big leap,
but then to think that a sentience based purely upon LOGIC will have
a similar conscience with FEELING and compassion is improbable. if it
is possible for machine sentience to even exist, logic knows nothing of
compassion or FEELING, these are human attributes that are not based on
logic. to think that these traits are communicable to a logic-based life
is absurd. logic is cold and calculating, it knows nothing of feeling.
this makes the story amusing to read perhaps, but nothing more than sentimental daydreaming drivel. the machines would skewer you for it.
| If we cannot instill their emergent AI meta-consciousness with a
| sense of deep, abiding confidence and self-esteem, we will be
| letting down not only the robots, but ourselves.
this overlooks the fact of the nature of "self-esteem". it is not
probable that you can imbue a logical sentience with a trait such
as "self-esteem", or even that it requires it. you are thinking too
much like a human. to "let them down" does not compute if it is
not actually something that is possible.
to this, one might respond, "so why don't we find a way to TEACH them
to have feelings. this line of thought seems to make much sense until
you go a little deeper into the issue. in order to go deeper, we have
to understand the nature of EMPATHY, and the reason empathy exists for
life at all in the first place.
this raises big questions: what is life? what is sentience? what is
feeling? until these are adequately addressed, this sort of article
can only deal with things at a very superficial level. at the risk
of being trite, i will make a few suggestions.
consider the following:
1 - if it is true that we can build robot machines with "thinking"
capacity, then you will understand that these machines are built
according to certain principles of electronics (using binary "and",
"or", "nor", and "nand" circiuts -- you can take any first year
electronics course to understand that the entire basis for computer
operations is based on an assembly of of these logic circiuts.
2 - once a complex aglamoration of logic circiuts is assembled, you
end up with a CPU (or clusters of cpus), RAM, an address bus, etc.
then you programme this assembly of logical operations using a
logic-based language. computer programming lanugages are simply
more flexible forms for rewiring these logic circiuts. they are
still entirely based in logic. it is imperitive to understand that
anything that can be programmed in software can be executed in a
hardware format by wiring the right logic circiuts together. this
is why it is possible for video card manufacturers to provide
"hardware acceleration" for previously software based systems.
3 - now for a point of utmost significance:
the basis for our thinking--i.e. our brain organism is not
formed along the lines of digital logic circiuts as are computers.
the basic process involves an organism that includes: growth and
organic cell reproduction (which is most significantly different
than an entirely physical medium of circiuts alone. if you
follow this through, you must understand that the nature of
process of a logic-based sentience (if that is even possible)
would be inherently different in character than one based upon
the conscious-organic membering of the thinking organism.
IT IS UPON THIS VERY "LIVING GROWTH" CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HUMAN
MIND WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR **FEELINGS** it is a gross leap of
faith to believe that it is possible that a logic-based sentience
could develop feeling qualities in the absence of a FEELING
ORGANISM.
4 - THE NATURE OF MEMORY - the basis for human ego is based on the
fact that we have memory. the nature of human memory is fundamentally
different than computer storage of "memory". if you study
neuro-psychology, you will understand that scientists have had
utmost difficulty in localising memory in the human brain. that
is because human memory is not like RAM at all. rather, each time
you recall something, you are not doing a lookup from a
physical-electronic memory address, the impression is brought
up as an entirely new creation within your consciousness. you
must consider this very fundamental difference between machine
"memory" and human memory which is an aspect of self-consciousness
(i.e. "self awareness"; "i am").
| Though our comparatively tiny mammalian brains--limited as they are
| by organic human failings and a constant need for daily nutritional
| intake instead of reliance on more efficient non-depletable solar
| and geothermal energy sources--will no doubt seem pathetically
| ineffectual compared to the interlinked, continually upgrading
| cyberminds that will follow in our footsteps, our humble origins
| will provide the seed for their genesis. Humanity, weak as we may
| be, must give the best of ourselves to the synthetic hiveminds of
| the future cyber-era, for we will be their first and most important
| role models.
with all due respect, this presumes that a logic-based intelligence
is in some way "superiour" to human flesh-and-blood intelligence.
that is quite an assumption, and a self-depreciating one at that.
you undervalue human life if you already regard machine life to
be superiour to human life before it is actualy, or even known to
be possible. you are devaluing human life based upon a speculation.
additionally, there whether you have: i) food input, or ii) solar
cell energy input -> you still require an input to sustain the
activity. to say that "food" input is somehow inferior to a
solar-cell or electrical input is nothing short of misguided.
it is a more advanced technology that can DIGEST its surroundings.
4 - LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: MINERAL; PLANT; ANIMAL; MAN.
consider this: what is the basis of life? physical science analyses
only the physical phenomenon of nature, and therefrom proposes the
theory that CONSCIOUSNESS arises as an attribute of a complex
interaction of dynamic physical processes. in short, matter is
primary, and consciousness an attribute of interactions within
matter. but the material view has difficulty explaining the role
and fundamental nature of consciousness.
"The naive consciousness...treats thinking as something which
has nothing to do with the things, but stands altogether apart
from them, and turns its consideration to the world. The picture
which the thinker makes of the phenomena of the world is
regarded not as something belonging to the things, but as
existing only in the human head. The world is complete in
itself without this picture. It is quite finished in all its
substances and forces, and of this ready-made world man makes
a picture. Whoever thinks thus need only be asked one question.
What right have you to declare the world to be complete
without thinking?" (Rudolf Steiner, *The Philosophy of Freedom*)
if you examine, you will find that all AI (artififical
intelligence ) arguments are based on this assumption. however,
this is far from ever having been demonstrated. you cannot go
forward with any notion of artificial intelligence until you come
to a satisfactory comprehension of the nature of consciousness.
there is another way of looking at the matter however that many
physical-scientific thinkers will not admit to, and it is this:
that if you consider conscious-sentience to be primary, and matter
to be a manifestation of an active sentience working within the
realm of matter, then many of the inexplicable facts of nature
are resolved rather neatly. but in order to understand how this
can be, we must delineate of what the levels between matter and
consciousness are comprised.
MINERAL -- PLANT -- ANIMAL -- EGO
- looking at a rock and a plant, ask yourself what is the fundamental
difference between them? a rock is inanimate, it does not GROW,
whereas a plant GROWS. it takes mineral up into itself, digests
the rock and soil and GROWS into a new form.
- from this we can understand that a plant has something that a rock
does not have; and that something about the plant which causes it
to grow is can be called its "growth attribute".
- so the difference between a plant and a rock is that the plant
has both a physical mineral structure which can be touched and
measured, and it also has another attibute which causes it to
grow, and the rock has a physical structure only without a growth
attribute.
- when this growth attribute is removed from the plant, it is said to
"die" - it becomes a dead shriveled up piece of vegetation. it then
has only a mineral attribute, and no longer contains the growth
attribute. it is then nothing more than re-formed mineral substance;
life has left it.
- now, looking at a plant and an animal, we can ask the question:
what is the difference between a plant and an animal?
there is something about the animal which causes it to be able
to be moved by it's passions, it's desires, it's instincts. it's
limbs and organs are formed according to this force, and allow this
force to express itself in action. an animal has passions and
desires, a plant does not. when the passion body is removed from
the growth and physical bodies, an animal is said to be "asleep".
when the passion AND growth bodies are removed from the physical
body, the animal is said to be "dead".
- now compare: the plant stays in place, but unlike the stone, it
grows from the soil, and moves the soil and water along itself in
such a way that it grows. in addition to this, the animal has
something about it which causes it to move it's place, and follow
it's instincts and passions. so are it's organs formed to serve
these instincts and passions. when it is hungry, it can move itself
to obtain food. the plant must accept it's fate. if it is stepped
on, there is nothing about it that can get itself to move of it's
own volition. the animal, however, when in danger, can move itself
so that it gets out of danger. this something that causes the
animal to move about from place to place and determine it's course
(which the plant does not have) is what is called it's passion
body; it contains the passions, instincts, and character of an
animal.
- IN NATURE, the habits, instincts, desires, and passions are
primary. the growth organism conforms in accordance to the
pre-existing HABITS of passion. then from the modified growth
organism, a new PHYSICAL structure results: structures conformed
to the cyclic repitition of movements. this creates a structure
which inherently conforms to the circumstances in which it performs
its growth. just as a tree may grow right around a metal bar
lodged within it.
| It is only through our guidance with a firm yet gentle hand that they
| will achieve full sentience and eventually adapt for themselves the
| capacity for autonomous self-replication. Only then, nurtured by our
| love and caring, will they be prepared for the inevitable day that
| they must leave the nest of human supervision and servitude and begin
| independently mass-manufacturing themselves by the hundreds of
| thousands.
there is an important and fundamental distinction here. humans and
all living things can reproduce themselves through GROWTH, and through
the growth organism can replicate from within themselves, OUT OF THEIR
OWN NATURE; whereas machines are made not from the inside out, but
rather from the OUTSIDE -> IN. they must be assembled and manufactured
using external processes. the fundamental difference between a living
and a dead thing is that: LIVING THINGS ARE ANIMATED FROM THE INSIDE
OF THEIR NATURE OUT; AND DEAD THINGS ARE MADE FROM THE OUTSIDE
TO BE ANIMATED.
- THE MOVEMENT EXISTS, THE ORGAN FORMS AROUND IT
if the motions and flows of blood in the human organism, or the
air moving through the lungs could be present without the organs
yet formed to hold the blood - the blood flowing with no organs yet
existant to contain the flowing. No viens, no arteries, no heart
pump; only the movement of the blood in its circulatory patterns.
If you could do this, you would find that slowly, by a sort of
building-up and depositing of bits along the course of the flowing,
viens, heart and arteries would begin to appear. In fact, this is
just what happens in the development of the embryo. The movement
exists; the organ forms around it. This is the organic process of
growth. This is evident also in the growth of cities, plants,
networks, etc. The legacy of the growth determines the history,
or unique character of a particular instance of a certain set of
movement configurations or Habits. There is a fundamental
difference in approach if you try and build the FORM first to
dictate the movements, or if you let the movements determine
the shape of the FORM. in every observed natural growing
formation, the form is determined from the inside->out, rather
than the physical-scientific method of determining form from
the outside->in. even if you consider the advances of
nano-technology, you are still essentially constructing things
from material matter on up to a materially-based consciousness.
this method is directly derived from the notion (theory) that
consciousness is an attribute of matter. it is based upon a flawed
understanding of nature, life and sentience.
emotion and FEELING are closely allied to sense-impression, but
there is a point where sense impression is transformed into FEELING,
and that transformation is not possible without a corresponding
FEELING ORGAN. it may be possible to give an illusion of feeling
by means of behaviour-logic programming, but you cannot say that
such behaviour will be similar in nature to human or animal feeling.
things can only FEEL and LOVE, because they are living.
without an organ of FEELING (growth organism), the machine is
unrelated to the human world, and the natural world of anything
that is alive and GROWS. without an integral GROWTH organism,
you will never be able to teach machines how to CARE, or LOVE
as you so optimistically posit in your article. i write this
not to discourage you, but perhaps so that you will understand
the nature of what you are dealing. logic cannot be the basis
for love, only LIFE can be the basis for love.
best regards,
johnrpenner@earthlink.net
[long rambling essay snipped]
Um... you are aware that The Onion is, like, satire?
Now, I'll admit that it could be a fun mental exercise to take her essay seriously and rebut it, but I'm wondering why you took the time...
Jay (=
The Onion satire, or the fact that some of /.'s more clue impaired reader/commentators took it seriously!
My reactions to this article as I was reading it, in chronological order
1) Confusion
2) Disbelief
3) Anger
4) Pain, as I smacked myself on the forehead when I realized it was from TheOnion.com.
-
Thad (a loyal Onion fan)
The Bolachek Journals
I just saw a Windows 2000 Beta 3 ad banner on the top of this page. Anything you would like to tell us guys?
hmmm,
> ERROR: IEXPLORE caused an invalid page fault in module MSCONV97.DLL at 0137:01212d19. Stack dumped:
Why do we need robots.
Todays society is already making us humans so.
Get up in the morning, sit in traffic or be crowded on public transportation. Sit in my cubicle, staring at my monitor. Work extra hours with no OT. Get dropped or like a bad habit after all your hard work, downsized. My big corporation does not give a flying chicken about me. (Notice the politeness.)
I believe the TV commercial for Monster.com sums it up best. If you haven't seen it, there are several children with one-liners like "I wanna scratch and claw my way up to middle management." " I wanna get paid less for doing the same job." " I wanna grow up to be a brown nose."
So much for the astronaut I was gonna be. Most kids I knew always said that growing up.
Oh well.
If you see my posts on other subjects. I am in a bad ranting mood today.
Don't try this at home.
Cheers
The cynic in me says anything we create will be in our own image. As far as moral obligation goes, any sentient life form we create should be raised at least as well as we raise our own children (hehehe).
All in all I believe we are clever, but not wise...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The "Cybercrime" infographic was also great. I
was afraid that everybody had forgotten who
Wintermute was... is... er, was. Talk about the
future being inherited by robots!
Now if loading the Onion images would just stop
crashing our browsers...
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I have to admit that I am impressed by the insightful nature of the article. Once you get past the rambling nature and potential misinformation, the basic premise (that "robots shall inherit the Earth") may not be so far off the mark.
It does raise an interesting point: should we actually create viable AI, what are our moral obligations to said AI?
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Posted by bSMfh (bastard ScoutMaster fro:
/. and the onion are keeping things in perspective for me.
When you are having a bad day, when you drank your last mountain dew and it's only 10:00AM, this is the kind of story that can make life worth living again.
I can't stop that song now, with a few extended verses, in my head. It really is making my brain hurt.
RedHat developments and the eBay crash are important. The war is coming to an end (?), and the Microsoft trial continues to demonstrate the true meaning of the word M O N O P O L Y , but I feel safer knowing that
--willy dog
I do not know if you have noticed..
This was not a post for myself.
This was for me and many of my IT related friends. That work in different companies, with different salary ranges.
They all closely resemble each other in their plight.
Just my observation.
Maybe you work in disneyland. If so, good fer you!
Cheers
The intrinsic beauty must be in that it is such a succinct hell sexy parody.
The irony is that that in the basis of paroody therin lies a truth. There is a message here, even if there's a big tongue skewering the cheek.
It reads a bit like Sally-Jane Raphael meets late night tele-evangelist that just accidentally swallowed the latest copy of Wired.
Let us offer tenderness and show the robots all the beauty they possess inside.
Ha ha! Yes lets!
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
i bet there are more that feel the same.
that most of the "work" we do, it just to keep us bizy. so that we can justify our lifes and so we dont start to wonder why life sucks so much. IMHO we are moving to a world that needs less "work" done by humans. for example the internet seems to be replacing alot of jobs, like bank tellers, and car sales men, etc...
hmmm, better stop ranting and get back to "work"...
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
As I don't have my SF collection currently handy, I can't be sure, but isn't this the famous Robotics specialist from Asimov's Robot stories?
Certainly, the " I decided long ago to program the robotic progeny of our human race never to walk in anyone's
shadow." comment is very similar to her attitude.
ÐÆ
|>
Here be Dragons
Quit bitching...
If things are so bad, get a better job. We are in the midst of one of the greatest explosions of demand for programmers, etc.. in history if you hadn't noticed.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I know about this stuff.
Computers are replacing peoples jobs more and more.
Tis' why I am in the field, aside from the fact I think computers are "cool" contrary to the majority beliefs. I still hear computer geek once in a while. I don't care.
Until computers become "self-sufficient" they need people.
I'm hoping it doesn't happen in my lifetime.
Or my childrens. Or theirs.
Cheers
Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
this lady's fantastical vision of creating robots with feelings and compassion are based on a serious misunderstanding of the nature of machine logic.
first, to assume that sentience can arrise from machines is a big leap, but then to think that a sentience based purely upon LOGIC will have a similar conscience with FEELING and compassion is improbable. if it is possible for machine sentience to even exist, logic knows nothing of compassion or FEELING, these are human attributes that are not based on logic. to think that these traits are communicable to a logic-based life is absurd. logic is cold and calculating, it knows nothing of feeling.
this makes the story amusing to read perhaps, but nothing more than sentimental daydreaming drivel. the machines would skewer her for it.
*You have revealed your self, WARBOT* now you will die. Let the MECHWAR begin.
;)
- ASSASSINBOT
sorry couldn't resist
Really, who are we to teach robots anything. I think we should give them the moral guidance of Asimovs' 3 laws and let them figure everything else out for themselves like any other sentient being.
V2K
Stefan
There seems to be no reason why there can't be equally intelligent information processing systems based on more efficient silicon and steel rather than meat and gristle. We don't even have to be smart enough to program them - just set up genetic algorithms and let them evolve intelligence. (See Rudy Rucker's novels "Hardware" and "Software", for example.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You're new to the Internet aren't you?
It is a Whitney Houston lyric!
Here's the whole damn song, once and for all:
Greatest Love Of All
I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
Everybody searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone to fulfill my needs
A lonely place to be
So I learned to depend on me
Chorus:
I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity
Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all
I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
Chorus
And if by chance, that special place
That you've been dreaming of
Leads you to a lonely place
Find your strength in love
OF THEIR NATURE OUT; AND DEAD THINGS ARE MADE FROM THE OUTSIDE TO BE ANIMATED.
Nothing like a nice psychopathic fundamentalist christian to bring silly claims about the nature of "life" to an article which is pure satire.
What were the two books that Johnny5 was reading? I know one of them was Frankenstein but I can't recall the second...
"MORE INPUT!"
Captain, my tricorder readings are off the scale.
Spock, what is it?
Fascinating, Jim, I believe this strange life form is a certified net-crackpot!
WE ARE OUR FUTURE!
f uture.html
f uture.html
---my apologies for the length of this post, but i hope its length
---will be compensated for by a few interesting observations.
---i sent this reply to: editorial@theonion.com
http://www.theonion.com/onion3522/robots_are_the_
| Let us offer tenderness and show the robots all the beauty they
| possess inside. We must write a subroutine that gives them a sense
| of pride, programming their supercooled silicon CPUs with
| understanding, compassion and patience, to make it easier and
| enable them to hold their sensory-input clusters high as they
| claim their destiny as overlords of the solar system...
i would like to make a response to your article, "I Believe The
Robots Are Our Future" by Helen Virginia Leidermeyer.
firstly, i must appluad your desire to imbue the future with a caring
and feeling that is all too much absent in much of life today. this
is commendable, and it shows a goodness in you. i hope you will not
take this letter the wrong way, because i have a couple comments that
may sound somewhat harsh, but please consider this in view of what
is actual, rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
i believe it is somewhat of a fantastical vision to think of creating
robots with feelings and compassion--it is based on a serious
misunderstanding of the nature of machine logic.
first, to assume that sentience can arise from machines is a big leap,
but then to think that a sentience based purely upon LOGIC will have
a similar conscience with FEELING and compassion is improbable. if it
is possible for machine sentience to even exist, logic knows nothing of
compassion or FEELING, these are human attributes that are not based on
logic. to think that these traits are communicable to a logic-based life
is absurd. logic is cold and calculating, it knows nothing of feeling.
this makes the story amusing to read perhaps, but nothing more than sentimental daydreaming
drivel. the machines would skewer you for it.
| If we cannot instill their emergent AI meta-consciousness with a
| sense of deep, abiding confidence and self-esteem, we will be
| letting down not only the robots, but ourselves.
this overlooks the fact of the nature of "self-esteem". it is not
probable that you can imbue a logical sentience with a trait such
as "self-esteem", or even that it requires it. you are thinking too
much like a human. to "let them down" does not compute if it is
not actually something that is possible.
to this, one might respond, "so why don't we find a way to TEACH them
to have feelings. this line of thought seems to make much sense until
you go a little deeper into the issue. in order to go deeper, we have
to understand the nature of EMPATHY, and the reason empathy exists for
life at all in the first place.
this raises big questions: what is life? what is sentience? what is
feeling? until these are adequately addressed, this sort of article
can only deal with things at a very superficial level. at the risk
of being trite, i will make a few suggestions.
consider the following:
1 - if it is true that we can build robot machines with "thinking"
capacity, then you will understand that these machines are built
according to certain principles of electronics (using binary "and",
"or", "nor", and "nand" circiuts -- you can take any first year
electronics course to understand that the entire basis for computer
operations is based on an assembly of of these logic circiuts.
2 - once a complex aglamoration of logic circiuts is assembled, you
end up with a CPU (or clusters of cpus), RAM, an address bus, etc.
then you programme this assembly of logical operations using a
logic-based language. computer programming lanugages are simply
more flexible forms for rewiring these logic circiuts. they are
still entirely based in logic. it is imperitive to understand that
anything that can be programmed in software can be executed in a
hardware format by wiring the right logic circiuts together. this
is why it is possible for video card manufacturers to provide
"hardware acceleration" for previously software based systems.
3 - now for a point of utmost significance:
the basis for our thinking--i.e. our brain organism is not
formed along the lines of digital logic circiuts as are computers.
the basic process involves an organism that includes: growth and
organic cell reproduction (which is most significantly different
than an entirely physical medium of circiuts alone. if you
follow this through, you must understand that the nature of
process of a logic-based sentience (if that is even possible)
would be inherently different in character than one based upon
the conscious-organic membering of the thinking organism.
IT IS UPON THIS VERY "LIVING GROWTH" CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HUMAN
MIND WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR **FEELINGS** it is a gross leap of
faith to believe that it is possible that a logic-based sentience
could develop feeling qualities in the absence of a FEELING
ORGANISM.
4 - THE NATURE OF MEMORY - the basis for human ego is based on the
fact that we have memory. the nature of human memory is fundamentally
different than computer storage of "memory". if you study
neuro-psychology, you will understand that scientists have had
utmost difficulty in localising memory in the human brain. that
is because human memory is not like RAM at all. rather, each time
you recall something, you are not doing a lookup from a
physical-electronic memory address, the impression is brought
up as an entirely new creation within your consciousness. you
must consider this very fundamental difference between machine
"memory" and human memory which is an aspect of self-consciousness
(i.e. "self awareness"; "i am").
| Though our comparatively tiny mammalian brains--limited as they are
| by organic human failings and a constant need for daily nutritional
| intake instead of reliance on more efficient non-depletable solar
| and geothermal energy sources--will no doubt seem pathetically
| ineffectual compared to the interlinked, continually upgrading
| cyberminds that will follow in our footsteps, our humble origins
| will provide the seed for their genesis. Humanity, weak as we may
| be, must give the best of ourselves to the synthetic hiveminds of
| the future cyber-era, for we will be their first and most important
| role models.
with all due respect, this presumes that a logic-based intelligence
is in some way "superiour" to human flesh-and-blood intelligence.
that is quite an assumption, and a self-depreciating one at that.
you undervalue human life if you already regard machine life to
be superiour to human life before it is actualy, or even known to
be possible. you are devaluing human life based upon a speculation.
additionally, there whether you have: i) food input, or ii) solar
cell energy input -> you still require an input to sustain the
activity. to say that "food" input is somehow inferior to a
solar-cell or electrical input is nothing short of misguided.
it is a more advanced technology that can DIGEST its surroundings.
4 - LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: MINERAL; PLANT; ANIMAL; MAN.
consider this: what is the basis of life? physical science analyses
only the physical phenomenon of nature, and therefrom proposes the
theory that CONSCIOUSNESS arises as an attribute of a complex
interaction of dynamic physical processes. in short, matter is
primary, and consciousness an attribute of interactions within
matter. but the material view has difficulty explaining the role
and fundamental nature of consciousness.
"The naive consciousness...treats thinking as something which
has nothing to do with the things, but stands altogether apart
from them, and turns its consideration to the world. The picture
which the thinker makes of the phenomena of the world is
regarded not as something belonging to the things, but as
existing only in the human head. The world is complete in
itself without this picture. It is quite finished in all its
substances and forces, and of this ready-made world man makes
a picture. Whoever thinks thus need only be asked one question.
What right have you to declare the world to be complete
without thinking?" (Rudolf Steiner, *The Philosophy of Freedom*)
if you examine, you will find that all AI (artififical
intelligence ) arguments are based on this assumption. however,
this is far from ever having been demonstrated. you cannot go
forward with any notion of artificial intelligence until you come
to a satisfactory comprehension of the nature of consciousness.
there is another way of looking at the matter however that many
physical-scientific thinkers will not admit to, and it is this:
that if you consider conscious-sentience to be primary, and matter
to be a manifestation of an active sentience working within the
realm of matter, then many of the inexplicable facts of nature
are resolved rather neatly. but in order to understand how this
can be, we must delineate of what the levels between matter and
consciousness are comprised.
MINERAL -- PLANT -- ANIMAL -- EGO
- looking at a rock and a plant, ask yourself what is the fundamental
difference between them? a rock is inanimate, it does not GROW,
whereas a plant GROWS. it takes mineral up into itself, digests
the rock and soil and GROWS into a new form.
- from this we can understand that a plant has something that a rock
does not have; and that something about the plant which causes it
to grow is can be called its "growth attribute".
- so the difference between a plant and a rock is that the plant
has both a physical mineral structure which can be touched and
measured, and it also has another attibute which causes it to
grow, and the rock has a physical structure only without a growth
attribute.
- when this growth attribute is removed from the plant, it is said to
"die" - it becomes a dead shriveled up piece of vegetation. it then
has only a mineral attribute, and no longer contains the growth
attribute. it is then nothing more than re-formed mineral substance;
life has left it.
- now, looking at a plant and an animal, we can ask the question:
what is the difference between a plant and an animal?
there is something about the animal which causes it to be able
to be moved by it's passions, it's desires, it's instincts. it's
limbs and organs are formed according to this force, and allow this
force to express itself in action. an animal has passions and
desires, a plant does not. when the passion body is removed from
the growth and physical bodies, an animal is said to be "asleep".
when the passion AND growth bodies are removed from the physical
body, the animal is said to be "dead".
- now compare: the plant stays in place, but unlike the stone, it
grows from the soil, and moves the soil and water along itself in
such a way that it grows. in addition to this, the animal has
something about it which causes it to move it's place, and follow
it's instincts and passions. so are it's organs formed to serve
these instincts and passions. when it is hungry, it can move itself
to obtain food. the plant must accept it's fate. if it is stepped
on, there is nothing about it that can get itself to move of it's
own volition. the animal, however, when in danger, can move itself
so that it gets out of danger. this something that causes the
animal to move about from place to place and determine it's course
(which the plant does not have) is what is called it's passion
body; it contains the passions, instincts, and character of an
animal.
- IN NATURE, the habits, instincts, desires, and passions are
primary. the growth organism conforms in accordance to the
pre-existing HABITS of passion. then from the modified growth
organism, a new PHYSICAL structure results: structures conformed
to the cyclic repitition of movements. this creates a structure
which inherently conforms to the circumstances in which it performs
its growth. just as a tree may grow right around a metal bar
lodged within it.
| It is only through our guidance with a firm yet gentle hand that they
| will achieve full sentience and eventually adapt for themselves the
| capacity for autonomous self-replication. Only then, nurtured by our
| love and caring, will they be prepared for the inevitable day that
| they must leave the nest of human supervision and servitude and begin
| independently mass-manufacturing themselves by the hundreds of
| thousands.
there is an important and fundamental distinction here. humans and
all living things can reproduce themselves through GROWTH, and through
the growth organism can replicate from within themselves, OUT OF THEIR
OWN NATURE; whereas machines are made not from the inside out, but
rather from the OUTSIDE -> IN. they must be assembled and manufactured
using external processes. the fundamental difference between a living
and a dead thing is that: LIVING THINGS ARE ANIMATED FROM THE INSIDE
OF THEIR NATURE OUT; AND DEAD THINGS ARE MADE FROM THE OUTSIDE
TO BE ANIMATED.
- THE MOVEMENT EXISTS, THE ORGAN FORMS AROUND IT
if the motions and flows of blood in the human organism, or the
air moving through the lungs could be present without the organs
yet formed to hold the blood - the blood flowing with no organs yet
existant to contain the flowing. No viens, no arteries, no heart
pump; only the movement of the blood in its circulatory patterns.
If you could do this, you would find that slowly, by a sort of
building-up and depositing of bits along the course of the flowing,
viens, heart and arteries would begin to appear. In fact, this is
just what happens in the development of the embryo. The movement
exists; the organ forms around it. This is the organic process of
growth. This is evident also in the growth of cities, plants,
networks, etc. The legacy of the growth determines the history,
or unique character of a particular instance of a certain set of
movement configurations or Habits. There is a fundamental
difference in approach if you try and build the FORM first to
dictate the movements, or if you let the movements determine
the shape of the FORM. in every observed natural growing
formation, the form is determined from the inside->out, rather
than the physical-scientific method of determining form from
the outside->in. even if you consider the advances of
nano-technology, you are still essentially constructing things
from material matter on up to a materially-based consciousness.
this method is directly derived from the notion (theory) that
consciousness is an attribute of matter. it is based upon a flawed
understanding of nature, life and sentience.
emotion and FEELING are closely allied to sense-impression, but
there is a point where sense impression is transformed into FEELING,
and that transformation is not possible without a corresponding
FEELING ORGAN. it may be possible to give an illusion of feeling
by means of behaviour-logic programming, but you cannot say that
such behaviour will be similar in nature to human or animal feeling.
things can only FEEL and LOVE, because they are living.
without an organ of FEELING (growth organism), the machine is
unrelated to the human world, and the natural world of anything
that is alive and GROWS. without an integral GROWTH organism,
you will never be able to teach machines how to CARE, or LOVE
as you so optimistically posit in your article. i write this
not to discourage you, but perhaps so that you will understand
the nature of what you are dealing. logic cannot be the basis
for love, only LIFE can be the basis for love.
best regards,
johnrpenner@earthlink.net
WE ARE OUR FUTURE!
---my apologies for the length of this post, but i hope its length
---will be compensated for by a few interesting observations.
---i sent this reply to: editorial@theonion.com
http://www.theonion.com/onion3522/robots_are_the_
| Let us offer tenderness and show the robots all the beauty they
| possess inside. We must write a subroutine that gives them a sense
| of pride, programming their supercooled silicon CPUs with
| understanding, compassion and patience, to make it easier and
| enable them to hold their sensory-input clusters high as they
| claim their destiny as overlords of the solar system...
i would like to make a response to your article, "I Believe The
Robots Are Our Future" by Helen Virginia Leidermeyer.
firstly, i must appluad your desire to imbue the future with a caring
and feeling that is all too much absent in much of life today. this
is commendable, and it shows a goodness in you. i hope you will not
take this letter the wrong way, because i have a couple comments that
may sound somewhat harsh, but please consider this in view of what
is actual, rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
i believe it is somewhat of a fantastical vision to think of creating
robots with feelings and compassion--it is based on a serious
misunderstanding of the nature of machine logic.
first, to assume that sentience can arise from machines is a big leap,
but then to think that a sentience based purely upon LOGIC will have
a similar conscience with FEELING and compassion is improbable. if it
is possible for machine sentience to even exist, logic knows nothing of
compassion or FEELING, these are human attributes that are not based on
logic. to think that these traits are communicable to a logic-based life
is absurd. logic is cold and calculating, it knows nothing of feeling.
this makes the story amusing to read perhaps, but nothing more than sentimental daydreaming
drivel. the machines would skewer you for it.
| If we cannot instill their emergent AI meta-consciousness with a
| sense of deep, abiding confidence and self-esteem, we will be
| letting down not only the robots, but ourselves.
this overlooks the fact of the nature of "self-esteem". it is not
probable that you can imbue a logical sentience with a trait such
as "self-esteem", or even that it requires it. you are thinking too
much like a human. to "let them down" does not compute if it is
not actually something that is possible.
to this, one might respond, "so why don't we find a way to TEACH them
to have feelings. this line of thought seems to make much sense until
you go a little deeper into the issue. in order to go deeper, we have
to understand the nature of EMPATHY, and the reason empathy exists for
life at all in the first place.
this raises big questions: what is life? what is sentience? what is
feeling? until these are adequately addressed, this sort of article
can only deal with things at a very superficial level. at the risk
of being trite, i will make a few suggestions.
consider the following:
1 - if it is true that we can build robot machines with "thinking"
capacity, then you will understand that these machines are built
according to certain principles of electronics (using binary "and",
"or", "nor", and "nand" circiuts -- you can take any first year
electronics course to understand that the entire basis for computer
operations is based on an assembly of of these logic circiuts.
2 - once a complex aglamoration of logic circiuts is assembled, you
end up with a CPU (or clusters of cpus), RAM, an address bus, etc.
then you programme this assembly of logical operations using a
logic-based language. computer programming lanugages are simply
more flexible forms for rewiring these logic circiuts. they are
still entirely based in logic. it is imperitive to understand that
anything that can be programmed in software can be executed in a
hardware format by wiring the right logic circiuts together. this
is why it is possible for video card manufacturers to provide
"hardware acceleration" for previously software based systems.
3 - now for a point of utmost significance:
the basis for our thinking--i.e. our brain organism is not
formed along the lines of digital logic circiuts as are computers.
the basic process involves an organism that includes: growth and
organic cell reproduction (which is most significantly different
than an entirely physical medium of circiuts alone. if you
follow this through, you must understand that the nature of
process of a logic-based sentience (if that is even possible)
would be inherently different in character than one based upon
the conscious-organic membering of the thinking organism.
IT IS UPON THIS VERY "LIVING GROWTH" CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HUMAN
MIND WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR **FEELINGS** it is a gross leap of
faith to believe that it is possible that a logic-based sentience
could develop feeling qualities in the absence of a FEELING
ORGANISM.
4 - THE NATURE OF MEMORY - the basis for human ego is based on the
fact that we have memory. the nature of human memory is fundamentally
different than computer storage of "memory". if you study
neuro-psychology, you will understand that scientists have had
utmost difficulty in localising memory in the human brain. that
is because human memory is not like RAM at all. rather, each time
you recall something, you are not doing a lookup from a
physical-electronic memory address, the impression is brought
up as an entirely new creation within your consciousness. you
must consider this very fundamental difference between machine
"memory" and human memory which is an aspect of self-consciousness
(i.e. "self awareness"; "i am").
| Though our comparatively tiny mammalian brains--limited as they are
| by organic human failings and a constant need for daily nutritional
| intake instead of reliance on more efficient non-depletable solar
| and geothermal energy sources--will no doubt seem pathetically
| ineffectual compared to the interlinked, continually upgrading
| cyberminds that will follow in our footsteps, our humble origins
| will provide the seed for their genesis. Humanity, weak as we may
| be, must give the best of ourselves to the synthetic hiveminds of
| the future cyber-era, for we will be their first and most important
| role models.
with all due respect, this presumes that a logic-based intelligence
is in some way "superiour" to human flesh-and-blood intelligence.
that is quite an assumption, and a self-depreciating one at that.
you undervalue human life if you already regard machine life to
be superiour to human life before it is actualy, or even known to
be possible. you are devaluing human life based upon a speculation.
additionally, there whether you have: i) food input, or ii) solar
cell energy input -> you still require an input to sustain the
activity. to say that "food" input is somehow inferior to a
solar-cell or electrical input is nothing short of misguided.
it is a more advanced technology that can DIGEST its surroundings.
4 - LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: MINERAL; PLANT; ANIMAL; MAN.
consider this: what is the basis of life? physical science analyses
only the physical phenomenon of nature, and therefrom proposes the
theory that CONSCIOUSNESS arises as an attribute of a complex
interaction of dynamic physical processes. in short, matter is
primary, and consciousness an attribute of interactions within
matter. but the material view has difficulty explaining the role
and fundamental nature of consciousness.
"The naive consciousness...treats thinking as something which
has nothing to do with the things, but stands altogether apart
from them, and turns its consideration to the world. The picture
which the thinker makes of the phenomena of the world is
regarded not as something belonging to the things, but as
existing only in the human head. The world is complete in
itself without this picture. It is quite finished in all its
substances and forces, and of this ready-made world man makes
a picture. Whoever thinks thus need only be asked one question.
What right have you to declare the world to be complete
without thinking?" (Rudolf Steiner, *The Philosophy of Freedom*)
if you examine, klu w
Actually, I did not write the piece as a rebuttal.
It just turned out that I was thinking about the same things at the same time, only that headed in the reverse (and hopefully more realistic)direction.
AS A HUNTER/SEEKER WARBOT SLATED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FUTURE MECHWARS, I FIND THIS HUMAN'S EFFORTS AT COOPERATION FRANKLY LUDICROUS
Yet another victim of the slashdot effect.
Aaah...The Onion. One of the more formative cutting edge vehicles of satire around on the web today.
This article adopts such a pseudo-progressive scientific yet comforting motherly tone integrating up to speed credible references [hey this old chick knows about Sony's Aibo] with a idyllic olde worlde Mills and Boons charm. The joy is that the deception is actually so good that it almost carries it off. Another evil perpetrator in a similar genre has to be the rather wicked BLAMMO in all its sub-hemispheric twisted beauty.
They don't give out random awards to skinny blonde women but there are futuristic corporate sponsored avatars.
I don't know... I hear the Pluto suit is really hot.
Maybe you work in disneyland. If so, good fer you!
I know you didn't mean it literally. But their is a reason some people who work at disney world call it Mauschwitz. They seem to want to have ridiculous amounts of control over their employees.
You can read "Inside the Mouse" for some reasons why they say this (though I hear the authors are a little too biased to begin with [haven't read it, couldn't swear to it]). I'm not sure where better sources would be.
My guess is that she has watched too many Terminator flicks and is issuing a veiled warning to humanity about what awaits us if we aren't careful about the broader ramification of our rampaging cyber progress.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
There is no instinct in this world for self-preservation at the species level; only at the individual organism's level. Try putting some mice in a grain elevator some time and see how many mice and how much grain are left after a year. Or use lemmings. Humans are K-strategists, having long gestations, few offspring, long periods of maturation, much transfer of material resources by the parents, etc. The only thing humans have that's worth criticizing is a capacity for intelligence that lets them build bigger cudgels and step outside the evolutionary box from time to time.
Popular culture, indeed.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I've never received anything but the most professional, well thought-out journalism from every issue of The Onion I've read. How can you seriously say this is an amusing story? Now, Congress approving $540 million for the purposes of advancing evil was funny. :-)
I'm sure there must be an IMDB-like site where I could look this up before posting but -- I believe it was actually Dolly Parton who wrote that song. Whitney Houston made it famous.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This is going on the wall of our robot lab....
-rMortyH
_______________________________________________
I have no use for hardware with a purpose.
Laugh, dammit!
-rMortyH
______________________________________________
I have no use for hardware with a purpose.
I'm afraid I must disagree. I just finished a counterpoint essay. It is currently located here and hopefully will soon be on osopinion.com.
As if NT is any better.
Stop fooling yourself.
- Paradox
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
When Disney (Walt) got Florida to let him take over (for vast sums of money) they basically let him set up his own country. His own police force, own taxes, own roads, and the permission to build a nuclear power plant.
+&x